Hehe nah, i mean new units and games in stores like Wal-Mart and BestBuy, not used consoles and games in special gameshops. Question is, why dont they still produce and sell Atari 2600 as a amazing and fun console today?Originally Posted by Arcade Antics
Because you're shopping in the wrong stores.I can find 75% of any Atari 2600 titles in lots of stores (on and offline) and they're dirt cheap to boot.
You can't go buy a new 2600 for the same reason you can't go buy a new black and white tv or 8 track player, technology advances. It always has and always will. It certainly doesn't mean the new technology is better than the old (though in most cases it can, but look at how many people refuse to buy CD's over vinyl...). I won't argue for a minute that if the new technology is used well, it can be a better experience than the old stuff. But just because you have newer technology does not inherently make a product better. Look at how many truly pretty games have been released lately that are crap to play. Nice graphics is just a shine on a product. If the game sucks to play, it doesn't matter how it looks. Take a game like Rez. It's a blast to play even though it has somewhat minimalistic graphics compared to what the PS2 can do. Proof that a good game does not have to utilize every single bit of graphics power available. Hell, the Dreamcast has better graphics than the PS2 in many cases (Soul Calibur for example), yet the PS2 outsold the Dreamcast by a huge factor. Why??? More games that were fun to play and that appealed to a larger audience.
Given the long life of the 2600, it did compete with other systems that were graphically superior. For example, the Colecovision and if you want to get really technical, Atari's own 5200 and 7800. Why do these 3 systems, all of which are vastly superior to the 2600, have options to play 2600 games? Because they represent what the consumer wanted. Games that are fun to play and the 2600 has a huge library of fun games. Simple as that.
My argument is that Nintendo is poised to bring gameplay back into the spotlight over the number of polygons that a chipset can render and that's a good thing. I would gladly give up half of the graphic power that either the 360 or PS3 has to have a truly fun game to play (and yes, I do have all 3 hooked up to a nice HDTV, so I know what they look like). Too many people spend all of their time 'bench racing' their consoles and comparing specs. The proof is in which console has the games that are the most fun to play as ultimately, fun to play is what it's all about.
Check out www.videogameconsolelibrary.com for all of your console review needs!
Ummm... they do kinda, Flashback consoles sell out alot
Just so people are aware, system developers do not make money on their systems, its the software and the licensing that goes with it, the controllers and the memory cards. Nintendo is practically giving away Nintendo Wii systems and are certainly taking a big loss on the console directly, but at that price, they will have them in far more homes than Sony PS3 will be in ... at least initially. Then, the Nintendo software machine of Mario this and that, etc ... will pump out title after title. More homes with their systems will mean more of their games sold and Nintendo created software makes up at least 1/3 of all their sales. Same goes for controllers and memory cards.
My other take is that people are excited about the Wii. I am a high school teacher and I have heard people talking about owning or wanting a Wii at probably a 5-to-1 ratio. A very similar ratio is among my recently graduated college friends. It seems that the very important 15-25 age bracket is really sold on the Wii and that will ultimately carry a product much further than actual performance.
The next key will certainly be quality game availability. For example, I never bought an N64 because I was a fan of RPGs and their was an overwhelming lack of availability. Instead I had a Saturn and then when it died, I went to a PSX.
My overall opinion is, great start, now get the software going and be sure to address the diversity of all gamers.
Completed 60+ trades here on digital press.
You do realize that you can go buy a Flashback unit or even a plug and play joystick with Atari 2600 games at Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc right?
Check out www.videogameconsolelibrary.com for all of your console review needs!
"Better" is such a broad word so it needs to be defined in this case. The reason why people stop to produce old stuff and make newer things is simple, people want new things. It is as simple as that.
You're looking beyond the big picture here. No one says that a game must have incredible gfx to be fun. There are tons of examples on this like CS and WoW, 2 of the most popular games in the world and the gfx is outdated years ago. Still, people make more and more amazing games (gfx wise) like Crysis, Unreal 3 and Gears of War. Again, people want new things.
Yes, and are you aware of that you can still buy newly produced multicarts for Famicom in Asia and Brazil + you have all those NES on-a-chip "consoles" + they release old collections of i.e Atari and Sega games for newer consoles? This doesnt have anything to do with my question, my question is; why do we move on if the old things are so incredible good? Why do we need new things?
Last edited by jajaja; 01-01-2007 at 07:14 PM.
Exactly, and Nintendo decided to go a different way with the technology they made a completley new idea for gaming instead of updating graphics and the controller slightly like every other console.
Wii also has a great list of games in under a month and a half
Rayman, I wouldnt wanna be playing the PS2 version of this, it wouldn't be close to as much fun.
Metal Slug, people complain about the controls but it is just as good as the PS2 version IMO.
Trauma Center, a Wii exclusive is great and dosn't need amazing graphics to show its a great game.
Elebits, another great game I doubt we will ever see on another one of the current gen systems(excluding handhelds)
Zelda, of course everyone has heard about this
and still many more, PS3 has actually been out a few days longer than Wii and there still arent many very good games for it.
Plus the backward compatabilty I have no reports of non-working GCN games yet.
I have a XBox, PS2, GCN and Wii. I plan on getting a 360 before the end of the year, I want to see what problems arise with the PS3 first and see if the price drops/better games come out and choose my system later this year.
I think the only thing that will hurt Wii sales will be the lack of HD movie playback or movie playback at all, every system is going to have its slow slups that hurt them but the other 2 have the playback features Wii dosn't.
I think Wii, PS3 and 360 will last at least 5 years each and all be very close races, but I guess we will wait and see.
Can you explain why you would say that? I'm guessing you are going to say something about how the Game Boy was really the domain of 10 year olds and casual gamers. I believe the Wii is aiming at the same market.
I think that comparing something like the PS3 to the Game Boy means nothing. But the Wii is a pretty fair comparison due to the circumstances. If you don't agree, please explain.
Manci Games - For the Retro Gamers of the World (RIP)
Home of Manci Games Retrogaming Magazine
www.mancigames.com
Why do we need HDTV, Compact Discs, DVDs, when CRT tv's, cassette, and VHS are already there?
It was a retorical question. People say that gfx doesnt mean anything, therefor i ask them "why do they make new stuff if the old is so great?". But your question also shows the same as meBack in the days VHS was great and our TV worked out just fine. So why did someone suddently come and makes HDTVs and DVDs when the old things were working just fine.
I think of Nintendo the way I see it.. a crowbar. The crowbar that opens the very tight closed cases of the elusive casual gamer.
Every adult over 30 I have showed Wii Sports too from early 30's to late 50's has either fallen in love or has rediscovered their love of gaming they used to have.
The biggest challenge for Nintendo is going to be just getting that controller in that crowd and giving them 15 minutes to play it. The good thing is that many people are including mom, dad and the grandparents in by some coaxing and then realizing that the system is for everyone.
I have to think that if they can keep bringing out great experiences for everyone their market will only get bigger.
It is my opinion that the "hardcore" gamer is a dying breed, the teens and college folks that spend wayyy to time to play their games with no exercise, dating or real person interaction. It is only a matter of time when they grow up and realize that going out with the opposite sex is a good and fun thing.
I don't really think that group is going to experience any growth explosion; since the allure of the "pretty shiny" graphics with the same old derivative game play will continue to put off the preteens as we see more and more today.
It is really nice to see gamers wise up and not accept something like the PSP with its promise of graphics and flash and no real substance. I can remember when the DS and PSP were being debated and how people said Nintendo is crazy for the DS and there is no way it will survive against the mighty PSP... well we all know how well that worked out.. poor PSP.
Someone else has already mentioned that most people here are tainted by their views on games. They believe their view translates to the public at large, and that is just not true.
Go show your Mom, girlfriend or wife Zelda on the Wii, and then go show her Kameo on the 360. I can guarantee you that 90% of you will get a <shoulder shrug> as a response. The literally DO NOT see a difference. Sure, if you press them, they'll acknowledge that Kameo "looks a little better" (they aren't blind), but in the end, they'll just give you a shrug and say something like, "I don't really see the difference here. They both look pretty good."
THAT is the market Nintendo is aiming at. Not you, or me, or anyone else posting on this board. Sure, they want us to buy the games too (hence, the existence of Zelda on Wii), but they are trying to expand the market. If they got your Mom, your wife, and your sister, but lost you along the way...do you think they would care? They are making more money off of those three than they did with you alone.
Manci Games - For the Retro Gamers of the World (RIP)
Home of Manci Games Retrogaming Magazine
www.mancigames.com
Umm, actually, the original post of this thread insinuates that the Wii is going to have a shorter lifespan than the 360/PS3 because it's graphics are not as good. So yes, in the context of this thread, that's what we are discussing.
Now, do I think that a game has to have good graphics to be good, hell no. If a game is good, it's good no matter what it looks like. I've spent as much time on the older games that have crappy graphics as I have modern games that do have good graphics. Probably more actually given that I'm old enough to have had a 2600 when it was new. I've played pretty much every US console available from the Odyssey on. For me, gameplay is king and looks are secondary. Always have been and always will. I think that anybody that places graphics over gameplay is going to miss out on a lot of great games.
Now, yes you are correct. There are a lot of good games coming out that are visually stunning and that's great! But to say that the Wii is going to die an early death because it can't render a game that looks like Gears of War is asinine. Truth is, the Wii is aimed at a different audience than the 360/PS3 and I think it's going to succeed wildly because of it.
Do we need new things? No. Do we *want* new things? Yes! Technology advances because people want to try new things. Ask any engineer, it's a creative process and creative people are going to drive technology into newer and more powerful places. It's a natural progression. Why are there cars avaiable that can do 160+ now? Because it makes people feel better about them (a sad commentary on our society, but that's for another argument).
But who's to say that if we didn't have the cell processor and 60gb hard drives in consoles that the games would be crap? The games created are going to adapt to the technology available. If they can manage to make a fun game and still have enough processor power to make it look pretty, then there is no excuse for not doing it unless the design of the game calls for it. But the core arguement here, that a lesser powered console is going to die sooner than a more powerful console is inherently flawed. If the games on the Wii are good, it's going to have a full and happy life. If the games are no fun to play, people won't buy them and it will die early regardless of how good they look.
Check out www.videogameconsolelibrary.com for all of your console review needs!
Wow. I guess you don't read news articles too much, lol.
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/wii/wii...ost-221736.php
They estimate that Nintendo is walking away with $40 profit in the clear on each system, and that includes the cost of actually bringing it to market. I actually think it's closer to $60 profit per system, but the bottom line is that Nintendo is making boatloads full of money selling the Wii system. They are making an even greater killing on the Wii-mote. I read that it costs Nintendo about $4.85 to put a Wii-mote on stores shelves, but it sells for $39.99. Nintendo is making money hand over fist with the Wii right now, but this really doesn't have anything to do with this argument.
You cannot compare them because they are completely different markets. Handhelds are based solely around the ability to pick, play and put down after 5-10 minutes. They're designed as a time killer for lectures and long bus rides.
Consoles are designed around a deeper at home experience where you'll be able to sit down play and relax. They're a compltely different beast with a completely different purpose. Because of this it is not fair to cite any handheld as proof of how the console market will go nor is it fair to beleive it will work the other way.
That's why the gameboy was on top for so long. Companies figured players wanted experiences like they had at home mbut what they actually wanted was something they could play that didn't die after 2 hours of use.
Comparing portable gaming to home gaming is comparing mango's to tangerines. Making these types of comparisons sounds good at first, but the bottom line is that the home console market and the handheld market are two distintive beasts altogether and have very little to do with each other.
Anthony does bring up one good point - what will the shelf life of the Wii be? Since it is technically a slightly upgraded gamecube?
I think Nintendo released the Wii as an experiment in game controls and interactivity with video games. Remember - they kept saying this will not be a console to compete with the 360 and PS3...
I play tons of handhelds for hours sitting on my bed or couch!
Comparing Wii to the other current gen consoles makes no since if you beleive comparing gameboy makes no since.
Wii is a new idea totally different and geared toward a different audince I think most gamers will want a Wii and another system.
My friend is waiting to find out what does the best emulation and then he is getting what can have a huge hardrive and emulate anything(like xbox1) and buying a Wii no matter what.
But Manci there's still the issue of whether or not either one of them would buy either system and i don't making them pick. The key to success is to make people who would never buy a game buy the console.
Everyone seems to have a story about someone being impressed about WiiSports, but are they excited about anything else? I've tried numerous games from Red Steel to Trauma Center to Super Monkey Ball and none of them produce that same gleeful effect as Wii Sports. There in lies Nintendo's greatest problem.
My girlfriends mom has been into ddr and thats is it.
We recently showed her Twilight Princess, Truama Center and Wii sports and she is in love.
My mom also got back into gaming from Trauma Center on the DS and really wants to play the newest Wii version.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote