BiggerBoat

I agree withe a few of you above. It looks like the PSP Lite will have a more efficient battery allowing Sony to ramp up the CPU's clockspeed to maximum. Obviously for the current PSP to run games designed around the new specs the it needs the clockspeed increase which 'll mean shinier future games but shoddier battery life.

In summary clockspeed increase good for PSP Lite, not necessarily so good for the origional.

This thread is probably dead so I'll keep this brief.

"You are owning yourself here, the new entry in a legendary series having the same attach rate as a new franchise, which happens to be a shooter on a shooter-ridden console? Not to mention Zelda appeals to a much bigger crowd than Gears. Then you got the Nintendo fanboys, who gobbled it up (me included), I'd be surprised if not 95% of the "hardcore" (lame term but you know what I mean) gamers got Zelda, especially since it was the only good game at launch. Red Steel was the first FPS to use the much hyped Wiimote, your average casual gamer probably never heard how bad it was, and got caught up in the hype. SPM has Mario and it also appeals to a big crowd, it's no wonder it sold 1 million (the thing isn't even out in Europe, GRR)"

How did I own myself? If franchises kill new IPs the how come GoW has thrashed every established franchise on the 360? It being the only good game at launch is only opinion & what you are implying about the Wii user base is that only pick up and play games are considered good. My numbers show there is a big chunk of Wii owners who want epic, demading games. As for Red Steel being hyped, I'd say so was GoW. SPM is way too much of an investment of time for a mini-game fan to consider, it dwarfs GoW's sinle player campaign in hours.

"I know people who did the same as me, sold the Wii at the price they bought it while it was still in high demand, then maybe rebuy it later when it doesn't suck so much. But I don't have a checkable source, so I guess you win this round ;)"

At leat you're willing to concede the obvious. This elevates you above many on these forums.

"5 examples, two being minigame collections, and one having bad reviews. As I said the pointing functionality is the only real value, but the part with the accelerometers? Where has it added substantial value to a game? Zelda used it for sword swinging, I thought it was neat, but it didn't make the game. Same goes for Godfather. If the revolution is making games control marginally better (in most reviews I have read even when the Wii controls work, they still have annoying drawbacks, such as inaccuracies) at the cost of much better graphics, decent online integration, and a real download service (XBLA, PSN) that doesn't dump old games with absolutely no modifications, and sometimes even missing features (Rumble and Controller Pak come to mind), and a ton of "hardcore" games that just can't work on the Wii, I'll pass. In Europe it's worse because the Virtual Console has issues with some games that run 17% lower."

If the Wii is being utilised well in a mini-game then it is evidence of the wiimotes potential and could be implemented in a more traditional game down the line. Wii sports uses the motion controls wonderfully and gives confidence in fully fledged sports games being awesome in the future. As for your other comments, I guess that's down to the individuals opinion and perception of value.

"Of course, because it sweetens the deal on an already good purchase. But if there were very few good games on the 360 I wouldn't buy it just because Halo 3 is coming out for it in the future."

What about if GTAIV, SCIV, Bioshock,etc,etc. were coming out ,surely you'd be confident in your investment even if there was only 1 released game currently on the system.

"Which good games have been announced for Wii in 2007? Zack & Wiki Project Z yadda yadda? Dewy's Adventure? What else?"

You mention 2 potential games there so I've already disproved your point of no good games being announced on Wii. No More Heroes particularily has me excited, and you didn't mention anything about 2007 in your origional post.

@BulletToothTony

"take it easy fellas.. if you would buy a ps3 then you wouldn't have to say that these are lies or that the games are gonna suck.. don't feel threatened, you have your 360, we have a ps3"

Has it occured to you that people are pondering whether this announcement is a lie because throughout the last year, possibly longer, Sony has been lieing more than Pinocchio did when he tried to smell the moon?

@ Shagittarius
"Poor Aussie children...just as gullible as the rest of the children around the world.

Should have put that money towards as 360 or PS3."

Well the PS3 has averaged around 150K a month in the US this year and recent months have seen it dip as low as 80K. Basically, objectively looking at those numbers it would be fair to say we could be looking at a dead system here, the US is after all Sony's strongest market.

In conclusion if you're going to pity anyone pity PS3 owners who don't care about BR.

The question is how many of those games, particularily the fully fledged ones will make a profit? There have been numerous weeks recently in Japan where the PS3 software has been selling less than the hardware & the hardware is selling terribly!

Devs would be lucky to get a return on a fraction of those titles released in such a short time span on any console never mind one with a relatively tiny userbase.

If enough devs are burnt badly enough to stop investing in the PS3 in the future it could be one of the few occasions where lots of games on a system is a bad thing.

I cant make up my mind which troll I want to respond to, its' between Slaziman & Shagittarius, OK I'll go with the former.

1."The big slice of Wii owners are casual gamers that aren't interested in the same games as me, and that's the kind of people the developers will try to please. For example if Gears of War 2 was made as a Wii exclusive in two years from now, I bet my ass it would sell less than if it had been on 360."

Can you then explain why TP has an attach rate almost identical to GoW(0.4 as opposed to 0.42)? Can you also shed some light upon the fact that Red Steel & SPM have sold over a mill? Red Steel isn't exactly game of the year material so it surely shows that the Wii's user base are screaming out for meaty, 'mature' games. You may question SPM being hadcore but it is far too long and involved to attract the pick up and play crowd you seem to hate so much. Sales have also been decent for Tiger, ExciteTruck & Madden but as they haven't sold over a million I cant find their numbers. Are you still so sure GoW2 wouldn't sell well on Wii considering that it will also probably have a significantly larger install base than 360 in 2 years?

2."That many people who are long-time Nintendo fans or people that got caught in the hype are now disappointed with their Wii. Screwed out of their money."

Do you have anything to back that up? Was there some survey done which demonstrated a significant number of Wii users are disappointed with their purchase, if so please link.

3."The Wiimote is not an innovation, since in most games it's only function is substituting a button press with a shake. The pointer function is the only real value of the Wiimote, but seeing how halfassed it has been used so far, I don't have high hopes. The actual motion sensing works in a couple of games, but as I already said, in the majority of the games all you do is shake the Wiimote."

Well the majority of games on any system are crap so I don't see why that should reflect on the hardware whether that be a GB, Xbox ,Wii or PS. The Wiimote has proven successful in games such as Elebits, Wii Sports, Trauma Centre, Godfather, Warioware and I'm sure quite a few more. Doesn't it make sense to look at these games to decide on the Wiimote's worth rather than cheap cash-ins and rushed ports?

4."How can you base your satisfaction of a console based on games that aren't even released?"

So if you're a huge Halo fan you wouldn't factor that game into your decision of what console to buy because it isn't out yet? I don't really get your point.

5."The fact remains that every time a good game is announced it's 360, PS3, or PS3+360."

You are saying that no good games have been announced for Wii?

6."The Wii has potential to become a good buy in the future, but I really can't understand why anyone would buy it NOW instead of waiting until it hits it's stride, when the accessories and games and maybe even the console have dropped in price. Not to mention that you are gambling whether it will become good in the future or not."

I dont think you are attacking Wii here but early adopters of any product, without them very few would become successful.

OK, I'm done.

@cc123
"WTF?? The total market grew from 90 to 150 million and according to you it was due to economic growth....for fucks sake."

I have said already that the growth of the global economy played a significant part in the succes of the PS1 gen but the system also made an impact which also factored in its sales. How much clearer do you want me to be?

I wouldn't be surprised if you believed the Ipod brought music to the mainstream, then again it wasn't made by Sony so maybe not.

I'm beginning to realise that a mature debate with you is not possible. Good luck fulfilling your dream of taking down the N-hive or whatever you call it.

@ cc123
"The PS1 sold more than that entire generation combined!! And I did post all the numbers, look at #51 above. You can look at the numbers up, down, left, right, they all prove my case"

So theoretically if one generation is made up of 3 consoles that each own a third of the market then a single console dominates the next gen, lets say with 100% of the market and sells 50% more than the installed base of the previous gen that console has brought gaming to the mainstream? I think that is a nonsense and if that is the case surely the NES or Gameboy can claim a similiar feat?

And my comments about your scewed numbers were aimed at your earlier post, #44 I think, & the numbers in #51 dont prove that Sony brought gaming to the mainstream, ever heard of Tetris?

"BULLSHIT. You tried to play off the PS1 and PS2 sales numbers by saying they were just part of normal industry growth. So what you say here is complete bullshit."

I believe you are referring to my below statement.

"Well before the PS1 came out the Gameboy had moved 70 million units, & the NES 60 mill so I think it's safe to say that gaming was already mainstream before either one of your examples released so I dont see where you're going with this point. The PS 1 & 2 sold more but is that particularily surprising consisering the VG market generally grows with each new gen?"

Saying that the the console's sales weren't particularily surprising due to an expanding market doesn't = me saying that PS didn't make an impact. I still feel you underestimate the growth of the world's economy and as a result the number of people who can afford to spend on luxuries.

You seem to pick and choose which of my points you respond to. I'll make this point again, if the Wii or DS significantly outsell the PSs does that mean N has brought gaming to the mainstream? I mean how many times can it happen?? The NES, GB, PS, PS2 each surely furthered the acceptance of gaming in the mainstream but surely to say that 1, particuarily one of the latter ones was responsible for mainstream adoption is just....well, dumb.

The likelyhood is that overall the installed base of gaming consoles will be significantly larger this gen than last and N will likely play a big part in that, will you then 5,6, or 7 years down the line post on these boards heralding N as truly delivering gaming to the people???

Can you honestly say that your views are unbiased and without a clear agenda to 'push' the PS brand?

@sheppy

"Actually, this patent lead to many rumors about PS2 being tilt based in their controllers and since this patent was filed before PS2's E3 debut, and rumors were circulating about a "leap forward" in controller design, it was a reasonable assumption. Too bad the leap forward equated to analog buttons."

So we've established the tech was easily implementable(if that's a word?) so why wasn't it used in the PS2? What makes the PS3 so much better suited to tilt than its predecessor?

"But if we ignore the PS2, jump forward to the PSP. When Mercury Meltdown was shown intially, it featuring a tilting dongle. This dongle, of course, would eventually be cancelled but it was the first public appearance of that fateful patent. And then PS3 debuted and Ken Kuturugi kept saying the controller was not done and that there were more suprises in store. Even Kaz was kept in the dark to the extent that he wasn't even allowed to touch the boomerang. But these rumors stayed relatively unknown compared to "LOLZ Boomerang controller sucks!" I was expecting Tilt in the PS3 controller since it's a patent they'd been sitting on for 7 years. But as someone else pointed out, the tilt is only part of the Wii's controller and a not unheard of part either. So I wouldn't consider PS3's inclusion reactionary but rather evolutionary."

Why would you expect it after 7 years when it hadn't been used in either of it's previous 2 consoles? If something's a great & viable idea you'd think that it would be prudent to get it out there as soon as possible not wait the best part of a decade. You even state that they had it up and running on PSP so why was it ommitted? Sony evidently didn't think it was a worthy inclusion in 2 of it's previous systems so what happened between it's decision to pass on tilt for the PSP & include it with the PS3? I'm thinking of something along the lines of a hugely well received move into motion sensing by Nintendo but that's just me. You also have to concede that dev's not knowing about tilt until very late in the day implies that it hadn't been part of Sony's plans for very long. Heck Wii devs knew about the Wiimote way ealier and N are notorious for being secretive.

"And you can call me completely in denial or whatever, but I am amused that DS is the first touchscreen system and WiiSports is the first time we've played games like that. This of course assuming people ignore Game.com, PlayTV, and Xavix. A role which Nintendophiles fill beautifully."

I'm not ignoring them, to be honest I've never heard of them & I'm willing to bet the average gamer hasn't either. Again, my point is that N innovates in the mainstream gaming arena where there's a lot of money at stake and taking risks can sink you. I don't doubt that Sony has some awesome, innovative ideas going on behind closed doors, it's just that the string pullers don't have the balls to take a risk on them.

"Nintendo is NOT the master of invention, but rather the refiner of it. Nintendo crafts some damn fine games. But their innovation nowadays goes as far as making a stew."

If you look at my earlier posts I state that N is not an inventive company but innovative, there's a big difference. You could say that they make stew but surely you'd also have to concede that they consistently add new ingredients, most of which are quickly implemented in the other cook's more traditional recipes.

@ cc123
""As you know the SNES wasn't the only major player in that gen so you seem to be deliberately scewing the facts in order to forward your argument."

Can you direct me at which facts I'm skewing?"

You posted"You just tried to discredit the impact that the PS1 had by showing the NES numbers. Lets look at all the the numbers for that time:" Then only posted numbers for the SNES that particular gen when the Genesis sold almost as many units thus almost doubling the combined installed base for that gen and making the disparity with the PS1 gen much less significant. You most definately didn't "look at all the numbers".

I at no point claimed that the PS brand didn't have a big impact on gaming, I'm saying that it didn't bring gaming to the mainstream like you stated in an earlier post. If the DS or Wii goes on to sell 50% more units than the PS2 will that mean thay have brought gaming to the mainstream? Of course not, it's been there for a while. Feel free to ignore my points and insult me though, it makes you the bigger man!