Well, thanks so much for making my choices for me. I am after all, only a feeble, simple-minded American, with only the capacity for pick up trucks and guns. I could never hope to understand, or enjoy anything that is even the slightest bit unique.

No sir, no crazy controllers or non-PFS-shooter games for me. And English speaking actors? Yes please! Who wants to listen to some Japanese mumbo-jumbo ( i.e., the original dialogue ) What do those people know about video games anyway?

...Are you actually serious with all these presumptions, based on American stupidity? What a sad, out of touch world view you have.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Reasoned, but also smells paid for. The chances of Nintendo getting less sales than Sony this holiday season are zero. They may even sell out before PS3 releases, the way people are talking. Never underestimate the power of small simple things to take out giants.

Nintendo's formula is already hitting the mass market sweet spot, and believe me, if Nintendo released it for $350 there would still be grumbling, but they would buy it and it would still sell out.

What Nintendo is offering is new on an entirely different scale than graphics and sound, and people will bite. Not just some people, but 85% of people who play games. Nintendo may say they are after casual gamers, but it is hardcore gamers that are salivating at the mouth.

Nice to find an opposing voice in a sea of Wii, but I completely disagree. Wii (you, me, and Nintendo) will change everything. Certainly in gaming.

Omg what are you talking about wii si gonna beat the hell outta PS3 and the thing is who cares if it doesn't have DVD . I have vcr dvd combo ,a regular one ,the computer and a Xbox360 the last thing i would need is another dvd player...

Your main argument is the Wii will have to use a dongle to play DVDs. Then you follow that with praise for the success of the Xbox. Are you forgetting the Xbox required a dongle aswell to play DVDs....

"The Playstation 3 has what gamers want, great graphics and great sound."

Exactly. The Wii has what both gamers and non-gamers want. Non-gaming fans are not the tech type and couldn't care less about HD and 5.1. It's not needed, because the chances of those people owning the needed equipment is nil. I would love to have it, but I'm not their key demographic this time because they know I'll buy one regardless.

They want to play games in a way they can understand. 16 button controllers, analog sticks, and triggers don't seem complicated to us, but most people don't grasp all of that.

Sony's marketing to gamers. Nintendo's marketing to a market 90% bigger: everyone.

IS this a joke or what? I completely disagree what you said. You don't buy it because of the controller is diffrerent. I won't attack you. But all this opinion is flawness. The D-Pad from Nintendo on NES was considered to be a failure. The PS3 controller is nothing about a PS2 controller without a rumble and has motion sensor and a tilt with 6 movements.

As for the price, remember the 3D0 and Neo-Geo. Both they have new technology and and have price over $600. Both failed. Reasonable people won't buy a $600 console.

As far I can see, Wii is clearly the winner everywhere and I can see you are a Playstation fanboy. I play video games for the games not from a brand. And PS3 is not on my Christmas wishlist.

I forgot. Hardcore gamers will play on Wii. The autor is just a casual.

This is certainly not paid for. If you want an example, I'm not even a Sony fan. I only owned a PS2 to review it and I thought it always suffered from poor graphics for its generation.

As for the DVD--that was merely a side argument and not any sort of main argument.

I'm not rooting for either side--if anything I hope the Wii wins the battle over the PS3, but when you have people who pay $600-$800 for a PC video card alone, you simple can not underestimate graphics and sound. I think the Playstation 3 price will drop slightly as they realize their public relations blunder and the titles and specs will win out.

Finally, YES this is an opinion--it's even filed under "opinion" on this site. All previews and predictions are opinions. I welcome disagreement and I made it clear that Nintendo is winning the public relations war, but I'm not sold on the American gamers' willingness to completely change their style of play for yet another Super Mario title.

An X-Box 260!?!??!?!?!

What the hell is that? AHAHHAHAHAHA


Great journalism there buddy.

"As for the price, remember the 3D0 and Neo-Geo. Both they have new technology and and have price over $600. Both failed."

The Neo Geo had its final release in 2004. It came out in 1992. That's not a failure.

I'll take disagreement but I take offense to the "casual gamer" comment. I've been gaming seriously for many years. Do not question me for my opinion, question the opinion for what it is. Just that.

Ah, I see, so the american public prefers several expensive add-ons to play $50+ Blu-ray discs on a $600 console for the ultimate gaming experience? I guess that definetly explains the PSP selling millions more than the DS (sarcasm).

"Sony is marketing to gamers, and gamers want digital audio and high definition video right now."

Actually, I'm a gamer, and I don't want digital audio and high definition audio if it means I won't have any money to spend on actual -games-.

"American gamers are simply not ready"

Of course, cause changing something is a horrible thing to do, in fact, changing the way games are played is such a bad idea that the NES should've never been invented, new platformers like Super Mario Bros. won't be bought enjoyed by the masses. In fact we should be playing the next E.T. on the Atari 1 200 000 because of the high quality visuals and audio. As long as it looks and sounds better, who cares if it's new? (more sarcasm)

I just have one thing to say.
Xbox 360 - $399
Playstation 3 - $599
Watching Nintendo steal the show at E3 - Priceless!

I disagree with what you have to say.

Well sarcasm isn't making your argument here.
And for you historians out there, the Sega Master came just before the NES and it had that controller technology first.

Look, progress is a good thing and I made it clear that I like the Wii's concept, but if you don't want oposing viewpoints, just stay on nintendopower.com because that's all you're going to get.

I don't agree with the hype that E3 (which WILL fade) generated. You don't have to agree with it, but I've been around long enough to make a respectable prediction.

Well yo are all wrong look at the Ds, it beated the PSP with less graphics, I really think that you're a ps freak and dont want to see that ps3 will not be the winner in this generation, so dont say bull...

You couldn't be farther from the truth. I have never paid money for a Sony gaming system in my life. I--even though I predicted it's failure too--was a Dreamcast fan because of my nostalgic love for Phantasy Star back in those days and I always liked Xbox better than PS2 because I like the Xbox graphics and titles better. So don't make assumptions.

Your a PS3 fanboys aren't you and you probably hang around a bunch lame hardcore gamers don't you. Your probably a poser who always me too aren't you.

"The Playstation 3 has what gamers want, great graphics and great sound."

No one is going to by a system just to look and listen to it, you idiot.

You know those pics you have "An Xbox 360 and a Wii screenshot of EA Sports' Madden NFL 2007." ...those are actually gamecube pics of Madden NFL 07,there on ign...wow your stupid....and it seems like your like a sony fan boy or something....and who cares if the wii doesn't have built in dvd support...if you live in america you'd think by now you'd have a dvd player...if you don't then your poor...but i think your wrong about americans "wanting" a ps3...actually if you look around the internet and talk to people you'd see that most people don't actually want the ps3 they'd rather have a wii and xbox 360...which would equal the same price as a ps3

I read through your article and you have a very closed mind throughout your point. I think you need to open your mind and take into account America's curiosty for new things. Also, I strongly agree with the previous comments which point out that spending 600 bucks on a system leaves no money for games. :/

NO, that is wrong. the screenshots were released by Electronic Arts, and the second one is for Wii.
http://media.wii.ign.com/media/825/825443/imgs_1.html

To
Richard

Your mostly wrong because the people on the internet are mostly hardcore gamers ( well Im not) but if you ask people who don't play games much but own a PS2 whether the would by a PS3 for 500-600$ the probably say yes (I personally think the ones who say yes are either posers or rich posers cause come on a system for 500+ dollars).

"Well sarcasm isn't making your argument here.
And for you historians out there, the Sega Master came just before the NES and it had that controller technology first."

This is factually innacurate. The famicom had the D-pad before the master system. There were a couple of older Sega systems but they didn't have D-pads.
Please do your research.

Also, the innacurate assumptions and flawed logic trains in your argument are too many to mention. Suffice it to say that I am american and a gamers and none of your generalizations are accurate in describing me.

I do agree that the smart people will see the potential to get the Wii, and the satisfaction of also seeing quality graphics for Xbox 360 but trust me there are many hill billys and dumbass americans who will purchase that PS3. This is why we have the term American "CONSUMER". There job is is to CONSUME and many dumbass americans are going to do it. Also unlike us many casual ppl dont read internet blogs so much. They probably go to Gamespt or Ign and read the fastest article and make up a mind.

I'm telling you, you can sell the cheapiest and wierdest of all things in America, and ppl will buy it. Maybe not all(there are smart ppl) but many dumbasses will.

Sony is a brand name, and many ppl will fall prey to it just because its Sony but after awhile they might just see their mistake. Just look at the PSP. Beats DS in everyway yet DS sold more because of better marketing technique and clever use innovation. When PSP came out I thought Nintendo's monopoly on handheld is done, but it seems somehow it flipped upside down.

"Your a PS3 fanboys aren't you and you probably hang around a bunch lame hardcore gamers don't you. Your probably a poser who always me too aren't you."

Obinna that's just low, low, low, very LOW....

480p not 480i, Fact checking is critical in any journalism.

hope this arguement lasts awhile. I love to see this things in action

480p or 480i, it still a low amount for HD.
(also I have HD tv, and even I don't want a PS3)

You could consider me a Nintendo Fan. I plan on purchasing both the Wii and the PS3 (although, I'll probably have to wait for PS3 for a little bit). Mario and Zelda sell a system for me.

I think the Wii will be a failure if market share is the basis. However, in terms of success, I think that Nintendo will make money and compete for other markets other than the hardcore gamer. Hardcore gamers will probably buy all three. It remains to be seen if these "non-gamers" are a significant force in the biz. If they are, then I think that Nintendo will compete with MS for number 2.

Graphics and "power" have always sold well in the US. I remember the PS laying waste to the saturn (in general). A few saturn games held their own (especially if done by AM2), but Sega missed the mark when their machine was more for 2D than 3d. 3D in general looked a lot better on PS. The saturn had no chance in the US. However, the saturn didn't have the angle that the Wii has.

I'm not exactly sure what part of this article to correct first, I'm surprised no one has made any in the comments.

Take a look [at this on] codenamerevolution.com

well I'm a very low insensitive jerk now aren't I

how dare you.

first off, you state that the ps3 gyroscope controller could be better than the wii's because it has no external hardware

that honestly sounds like a fanboys excuse. external hardware wont matter when its not frequently moved and if it makes a small footprint. the ps3 controller sesnes motion, but not position, speed, or distance like the wii's. How can you complain about a tiny amount of extra space when the alternative is a single huge unit, larger than the wii and the one peice external hardware combined?

you also claim that "The trade off with Wii is that you get easy-to-play games with obsolete graphics and sound technology" though nothing having to do with sound quality has been released, anything with the power to make graphics better than the gc version of re4 is hardly obsolite, and somehow i doubt you know anything about how hard to play EVERY game on the wii will be.

"The learning curve has definitely risen, but this is the price you pay for a better gaming experience." the whole point of the wii controller is to lower the learning curve while making a better expirience at the same time, a point you appearently missed.

"They're even offering their complete online gaming experience for free." theyre not the only ones either.

"This means you're limited not only to low resolution graphics (and trust me, 480i will be low resolution by the end of the year)" and why do you say this? there is nothing bluray related on the market, and very little hddvd, so i highly doubt anyone will rush into buying high definition. the ps3 launches in the fourth quarter so unless you think that be next year the majority of people will own a ps3/xbox360(with hddvd attachment)/respective player you should retract your statement.

"Playstation 3, according to Gamespot will feature support for up to 1080p resolution and will boast built-in HDMI ports (yes portS)" tsk, tsk, tsk. someone didnt check their facts. as of e3 2006 the ps3 will have a single hdmi port on the $600 version only (the 500 version gets no hdmi, no wifi, and no memorycard ports [so you can say goodbye to taking your profile/saved info to a friends house]) without your precious port you get stuck with the "low resolution graphics" (480i)

"Nintendo Wii will not feature built-in DVD video support. An external dongle will be required." wrong again. It has been repeatedly and clearly stated that the device enabling the wii to play dvds will be internal (like the port on the underside of the gc). i guess you just ignored that fact so you could blatently lie to your readers to feebily try to support your flimsy case.

"A few, very motivated devotees will even create "Wii rooms" in their houses for a full spatial Wii experience." there are numerous reports of people saying you can play with the controller in your lap and all you have to do is adjust the position of the controller. where you got this idea that you need to devote an entire room to the wii is beyond me.

I hope to god you werent paid to write this peice of crap. it is filled with lies and incosistancies. you try to buy a little credit in the begining by saying you hope it succedes but i severely doubt that; you seem to hope for its failure against all odds.

again, how dare you. how dare you blatantly lie. how dare you give false hopes under the disguise of honesty. how dare you.

I agree with the report, wii will do well but not as well as the ps3 or the xbox360 in the long run. Not because of all the crap the ps3 has like blu-ray, downloads, HDD and all the other extras.And i am not a sony or nintendo fan since they don't pay me to be one.Anyway i try to buy things that are future proof so i try not to buy the wrong one. I believe the future of home gaming(console) will still be in the visual experience. But only time will tell. Look at the games making headlines and awards in america, FPS mostly,action, stategy and a few other types.
I think people that have the luxury to have all forms of home entertainment in the game(ps2,xbox,pc gaming) i think they would all have the wii. But others that have to choose just one console for the long term. example people choosing between xbox or ps2.
Also ps3 and xbox360 will offer more mature games(12+ and above) and FPS and better sports games and will have more of the 15-35 yr old male and a few female.
wii will appeal to casual gamers that the great mario franchise. And games that focus more on gameplay than visuals.i tend to fall in the first category.Also sports games and action games will need better visuals so wii will not offer that so wii will be mostly for kids that like fun games and women gamers mostly and new gamers maybe and also the a few males that have already got the xbox360 or the ps3.
Dont get me wrong wii will sell out in the short term...like a year or 2 but 5 years down? i dont think the wii will be making the headlines. But i may be wrong.
Only time will tell

Guys, check out this poll from
slashdot... I guess this means the Wii is the clear winner for Slashdotters!
By the way, Nintendo makes me go Wii! (a.k.a. I am buying one... ditching XBOX 360!)

" in effect this could be better than the Wii controller because no external hardware will be required by the Playstation 3"

I HATE the way sony has tricked people into thinking this.

If Nintendos machine only had the functions of sonys controll pad, then it wouldnt need external hardware either.
Sony is very manipulative in their speach, acting like its an amazing fact it dosnt need external hardware.
Wario Ware Twisted, amongst many older games *used the exact same sensor sony is using*
None of those games needed a bar either.

Its not a Nintendo or Sony invention, its a vibrating bit of metal that sense's angular momentum.

Nintendos controller has thess, and so does the PS3.
*But*
Nintendos controller *also* has a kinda webcam that looks for UV light points emited by its sensor bar.
It can then work out its position in 3D space,and the exact point its pointing at.

The DualNoShock3 cant do this.
It cant aim a gun.

Theres nothing wrong with this, of course.
Its just sad sony is so good at missinformation.

Blogger said:

"I always liked Xbox better than PS2 because I like the Xbox graphics and titles better."

X-Box... had titles?

It only had 2 commercially successful games,
Halo
Halo 2.

Of course, you had your really good exclusive games far and inbetween like Ninja Gaiden, Panzer Dragoon Orta(spelling?) and Jet Set Radio Future, but those games did bad in stores, (except Ninja Gaiden, which did so well, they rehashed it.)

I don't want to start a debate, but for every great game on the X-Box (which will probably be looked over,) there are at least 10 hi-profile games that are hyped up and rushed out ::cough::Fable, Halo 2::cough::

Also, what parent in their right mind is going to want to throw down $600 for a PS3 for their kid when the Wii is going to be "under $250" and will surely get the parents interested with its neat concepts. Nintendo knows how to market this way. They've managed to hook my 53 year old, non-gamer, mom on Brain Age.

And finally, PS3 doesn't have enough gigaflops for me to buy it.

(This is not from a Wii fanboy, I perfered PS2 over my GC for everything except multiplayer games. This E3 killed Sony for a lot of people, myself included.)

"The trade off with Wii is that you get easy-to-play games with obsolete graphics and sound technology."

How is the Wii tech obsolete, exactly? It is technology that many people (including Americans) have yet to own... If people are still buying things that support this technology, and entertainment is still being developed to support this technology, then how do you conclude that it is obsolete? Not everyone has a TV that supports 480p (and yes, Wii supports up to 480p, not 480i), and not everyone has digital audio (though I do think Wii really should have the optical audio output). Also, to make up for the lack of digital audio, the controller speaker should allow for a very immersive audio experience, regardless of the odds that the speaker is only DS quality.

Also, why do you say "easy to play"? Certainly, many games will be, but what "easy to play" means for the hardcore gamers is that you as a player become more capable, which means that games will need to be more capable to match you. We could eventually be able to perform actions using the remote with such ease that similar situations using a traditional controller would be impossibly difficult.

"Sometimes, you have to learn how to fly before you'll be ready to take off."

Okay, one more quote. Where can people who don't play games 'learn how to fly' in these days of the more complex controllers? Wii will be the most accessible training ground for new gamers, and that could eventually lead to more sales for all consoles, making the non-gamer capable enough to handle other controllers.

I respect your opinion, but I don't think you've given this enough thought.


Oh, and IGN's image selections are not always accurate to specific consoles. They may be accurate in this case, but the GCN and Wii versions of Twilight Princess, for example, share some of the same screens.

Also lets remember the company's here.

Sonys idea of new gameplay is

"Real Time Weapon Change!"

Microsoft is putting in effort, and earning their place.
Sony is more and more showing themselves not to care about gameing, but to merely use it as a back-door for movie/BluRay dominance.

---

Also, I think people are missing Nintendos aim slightly.

It might well be true that existing gamers go after graphics mostly, and those the Wii wont do as well in the long term.

However, the key phrase is "existing gamers".

Nintendo dosnt want to just go after existing gamers, they are far more ambitious.


"Do you know anyone that has never read a book? or watched a movie? or listen to music?....now..how many of you know people that have never played a video game?"

Nintendo may or may not get their goal, but they are surely the bravest company that sees right to the heart of the problem with gameing while others squabble over polygon counts.

At some stage graphics wont mater at all.
The systems wont be limiting the looks or detail, it will be budgets and development times.

Nintendo sees this and knows its a dead end.
The Wii will probably last a good 5 years.
But in 5 years Xbox360/PS3 hardware will be worthless in terms of internal componants.

And people will see bumping up specs dosnt increase the look of games anymore.

The Wii isnt just a great idea now.
Its a great path that Nintendo has set out on.
When the graphic war winds down, the interface war will start. And Nintendo will suddenly be the one with a generation head start on everyone.

"Playstation 3, according to Gamespot will feature support for up to 1080p resolution and will boast built-in HDMI ports (yes portS)"

Actualy, theres only 1 port now.
Did you watch E3s speach? look at the specs.

Also, only people that buy the more expensive model get HDMI at all.
The cheaper one lacks any digital outs.

people should stop using the psp and ds comparism for the wii and ps3 comparism because the handheld is for short game play. 10minutes to maybe an hour on a travel or something. But console game that you tend to play with your friends and neighbour for a long time.
titles tend to buy games, and looks like ps3 will have better fps and sports games

titles for the wii

Well, I can see someone is a little bit... out of touch with the gaming world. First: Once again, the supporters of the PS3/Xbox crowd are quick to point out graphics. Heres my point: I don't care. Graphics, at this point, look beautiful, and they do everything I could want. "PS3 has a gyroscope now too." Well, not only are they posers, theirs is less powerful, and their controller design will limit it. "People will pay 6000 Dollars for a PC!" Well, they're typically very rich, and those kinds of people would still buy a Wii, if only to add it to their collection of consoles. "Controllers offer a better gaming experience." Riiiiighht... I've got to learn a button combination 4 long, to swing my sword, whereas a Wii can do it with simple motion.

A few other points: If Sony is marketing to gamer's, why'd they flop at E3, the pinnacle of gaming events? Maybe cuz gamers don't always have half a grand to throw around. A different way to play is upon us, and I think that, unfortunately, this editor was payed, and if not, is just a little bit (read: huge) out of touch with the gaming community.

sigh... another sony fanboy trying and failing make nintendo sound like its failing.

I have to agree with the author. I think that Nintendo is trying to create a market where there isn't one. However, they're doing that to the exclusion of where everyone else (ie Sony, Microsoft) is making money. That sets them up to lose a lot.

Nintendo is banking on the fact that people who don't play games will pay $200+ dollars to buy a console when they probably already have a computer. These people probably won't buy one when they discover it can't do MySpace.

The Wii will of course sell out at first because of all the Nintendo fans rushing out to buy one, but I don't think Nintendo will get the market they're aiming for.

Oh this article is so full of fanboyism is not even funny.

260 WHAT THE HELL MORE LIKE PS2.5

You have to remember guys that the console war started out as a war between specs. The 360 amazed us all, and Sony had to beat that so they ramed up their console. It works out it, because at that moment it was the most sensible idea to do. However out of the door came Nintendo with something that rather than a better ramped up super duper console they decided to focus on the market buy sheer inginuity. It worked and even MS and Sony knows that the console war they were in was just so silly and pathetic nonsense. If you look now Sony is talking about how PS3 is a media center, PC, center of living room, network connector, all things that don't relate to gaming much. Even they see that Nintendo is going in a differnt yet succesful path.

Now the big talk between the corps isnt horsepower war, but rather how to aim for the casual, non-gamer world as that world is way bigger than the gamer world. In my own opinion I don't care if Nintendo sells #1, if they sell well and if it has games on it i'm good. I've had a Nintendo console starting from N64 and I've never had glitches, technical issues, or any other problems with it. Heck I've even accidentally puled my GC so hard that it flew across my living room pretty far and it stilled worked perfectly. Also you guys should realize that Sony and MS are in the gaming biz for the sake of pure money. MS is just more obvious about it. Nintendo don't have a choice with money. They are a pure gaming corp. and that is the only way they will make money. This is why Sony and MS pumps out what ever the crowd wants but Nintendo always comes with somethin new, and innovative because they have to.

Also for those that say Nintendo is for kids because it isn't an FPS monster, that is completely wrong. I live in North America, and I think FPS's are crap. They don't give me the sense of immersion as other games might. Also just cause the game may look kiddy doesnt mean it aent fun. Super Smash Bros. is the best fighting game ever no matter how kiddy it looks.

O and PS3 will not be #1 because when someone will go to store to buy a console, that 250$ besides a $600 dollar beast will make the Wii look ever so addictive.

BTW: God hates console fanboys Disclaimer: This is not meant to promote or insult any one side. This is just funny, and overall good advice.

To
Richard

Your mostly wrong because the people on the internet are mostly hardcore gamers ( well Im not) but if you ask people who don't play games much but own a PS2 whether the would by a PS3 for 500-600$ the probably say yes (I personally think the ones who say yes are either posers or rich posers cause come on a system for 500+ dollars).

what? i didn't say the people online were or were mostly not hardcore gamers...and most people i talk don't want a ps3...and they are hardcore gamers thats all they do is play games...which i think there is more to life than video games but thats beside the point...

*were or were not mostly hardcore gamers

While I don't agree with some of the author's statements, it annoys me that so many people are opting to call him names rather than debate his arguments. We're all entitled to our opinions, aren't we? Personally, I hope the Wii does well. I probably will not get a chance to buy one, poor college student that I am, but I can't wait for my brother to get one so I can borrow it. Nintendo wins the innovation race hands down. Graphics are good, but gameplay is better, and Nintendo delivers not only with the Mario and Zelda franchises, but with new creative titles that keep gaming fresh and exciting. One of my chief complaints against 3D gaming is that since its development everything has been about optimizing graphics, and it seems that the "fun" element has been lost entirely. Do I really care that the PS3 and XBox have better graphics? I honestly don't think I'll notice. When I'm really into a game, it doesn't matter what it looks like. But this may simply reflect the fact that I'm a girl. Just as the DVD feature doesn't interest me. If movies go BluRay, then I'll look into the technology. Until then, I am perfectly comfortable playing my DVDs on my computer or even my DVD player (that is what those things are for, right?). I don't know how the Wii will fare on the US market, but I definitely don't think it will be a failure. Those who prefer power technology to play the latest version of simulated football will go for Sony and Microsoft. Those who want a new, accessible, and creative gaming experience will favor Nintendo. It all depends on the individual and what he/she is looking for. So chill, people.

I had this huge thing that I wrote.. then took it off because well... it's useless... here's the only thing that bothered me the most

you say Gamers look for Graphics and Sound?!?

You know what made me drool over the most about the Wii? it's ability to Download SNES GAMES!
sure, I'll get all hyped when I play the new Zelda or Metroid, but SNES GAMES! my childhood!!
what was the SNES again? 16-bit?

yes, definatly.. I look for the best Graphics and Sound in a console!

also, it's not the console that makes it great. it's the games on it.
the Wii offers something new and dynamic. appealing to the public and old gamers.
Sony offers... RIDGE RACER! and Weapon swipping techniques by pressing X+Square then L-1!.


and the lack of DVD reader... or the blue-disc/HD/NICE SOUND/Mind Reading/makes coffee/whatever Sony will put on the PS3...
well it does suck.. if I was looking for an entertaining system.
but I'm not, I'm looking for a Gaming Console. it plays game. that's it.
my DVD player does a super well jolly good job thank you very much. I don'T see why I need another one.

The author forgot to mention 2-3 crucial factors how many of you own a HD tv capable of 1080p?

Also Xbox (the original) could produce graphics at 720p resolution... Well name a game done for Xbox which wasn't ported on the other 2 consoles with the same graphics.

As for the DVD playback, let's be serious, the DVD tech was already a standard since late 90s, even so the PS2 has a crappy dvd playback filled with bugs (at least the original console).. So you can expect a cheaply crappy Blu ray player as well.

Also the author conveniently forgot to mention to mention that the 499 USD version has NO HDMI output which means all Blu ray movies will play at a standard DVD res.

He also forgot about the recent awards given by E3 critics for moment let's forget about Wii swooping best hardware award and let's focus on the games.
Spore and an Xbox 360 game won prizes in their respective categories no PS3 game was awarded.

As for the motion sensitive controller of PS3 it's nothing more than a botched cheaper version of the wiimote. Wiimote's tech is far superior
a) it understands acceleration and speed meaning it makes a difference how fast you move the wiimote, the PS3 controller doesn't have that
b) it's a 6 axis sensitive controller, up down right left back and forth, the ps3 is 4 axis sensitive
c)wireless force feedback or rumble features, the Dual shock 3 for the PS3 isn't shocking at all.
d) not to mention the embedded speaker on the wii mote

Bottom line
Nintendo said from the start, they want to change course and they wouldn't go for horse power,their president kept saying that the new consoles graphics wouldn't be as good as 360 and PS3, but they set out to do the same thing they did with the DS, not the best graphics machine out there but a new way of gamer-console interaction , thus far, they have delivered the goods.

Microsoft promised dazzling graphics, online interactive content, mergering their messenger and MSN passport services with Xboxlive and connectivity of Xbox 360 making a media hub.They also delivered what they set out to do..

I am excited about the possibilites of the Wiimote and the back catalog of Sega Nintendo and Hudson as I am amazed with 360's graphics and online gaming features. But Sony PS3 graphics seem to be in par with 360 and their efforts to emulate Microsoft with Xbox live and Nintendo with their Controller scream
" I CAN DO WHAT OTHERS CAN I JUST DIDN'T THINK OF IT 1ST"

And don't feed me crap about Blu ray that's a double edged sword imagine if HD DVD wins the format wars and we are stuck with another Betamax or worse another UMD.

At least Microsoft went about it the right way, they just produced an add on and if HD DVD fails nothing stops them from reaching into their deep pockets to produce a blu ray add on...

BTW Xbox chief Moore and PS3 chief Harrison both said buy a wii after you buy an Xbox or a PS3 respectively... That says it all...

The internet allows ppl to have opinions whether your the one stating the opinion or you have an opinion on the opinion (see how that works).

And yes i agree when your in the middle of a game graphics don't matter much (but NFSMW did use the graphic powers well, have to admit. Made it so much more immersive with the perfect sound timing and good action camera moments).

Games like AOE3 have such beautiful graphics but gameplay is bull shit. Aoe2 was way better. I don't care how beautiful the water may reflect a fake sun but if th game is shit than no point. Most games now give what the consumer wants. Not much creative ideas are put into these games. ALso ppl want things such as DVD players, or other stuff in a console so it can do things outside the range playing games. That's pointless because pretty much everybody now own a DVD player.

How many ppl want DVD player built in to their TV?

I agree with French Gamer... Super NES still has every console beat. I've been playing those games for years, and I still enjoy them,whether or not their graphics are "obsolete" :)

I think you put way to much importance in graphics. Ther are alot of games starting at SNES level that I can still pick up and play and have just as much fun as ever with.

And there's a difference between having complexity and a high learning curve. A game can be simple and complex at the same time. And simplicity sells. The top selling game for gamecube was Smash Brothers Melee, a very simple fighting game. Yet me and my friends spent hour upon hour playing it.

Nintendo isn't trying to make games simpler they're just trying to make them simpler to pick up and play. The depth will be just as good if not better.

I think if anything the DS pattern will apply here. developers will throw in the motion sensing just because it's there at first and then later really learn to use the controller properly later and Nintendo will only see growing momentum.
To recap.
Rabid fan base
+
lower price
+
easy to pick up games
+
estimates of game devoloping costing less than half of any of the other consoles (coming from developers themselves)
+
The fact that ATI (the makers of the chip in the Wii) has said that what you saw at E3 was only the tip of the iceberg of what the wii could do
+
This is one of the only articles I've read expecting the Wii to fail
=
Homerun for the Wii. I respect your opinion but I think you'll be very pleased to be wrong

I'm a casual gamer. I enjoy all of the systems out right now. I have more respect for Nintendo though cuz they've been making gaming systems longer than the other two companies. I don't ride the band wagon like other people, especially the PS fanboys. They call themselves gamers but always curse on the Xbox and GameCube. They probably forgot the times when they used to play their NES, SNES, and Genesis.

I saw E3 I thought Nintendo took the show, the Wii got the award for best in show. What happened to the PS3? Nintendos line was like 8 times bigger than Sonys. I think it has the new record for longest line at E3. Seems to me people didn't care about the graphics and power.

People are willing to pay $800 for a video card but how many people have you met buy them. I never did.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind having a PS3 but it's just a waste of $600. MGS4 is going to be awesome, aswell as Heavenly Sword. In reality most people in the US would have enough money to get it. The Wii is in any gamers price range.

The reason Sony isn't charging internet play is because 500-600 dollors is the systems price. Sony will sell but it won't be making the money Nintendo will be making in Gaming.

Peter Moore said himself that nintendo would be in second place after the Xbox360, Sony said nintendo will be in second place after the PS3. They obviously can't say that nintendo would be in first cuz they would probably loose their jobs. Or maybe cuz they have a grudge against each other or maybe both. Either way both companies know that Nintendo made a big impact in the gaming world this E3, they are just going to have to work harder to catch up to them.

People love the Wii. Hideo Kojima backed the Wii up, even let Nintendo use Solid Snake for SSB Brawl. I think nintendo got a lot of third party support after E3. I hear almost nothing but good comments from the Wii. 75% of japanese people were saying the Wii will take this generation, and 25% said the PS3.

Microsoft has in my opinion 3 big titles I'm waiting for is Gears of War, GTA4, and HALO 3.
But here's where Microsoft has a problem. It has great shooting games but the Wii has the ultimate controller for shooters. All nintendo needs is to make a shooter at the level of greatness of Halo or GOW. Metroid Prime 3 or Red Steel might do it but I doubt it.

I love the 360 but I still have to get it first. At first I thought I would be getting a PS3 and Wii first but it seems its goig to be 360 then the Wii.

The Wii will not fail. Even if it is the number three console, it will still be a huge money maker for Nintendo. They are losing very little money if any on the console (unlike the other two companies), and most of the top selling games are in house which translates into pure profit. So even if the big N doesn't beat the competition, the competition is beating itself by running up a huge deficit in its gaming department.

true true.

Nintendo saved their ass from the huge debt of creating an expensive console this time around. I guess the lower spec range actually paid off.

Just read all of the comments on this page, this is not a Nintendo oriented site, but look at the mass amount of comments left which are arguing against you. Does that not tell you how much support the Wii actually has?
Food for thought.

Here in my country I can´t even find HDTVs right now, it´s not that important. You should consider people from other countries who buy videogames too. Here one of the things that matters the most is the price (and the ps3 is not the best at this).

I prefer consoles which play good games. Mind you that the ps2 had less specs than the others.

What matters now is that the PS3 will have great games, but I can buy a X360 and a Wii for the price of one PS3, so I think it´s a better deal.

to kernelpanic... [Edited] the wii CAN do myspace, [Edited] just in case u hadn't heard, it's going to have the Opera For Devices browswer on it, and i have Opera on my phone, and on my computer, and hey, i can have myspace on both! and i dunno, but i think that the wii has just a little bit more computing power than my year and half old siemens cell phone...

Wow, some one is afraid of change.
Plus aparently you haven't looked at our nations finacial issues (and yes this country is obsessed with entertainment) but I would never spend 6000 on a computer just to play games and I for sure will not spend 600 on a PS3 when I could buy a Wii for 250 and get at least 6 games for the same price. Now the PS3 seems great mainly due to Cell and Blue Ray, but unlike aparently you I'm waiting until the 60GB model drops at least under 400 before I buy and if that doesn't happen by 2008 I might just have to buy a 360.

Well I'm glad that this has created a buzz, but seriously, if you can't make your point without using the words "idiot, retard, moron," etc to me or the people that happen to disagree with you, then I strongly encourage you to start your own blog. However, I write for this one and if you have something to say, take a few moments to jot down your thoughts intelligently and then disagree the heck out of me. But do it smartly. I've seen some great comments that totally disagree with me and I totally respect that, but the fact is, I'm not a moron. Sorry to ruin it for everyone.

Also, I'm not a fanboy or on the Sony payroll. I just happen to have an opinion. Trust me, it happens.

"They have gone back to their roots with signature franchises like Super Mario, Metroid and The Legend of Zelda. This is no surprise, Nintendo always phones home when it's taking a risk. Two Italian guys, some swords and Excite Bike (Excite Truck in Wii's case) didn't save Gamecube, and nothing is going to make Wii an American hit on the scale of Xbox, Xbox 360, and all the numerical Sony platforms."

Its Ridge Race everybody! Ridge Racer!!!!

"but seriously, if you can't make your point without using the words "idiot, retard, moron," etc to me or the people that happen to disagree with you, then I strongly encourage you to start your own blog"

If you think that's bad, rip Sony for their E3 press conference.

Believe me, you have one hell of a comment fight ahead of you.

I did rip Sony for their E3 showing. I made it clear and let me make it clear again: Sony dropped the ball marketing at E3 and Nintendo "totally owned" E3.

I love how the Wii has united almost every nintendo-fan, ex-nintendo-fan and new believers (I have 3 friends that stopped playing videogames at snes coming back for the Wii), I was literally leaving videogames for good this gen, I was sick of the games. Right now.. .. I visit like 5 internet pages daily and read everything Wii-related I can find.

Wii wiill be a revoltion ;)

*revolution sorry :P

I think the author of this article (and many of the commentors) have missed the point of why the wii is enjoying such publicity - it's the change.

Brian F. (#30) Posted this:
"I remember the PS laying waste to the saturn (in general). A few saturn games held their own (especially if done by AM2), but Sega missed the mark when their machine was more for 2D than 3d. 3D in general looked a lot better on PS. The saturn had no chance in the US."

He's right - Sega missed the mark for exactly that reason.
But Sony didn't take come out ahead just because games looked prettier - this was around the time that 3D was the "NEW" thing. It was - wait for it - a drastic change to the way we played games! Sega didn't get the marketshare because most of the games were 2D - the old way we played games. Gamers were tired of 2D side scrollers and fighters. 3D offered them something fresh and new.

This is why the Wii is such a positive item right now, and will in all likelihood be a resounding success. We are tired of "2D control". We want something different. Something new. Enter the wii with "3D control". Before it was Graphical horespower that gave us that change. This time it is the way we Control games(incidently - really good control is much harder to create in the 3D realm, and something we sacrificed a part of to get away from 2D).

I (like many other people) will be willing to sacrifice a little horespower for better control this time around.

P.S. - (#45) You will in all liklihood be able to visit MY Space with the wii - It's coming bundled with Wi-Fi, and a version of the Opera Browser. Score another point for the average consumer. And mark my words - if you can surf the net from your couch in the living room using the wiimote like a 3D mouse the wii will be a SMASHING SUCCESS for that fact alone - cause people are lazy.

I apologize for previously calling kernelpanic both a moron and a retard, but he was ignoring simple facts, and saying that people would not buy a Wii because it cannot do MySpace, which is an outright lie. Nintendo and Opera have both announced that the Wii will have the Opera For Devices browser installed on it (that's right folks, a FULL internet browser), and as I previously stated, I can use MySpace from my year and a half old Siemens cell phone, which I bought for 80 bucks, with no discount, so it's not a high-end cell phone, using the Opera Mobile browser. Now if you want to argue that my crappy little Siemens phone has more computing power than a Wii, you go right ahead, but I assure you, the Wii WILL be able to do MySpace.

Now, for a word to the author of this blog.

You also seem to be ignoring simple facts. Take, for example, the fact that there is not a single oppinion poll on the internet that says the PS3 will be the dominant next-gen console. Now, oppinion polls regarding gaming consoles will most likely be taken from hardcore gamers. Now, seeing as neither PS3 nor 360 are aiming at casual gamers, or non-gamers, and every single poll of hardcore gamers shows Nintendo coming out on topp, what does that say to you? I'll leave it at that.
Next I would like to point out when you said that by next year, 480p would be obsolete. That is a ridiculous statement. DVD players first hit the market in 1999. They did not become completely mainstream until somewhere around 2004 (this is an estimate, don't kill me for it.) DVD players originally sold for closer to $500 than $1000. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players, WHEN they hit the market, as both are STILL being delayed, will cost at least $1000. How is it that you are claiming that in under a year, a technology that is debuting at $1000 for a player will become completely mainstream, making DVD obsolete, when it took DVDs close to 5 years to become completely mainstream, when they debuted at a smaller price? Not to mention the fact that any TV can use a DVD player. You also have to have an HDTV for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray to work. It's still a small percentage of people that have HDTVs.

You claim that Blu-Ray will make people buy a PS3. Here's the thing: There are two competing formats that are hitting the market soon, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD. What makes you think that Blu-Ray will win? No one really knows yet which technology will come out on top, and if it ends up being HD-DVD, then your PS3 will be nothing more than a gaming console with amazing graphics, and ur Blu-Ray drive is worthless. Because if HD-DVD wins, then companies will stop making Blu-Ray discs, because no one buys them. Then you'll be stuck with an optical drive that no one cares about, obsolete, just like you claim the Wii's graphics will be by next year. I thought of this as I read your blog, and I thought, "It'd be like having a BetaMax player, who cares?" And I noticed another commentor had the same thing to say, and they also brought up UMD, which Sony thought would make people love their little PSP. (Here's the thing: It didn't...)

And finally, as far as saying that the Dual Shock 3 may be better than the Wiimote, because it has "no external hardware," that is as ridiculous a statement as to say that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will be mainstream by next year. The Dual Shock 3 and the Wiimote are not even truly comparable. The Wiimote is a completely free axis controller, able to sense velocity, distance from the TV, height from the ground, as well as 6 different axes of tilt, while the DS3 only senses 4 different axes of tilt. How on earth can you even compare those two technologies? It's like saying that because a Sony Walkman from the 1990's (I didn't even realize it was sony until after I wrote this hahaha) doesn't require a connection to a computer, it's a better technology than my iPod Nano. Or to say that the original Mac computer was better than my G4, because the Mac was completely functional with NO internet connection, while my G4 needs an internet connection to access many of its functionalities. Don't compare technologies that are completely different.

So there it is. My response to you, with no use of any offensive words, other than saying that some statements made were ridiculous, which they were.

Ok, now I can respond to you, crabs.

I never said 480p would be obselete, I said it would be old, and as High Definition television starts to become mainstream, 480p will indeed be old.

I didn't say that Blu-Ray will make people buy the Playstation 3. I merely said that it was another specification that was more advanced than the Wii. I never said that Blu-Ray will be the standard or take over or even win the war with HD-DVD. I said that the PS3 is going to include this forward-looking technology. Blu-Ray/HD-DVD players won't cost $1,000 and you can be sure of that because the Playstation 3 has Blu-Ray on board and won't cost more than $600.

Finally, the third generation dual shock may, might, and could possibly be better and more successful than the Wiimore--we simply don't know that yet. The lack of force-feedback is certainly going to hurt the Sony controler. But if we're going to take about ease of use/familiarity/learning curve, I have to give Sony a point (even though it's terrible from a marketing perspective) the Dualshock 3 is familiar to the millions of people that have played Playstation/PS2 in the past. So, it is theoretically possible to think that consumers will be drawn to what they know.

So there you go. Thanks for reading.

-make that Wiimote

Apparently you've never looked into buying a Blu-Ray player. I, however, being the ever-curious person I am, despite the fact that I cannot afford one, have looked at prices of Blu-Ray players, and there was not a single one that did not exceed $1,000, which is one of the main reasons why Sony will be losing money on their consoles, as consoles often do. Again, do some research before you assume things. Just because the PS3 is going to be selling for $600, doesn't mean that a typical Blu-Ray player will not sell for $1,000.

As far as the controller goes, you're right, we don't know yet. But what you are assuming as far as the learning curve goes, is that each and every single person that buys a next-gen console will have played a PS2, while Nintendo is trying to do the opposite, to attract new people that may have never touched a controller before, so what it's basically doing, is eliminating the learning curve, so that my mother, who has probably not touched a gaming console since they owned an Atari, would have just as easy a time learning it as I would, who while I'm no longer a hardcore gamer, I was when the current-gen consoles first came out, and I certainly was with my old N64.

And my apologies as far as the resolution goes, I misread, or read someone else's comment on your words, and mixed the two together, but that's not the point. Just because 480p will be low res graphics, does not mean that people won't buy it because of that. Thousands of people every day are still buying TVs that are not HDTV compatible. Most TVs you see in any store, including pure entertainment stores like Best Buy, are still non-HDTVs. You cannot assume that because the graphics are old, they will not be bought. because, well, they're cheap. And Americans LOVE cheap.

PS. If you don't believe me about the prices, go here: blu-ray.com that's the official Blu-Ray website, and if you look, the three prices that are mentioned are at least a thousand dollars

[crabs, please make your links active. Thanks. Comments Editor]

I just have a few things to say about the blog post. You need to make some changes, for starters the Wii supports 480p and 480i. You make it should like the Wii doesn't support 480p at all. Another correction would be Super Nintendo (controllers) have 6 buttons (not including start and select) X, A, B, Y, L and R. Sega also made a 6 button controller too. Another thing that caught my eye was your remark about the audio only being 2 channel, while this is partically true it is mostly not, the Wii will support Dolby Pro Logic 2 just as most GC games do. dolby.com Read that.....its the proof with just two RCA Audio cables Pro Logic 2 can create 5 channel sound experience and the last time I checked Eternal Darkness had some amazing sound because of this.

It's still two-channel audio and if you have the external hardware decoder, it can be made into multi-channel sound, but it is not true discreet audio. There are a few different technologies that try to turn stereo audio into "surround sound" but it's not the same as digital audio.

Here is my take.

I do not think either system will be a failure. The PS3 is an outstanding console that will put any graphics setup in any PC to shame. It is expensive but the hardcore gamers that spend thousands on high-end pc parts and HD TVs won't really care so long as they can get an EXTREME console that will feed their testosterone addiction.

Then there are those of us casual gamers that flat out can't afford it. To us the Wii offers A LOT for such a low price. I, for instance, am not going to get all worked up over 1080p resolution and 5.1 surround because I don't have that anyway. I have a decent 27" flat screen tv and it suits me just fine. Sure I wouldn't mind having a nicer setup but like a lot of us I just don't have the money.

Then there is the actual gameplay. I have to say that I have always had much more fun playing a simple game of mario kart with friends than the newest cutting-edge graphics FPS with the same old concept. What happens when we get to photo-realism?

When it comes right down to it the games are what determine a console's success. That's why the PS2 has ruled over all the past several years. It has the biggest game library and the most 3rd party support.

People aren't hyped up over the Wii just because of Nintendo's marketing strategy or because the concept is so revolutionary. We get excited for it because it looks FUN.

Honestly how can you expect your article to be taken seriously when you childishly attack a console by calling it names. Xbox 260... Great one... I'm a fan of all 3 consoles but this still disgusted me.

TYPO
I'm sure that will get fixed. It was not meant as an attack on anything.

This writer is obviously a Sony Fanboy. In order to have fun, does it really need to be $600? I give kudos to Nintendo for targeting ALL, not just the rich and the techie types. Not many have HD TVs or Hi-Tech stereo systems.

1 PS3 + 1 Game + Extra Controller = $700+

1 Wii + Extra controller + 1 game = $350+

1 Wii + Xbox360(core) = $550+

No sense bringing up the $500 version because it has no HDMI, reason for having an HD TV, right? So is the Blue-Ray worth forking over the extra $350+? If you really wanted to watch HD movies, woudn't you rather have the Wii and 360(with HD-DVD) than 1 PS3? Me, I'd rather have much more fun?

Great Graphics
Yeah very revolutionary...
So all ps3 is gonna be is pretty much the same games with better graphoics n all you bubbas out there r just gonna sit there n wow at the graphics while sony is laughing that they sold mroe than the wii but hold on.. sony just lost a whole ton of money cuz they wasted it all on pointless graphics n blu ray discs??
The wii is revolutionary. Have you ever seen a system like it? a wiimote, i mean that's definitely more innovative than the ps3's idea of a new gaming experience with better graphics. personally graphics don't really mean a thing, it's all about gameplay. and the wii is made for jsut that.

nice try defending the PS3. but you should try to defend the PS3 without putting down the wii. no one is really attacking the PS3 because it's in competition with wii, people attack PS3 cause it costs so much.

Hey kids, go back to school! I haven't seen such terrible spelling and grammar since...EVER. Sounds like a bunch of school children on a yellow short bus. Stay in school kids!

You failed to mention in your blog that Sony is going to take a HUGE LOSS. Nintendo also will take a loss but compared to Sony the loss is nothing. Check out how much Sony is losing out on. You also failed to mention that Nintendo's controller acts on a 3d axis. Sony's controller only is like tilt and tumble. I see it being like the power glove only useful for a few games. Nintendo is building their whole system around motion Sony isn't. Last of all but not least let me tell you how Nintendo's contoller works compared to Sony. The Wiimote can sense depth so it knows how far it is away from the screen. It also detect full rotation. Sony's controller does not dect depth or rotation. I mean full 3d 360 rotation. The ps3 controller is like the Eye toy cool but not that useful really. It will work good with flying games and car racing games though but anything else? I see it being more of a gimmick. Just my personal opinion thanks. Check out my blog and my links

the ps3 will be a great system, but cost could be a limiting factor for sony's success. as pointed out by others, you can buy a wii and a 360 for the price of a ps3.

basically the people that get a ps3 initially are going to be those that have money and want the latest and greatest in technology. if these people have the cash and really want the best of the best, do you think they'll only get one system? it's doubtful. i see most of these people getting a high end system (sony or microsoft) and a nintendo.

nintendo is in the best position. they have a unique product that people want to try and it will be the cheapest of the three.

well i really disaggree with this guys blogs... he clearly doesnt know wot he is talking about

Wii will prevail!!

"I'll take disagreement but I take offense to the "casual gamer" comment. I've been gaming seriously for many years."

This is an interesting comment coming from someone who believes that the Sega Master System came before the Famicom.

"Playstation 3, according to Gamespot will feature support for up to 1080p resolution and will boast built-in HDMI ports (yes portS)"

It has been known since E3 that:

1. The $500 (20GB) Playstation 3 has ZERO HDMI ports. This leaves the cheapest PS3 option with a maximum resolution of 1080i via component cables--a pretty hilarious situation when you consider that Sony has been bashing the Xbox 360 for months by claiming that 1080i is not "True HD." Additionally, those who choose the 20GB PS3 may find themselves screwed out of high definition Blu-Ray content:

"The lack of HDMI output in the 20 GB model could potentially cause problems with restricted output resolution on Blu-ray video. An ICT flag can be set by content producers, which forces non-HDCP video down to resolutions comparable to DVD-Video. SCEA president Kaz Hirai stated that it is "too early to speculate at this point" whether movie producers will activate the ICT feature."

wikipedia article

2. The $600 Playstation 3 has only ONE HDMI port. Sony cleverly slipped this under the radar by making no mention of it during their press conference, but it did not take long for the Internets to get ahold of official Sony press releases that revealed their little secrets:

ps3.ign.com article

Perhaps you will not see such a backlash if you check your facts (as many others here have suggested.)

As you will also find by reading the two above articles, the 20GB PS3 model lacks Wifi--a feature that Ken Kutaragi declared would be "standard" in the PS3:

youtube.com video

--and has no memory stick, SD, or Compact Flash card slots on it.

"Sony put a gyroscope into their new controller -- in effect this could be better than the Wii controller because no external hardware will be required by the Playstation 3."

It is physically impossible for the Playstation 3 controller to be better than the Wii controller because it lacks features that are in the Wii controller. The Wii controller offers two motion sensors--one in the nunchuck and one in the wand--as well as a system that allows you to pinpoint specific spots on your TV screen by pointing with the wand. The PS3 controller has just one motion sensor that does not allow you to point at the screen. It requires no external hardware because it is an inferior implementation.

"People in this country are willing to pay $6,000 for a gaming PC because they want the best possible graphics and sound technology. Price point is not going to make or break any video game console."

This makes no sense. The people who are willing to pay $6,000 for a gaming PC represent a minuscule portion of the gamer population, let alone the population as a whole. You cannot dismiss price simply because there are a few people here and there willing to empty their wallets to squeeze more frames per second out of their gaming rig.

I have yet to encounter more than 4-5 people who were willing to drop that much for video games, even in the fairly hardcore realm of horsepower-thirsty MMORPGs like EverQuest 2. My PC is fairly middle-of-the-road, and most of the people that I encounter have similar or inferior machines. The one person I ran into who had an excessively powerful (and expensive) machine bought it for work reasons, not gaming.

"The Playstation 3 has what gamers want, great graphics and great sound."

No, what gamers want is great gameplay. If great graphics and sound were vitally important, both the Xbox and the Gamecube would have decimated the technologically inferior PS2 rather than being outsold 4:1 by the Sony machine. Among the bestselling games of all time are titles like Grand Theft Auto 3 and Pokemon which, in general, have decent/poor graphics. If gamers care about graphics and audio so much, why do these graphically inferior games sell so much? Furthermore, why is the DS, which is technologically inferior to the PSP, currently beating the Hell out of Sony's handheld in both hardware and software sales?

errrr.............biggest peice of bollocks article ive ever read. and i stopped about 1/5 of the way down. jesus this guy should be fired. im a ps3 supporter but the ridiculous assumptions this guy makes are just off the wall!

I must say, sound like you dislike Nintendo. Sony has a better view. What more rip off of nintendo. a motion controller come that is cleary rip-off. where is the motion, what was that sony was suided billions for stealing and not paying for the technology.

Wii will be great, i cannot wait to play upcoming star wars light saber games and upcoming first party titles. i think clearly you are not a gamer, but someone who likes games. there is a reason why there was a 5 hour long too the wii. i have a 360 and i love it. but i would not say graphics are needed to have a great game. come on i play PS1 and Snes all the time. and i recall that the most sold console is still the NES.

It was hypocrits like you that said the same thing about the analog controller in the N64. Then aboutthe rumble pak.

Then they spoke against the DS.

And you don't know "what gamers want". You know what YOU want. I wan't more innovation than pretty graphics.

Considering I'm a poor college student with no where near the technology to harness the full potential of the PS3 or the XBox 360, all I really want is to have a fun game experience (which the Wii puts at the forefront of its appeal), and in the end graphics do not significantly add to my fun, I think I'm decided on sticking with Nintendo. Besides, I never fully trusted media giant Sony or software monger Microsoft. But that's just me. Corporate loyalty and all that jazz.

WII is the culmination of the lessons learned by Nintendo in the hand-held market. The main lesson is this: games which are both easy and fun to play can attract the non-gamer market. My guess is that one of the things that will sell the WII is the DS connection (about which information is just starting to emerge, but which I expect to be an important part of their marketing strategy), and that there will be a lot of synergy between their hand-held and console systems. A hint of this is the presence of a "Nintendog" in the WII SSB promo. I also expect to see a console-selling version of "Brain Games" for the WII.

The second lesson learned from the DS is that innovation (and again, fun) is more important than high-end tech specs - that's one of the reasons that the split-screen/touch-screen DS is dominating the PSP, which has the better specs.

Another lesson Nintendo learned - this one from the GC/PS2/XBox era - is that they're in the game business, not the entertainment center business. Sony and MS both want to own the living room; their consoles are positioned as home entertainment centers and are priced accordingly. Nintendo wants to be a part of the living room, not the owner, and will happily share the space with MS, Sony, or any other player that comes along. The WII is rigged out and priced accordingly, and - in what I consider Nintendo's greatest triumph at E3 - was plugged by BOTH Sony and MS as something everyone should buy ALONG WITH their consoles.

Incidentally, the WII also looks like a great party game machine for college students, etc. (who typically don't have HDTVs in their dorm rooms OR a lot of discretionary income), and titles like WII Sports or Warioware (games you can play with your girlfriends!) are made for exactly such a market. The pricing is just right here, as well.

Overall, I think Nintendo has come up with a great idea this time around, and a brilliant marketing strategy to go with it: position the WII as a cheap option for the young male market, a second affordable console for the hard-core Sony/MS market, a family-friendly machine for the parents with kids at home market, and a natural extension (at a reasonable price) for the huge DS market (and of course every member of the Nintendo loyalist segment will buy one; that's a given).

If they continue to play their cards as well as they have already, and if the WII proves to be as much fun as it looks, Nintendo will sell massively in Japan and Europe, and very well in the USA. Given a break or two (e.g., a hot game that sways the hard-core market to exercise that second consoole option) they certainly have the potential to have the best-selling console worldwide in 2007.

Oh, and did I mention the "Virtual Console" angle?

One more thing: Dolby Pro Logic II is seamless for a game experience. I think using digital 5.1 is interesting, but ultimately unnecessary. I'll hook up my Wii to my receiver and be happy with it.

Last I checked, games were about playing things.

I think you have "What gamers want" mixed up with "What movie viewers want". The PS3 is a trojan horse - Sony is simply trying to revive their brand name using the last successful brand they have left - their consumer electronics business has fallen behind Samsung.

The price has been publicly defended by Sony, and I believe they've called it "cheap".

Why is it that you say that some people will pay 500+ for a video card? First of all, this is a very small number of people. Second, this would probably get you access to a lot more games than buying a PS3. And finally, THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO THE MAINSTREAM. It's IRRELEVANT. If you have 10% (if that) of the population buying your console, you lose! The PS2 appealed to the mainstream. Sony has stated that the PS3 won't. It. Will. Fail.

The 500$ (which is quite a stab in the pocket) model doesn't even come with an HDMI port. It plays no Blu-Ray, it's a complete and uttter waste of money. And no one will be willing to buy the 600$ one.

This is the same thing that happened with DS vs. PSP - gaming will win out in the end, especially when one console is so much more expensive than the other.

People don't buy a system just for the visuals they buy it for the innovation of the games. The visuals are not the main part, it's gameplay. This is why Wii is going to win the console war.

If that's true, then explain the Dreamcast in the American market? It was innovative. It brought a new style of play that hadn't been seen before. It lost.

Thare is many people in this world. mostly will not pay $600 for a console. Only Wii Or 360.

some gamer will pay for $600. Not ps3 BUT Wii+360. More game there.

some gamer will pay for $600. Not ps3 BUT toshiba HD-dvd at $500 and some movie

ok some gamer+hi-end lover or sony fanboy will buy ps3. BUT how much of this group. poll any poll tell same truth. ps3 fail nuder Wii even under 360.

The Dreamcast's major "innovation" was that it had better graphics. Its other ideas were relatively minor.

The system itself came out at a time where innovation itself wasn't needed. Genres of 3D games were still being established at the time, the PSX was still releasing quite good games, and at this point people saw no need to purchase a new system based solely on graphics.

The comparison with here and the Wii is a poor one. At this point, we know absolutely what games to expect from the competitors, and people are becoming tired of it (a shrinking in the amount of gamers is a testament to that fact).

Other things have changed the landscape. Games are costing ridiculous amounts of money to both produce and sell, the games themselves are becoming boring, and the companies have little to show for any of it.

And the Wii is COMPLETELY different. E3 showed that it can be used for current games and genres. However, some other creative games are following suit, and as the companies get to use this hardware even more, these things will come out.

It's a better comparison with the DS, a system slated to fail because of lackluster graphics and a "gimmicky" touch screen. But guess what? It's actually doing pretty damn well and the games in terms of both traditional and those catered specifically for the system are actually incredibly good.

"The Dreamcast's major "innovation" was that it had better graphics. Its other ideas were relatively minor."

The Dreamcast also began the online console gaming scene, and the VMU concept could have really taken off if a company used it right. Most of its innovations were with the games themselves. No other company would have published Space Channel 5, Samba Di Amigo, Seaman, Ecco, and countless others. That's what the DC did best.

What I DO agree with is that Nintendo has an uphill battle. They need to get this controller and demos out to people, have them try it out. What's obvious is that people ARE interested; now it's time to get the rest of the public into it.

When MSNBC, Newsweek, and fricken Time magazine have entire articles dedicated to how the system is actually a ton of fun FOR EVERYONE, it catches the eyes of adults, it makes them want to buy it for their kids. Comparing something that costs $250 to something that costs $600 when both do generally the same thing (i.e. play videogames) makes that second thing look ridiculous, especially when the graphics aren't really THAT much better.

If Nintendo DOES fail, it'll have to do with the ignorance of the consumer, those who are excited for the PS3 when there's nothing they should be excited about minus MGS4 and FF13. But that's really about it.

And that's also assuming that people buy only one console. It's also perfectly possible that people end up dishing out the extra $200 to $250 for Nintendo's console just because it IS so different. And guess what? They're coming out with some awesome games that people actually do want to play, and their lineup seems incredibly strong.

"The Dreamcast also began the online console gaming scene, and the VMU concept could have really taken off if a company used it right. Most of its innovations were with the games themselves. No other company would have published Space Channel 5, Samba Di Amigo, Seaman, Ecco, and countless others. That's what the DC did best."

But I think that's where it suffered. The manner in which these games were advertised wasn't enough penetration, and there really wasn't much need for it.

It may have started out with the online gaming idea for the console and the VMU, but frankly it was limited by both technology and practicality.

At the time, my cousin had a Dreamcast, and I eventually "inherited" it and loved it (while I still had the cables). But the problem is that, while the games were fun, most of the time I just didn't know about them at all or didn't hear anything about them.

Nintendo doesn't have this problem. There's a reason why they're releasing Zelda and Metroid as launch games, and why Mario is going to be out within 6 months or so. They're giving people a reason to buy the system rather than on hype alone.

The DS sort of had this same launch problem, except they were saved by a FLOOD of very good games that came out 6 months after the system was released. The types of games were interspersed between traditional (Castlevania, Mario Kart, New Super Mario) and incredibly creative (Meteos, Nintendogs, Brain Age).

Innovation alone doesn't save a system. If you're able to implement old working genres that people are willing to pay for with new genres, it's a hell of a lot easier to swallow for the consumer.

It's funny but the Wii offers the first 3.1 speaker sound. It has a speaker in the remote for sound. I like my 5.1 on my tv set up and on my pc but that 3.1 sound is going to be sick because it come standard on the Wii. Resolutionw ise who cares... I'm not playing a fast video game on my hdtv... Plus too with the amount of hours you play your games the HDtv is more likly to burn out if it's a flat screen. Any one thats serious about games with a fast pace always looks for more speed rather than more detail. Design wise the graphic should be displayed in 720 anyway. no one cares about pixels if the art is good any way. A good arts needs polygons and shaders not resolution. I mean Imagine an RPG on your pc monitor at high res then take a step back... you'll get a head ache trying to read that...LOL

I'll buy a Wii for the visuals because in a way it will be just like an xbox360 if they include normal mapping. If you know graphics then you would understand that the xbox 360 and the Wii gpu will be similar. You will be able to push close to the same number of polys but you may looses out on some shaders...and resoultion, maybe becuase it's the same difference as buying a high end card vs a solid card. The high end is for those punk ars snipers that don't ever move.. high res and triple AA. I expect nintendo's chip when finished to be a well rounded chip thats not handi capped by high resolutions. This means any power they put into the wii gpu will be using that bandwidth for better things like more effects and possibly more geometry.

Oh yeah it looks like the PS3 chips are currently crippled speed wise and bandwith wise... There are many problems assoiciated with high res art and graphics... Until gears of war that detail was not needed and really I'm starting to wonder if that detail will just be a pretty coat of paint or the lighten rod that strike you.

Your arguments banks on tradition... If your are american then you are sadly out of touch.
American gamers love this stuff man... We've made movies since the 80's about doing this type of stuff... The theme parks and movies are built on emmersion... Nintendo just added fun to that.

State of the art wise...
If the Wii is underpowered to the point the art is really pugly-fied that would be a problem but thats not even a problem with the current GC. But think about it, 4 years from now after the Wii does do good... There's going to be alot of R&D cash up there for the next system... ATI will prob have dual core chips ready to go by then... Then you'll see the next gen in graphics... This is only the shader/normal map gen of graphics.

Secondly there is no art that currently needs the PS3 or the x360s resolutions... Most of the guys that need that resolution for there art are going to head over to the movie houses. As powerful as these systems are they are still no where near what they promise... because they are games first... So they should be fun right?

Fair enough on your opinion but you have missed the whole point in this generation of console wars, Nintendo (iwata) has stated on several occasions over the past months(a year) that Nintendo are not interested or taking part in a console war, so im afraid any kind of comparison becomes moot. Yes technically PS3 owns everything, so what.

Well, I read this article and about a 3rd of the comments (too many to read them all), and I thought that I would chime in with my thoughts.

I think the Wii will do well enough to survive, at the very least. Even if it doesn't move beyond 3rd place in the rankings of these 3 systems (though, I do think that is stands a reasonable chance of moving ahead).

I think PS3 is risky. I don't think its place at #1 is guaranteed yet.

Sure, nicer graphics and higher resolution are nice and optimal. But, at this point, the type of power that PS3 is trying to put out is rather unnecessary.

Most of these features are going to mean little unless you have an HDTV. Sure, they are rising in popularity, but I don't have one yet, and probably most of America doesn't either.

Plus, the graphics leap this time from the previous generation of systems isn't as big as previous transitions. Typcially in the past, the graphics have a really significant difference. This time around, (even with what I've seen of PS3) it doesn't seem like much of a leap.
Plus, in the past, typcially a new batch of systems meant new types of gameplay. Usually more buttons were added and/or an analog stick, etc. So, not only were the graphics new, but the gameplay itself was new as well.

PS3 has pretty much the same controller as the previous 2 PS systems. Not much of a leap there. the PS3's biggest thing going for it is blu-ray and resolution. But again, resolution means little to those without an HDTV... and I doubt people are gonna rush out and spend a ton of cash on one just to make out the stitching on a character's pants better. And with Blu-Ray, its a brand new format. It will be expensive, and movie-wise it will be a while before anyone jumps on. DVD was already established when it was put into PS2. It was a logical step. What Sony is doing now with PS3 is not as logical. If anything, it would be a logical step 5 or 6 years from now when PS4 comes out.


But let's get right down to facts here.*IF* PS3 does beat the competition, the main reason for it won't be the advanced graphics, the higher resolution, or any of that. It will be the fact that it is PLAYSTATION.

Face the facts. In the mid 90's PS1 dominated because Saturn was hard to program for AND was more expensive, and because N64 stuck with the cartridge format which was both costly for the games and more limited in how much info it could hold. So, naturally, PS dominated.

Then the resulting hype made PS2 a huge success. And since it came out a year before its major competitors, it got a jump on the market. And it has remained #1 ever since.

So, I truely believe that if PS3 dominates, it will be because of the popularity of the PLAYSTATION brand, and not its graphics and resolution.
Let's face the facts, if graphics and resolution were the end all - be all determining factor of what will make a system successful, then Xbox should have kicked the crap out of PS2. The resolution is noticably better (even on a normal TV), and the Xbox has consistently remained at the same price as the PS2 (with the recent exception of PS2's drop to $130).

So, the PS brand is the main factor now. However, the price of the system and the fact that its coming out a year after 360 could potentially be a negative. Xbox now has the same jump on the market that PS had the last time around. And, Sony's system will be priced even higher than the 360, giving it more of a disadvantage in that regard (while Xbox did not have that disadvantage the last time around).

But again, in the end, if PS3 dominates, I believe it will be because of the popularity of the brand more than anything. If you took the Wii and put the PS3 name on it, and you took the PS3 and put the Wii logo on it, then all of the sudden the system that we currently know as Wii (now under the PS3 name in this scenario) would get that same hype, regardless of the lesser graphics and odd new control style.

Hell, they could probably take pieces of dog crap, wrap them in tin-foil, slap a PS3 logo on them, charge $1,000 for each one, and you would still likely get at least a decent number of people camping out to buy one at launch. That's just how popular the PS brand is (which I don't necessarily consider a good thing).

It's not that I think PS3 will be a bad system, I just think it will be overly expensive, and I think that the specific features that are driving the price up that high are really only going to matter to a small amount of its overall audience. By the time those features become more standard, it will be time for the next system generation to start, at which point Nintendo and Microsoft can utilize those things.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out.

Just making a correction to something I just said, as it didn't sound quite right when I just read it again (the part in CAPS is the new part)...

But again, in the end, if PS3 dominates, I believe it will be because of the popularity of the brand more than anything. If you took the Wii and put the PS3 name on it, and you took the PS3 and put the Wii logo on it, then all of the sudden the system that we currently know as Wii (now under the PS3 name in this scenario) would get that same hype THAT PS3 IS CURRENTLY GETTING, regardless of the lesser graphics and odd new control style.

That dominance though is under a great threat.

Sony used to have some big names to add to their system. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, and Devil May Cry were originally all exclusively for the PSX/PS2.

But with the higher costs of production, and now this incredibly ridiculous price for a VIDEOGAME SYSTEM (which the PS3 actually is), I think developers are starting to either shy away from the system or reduce that exclusivity. GTA is going to the XBox 360 as well, and DMC might even go onto the Wii.

The only games that people are really looking forward to for the PS3 are FF13 and MGS4. Other games are being ported onto the 360.

So here's Sony's problem. If they were once a company that had ALL of these titles only for their system, AND that exclusivity is gone, AND the 360 is offering similar looking graphics (the difference here is minimal, if it is even possible to see), and the other system is being priced for $200 CHEAPER, then they face losing sales of their system.

We're already seeing that name take a hit, as this blog showed. Why he doesn't take this into account for saying that the Wii will fail just shows cracks in the argument.

If you want pretty things to look at... then invest in Sony and Microsoft. If you want a gaming system, buy a Wii. PS3 and 360 are and will be awesome systems, however it seems obvious to most people with actual gaming on their minds that the Wii will be a clear winner.

You seem to forget the basics of a good game, ... and that's gameplay. If graphics was so important why didn't the ps2 lose to xbox? I dont' have a HDTV , and out of my group of friends there's only 1 of us who has. Therefore this shows that the $$$ for the graphics/visual performance is not a something everyone can afford, it's a luxury. Lastly, I don't see how you can say that the motion sensoring in the ps3 controller is better then the wii sensoring system. Get your facts right, your a journalist aren't you ? or are you just a random blogger?

Wow, what a bunch of CRAP! I know this is your opinions, but, if you think that no one will acutally buy a Wii, then where were you during E3. People liked it. They didn't like the PS3 as much! We don't need HD games and Surround Sound to have fun. As long as I have my good games, which is what I'll get on the Wii and not the 360 and PS3, I'm happy. It would be nice to have that on the Wii but then, I wouldn't know what to get because, THEY'D ALL BE THE SAME!

You people are all ridiculous. Both sides.

P.S.
Go Wii

I really think the Wii vs. PS3 debate, such as it is, comes down to a bet on whether the HD/home theater crowd is going to become mainstream in this generation.

Right now, HDTV and digital home theater audio are still toys for the current version of yuppies as well as upper class middle aged people. Meanwhile, video game consoles are considerably more mass-market, though not as mass-market as television itself. They occupy different price points and cater to different, but overlapping, markets.

Nintendo's bet is that there isn't going to suddenly be one Christmas where everyone decides HD+HT is cheap enough for their living room, and has positioned their console to appeal to some of the people who have plain old TV's but haven't bothered with videogames because "they're a guy thing" or more accurately, "they're a