How the hell is the Wii the winner of the Console War?

What sales? Is that it? What about the masses of shovelware, least AAA exclusives, complete shit online, lack of real quality hardcore games, FRIEND CODES!!!??? I'm not saying the Wii is necessarily bad, but this is how it goes.

1. 360

2. PS3

3. Wii

Overall the 360 has more and better games, and the greatest online service, highest attachment rate, etc. The Wii can't handle many multiplats like Fallout, Bioshock, Ass Creed, etc. All it really wins in are sales. And it's games that are the most important, then online, then the sales. Even the PS3 is better even though being dead last in sales, it still has better games and the online isn't as bad.

Sick of people saying this, it's retarded.

It's won in terms of sales and the fact that it managed to grab the large casual audience before the 360 or ps3.

Well yes wii is 80%shovelware but remember most people arent hardcore gamers, think about all the parents buying it for their little kids. You really shouldnt worry about it much though most people think of the console war as ps3 vs 360. Oh and when the wii has one of those shining moments like zelda and mario i think those games whoop anything else on any ohter system

ghost23 wrote:

It's won in terms of sales and the fact that it managed to grab the large casual audience before the 360 or ps3.

Again sales is that the only reason? Microsoft would probably be winning too if the 360 launched at half the price of the other 2.

BlackStigma wrote:

ghost23 wrote:

It's won in terms of sales and the fact that it managed to grab the large casual audience before the 360 or ps3.

Again sales is that the only reason? Microsoft would probably be winning too if the 360 launched at half the price of the other 2.

Well sales is basically the only reason that the Wii has won. It doesn't have any good games that appeal to the typical gamer, the online sucks, you cant even play dvds.

well we can't change any thing,but that does sux

If the console wars is determined by sales, then yeah. The Wii is spanking the competition.

Yeah well..... it's one of the reasons I don't think sales make a difference in the console war. What matters is: games, online service/features, accessibility (stuff like the interface, load times, installs, etc) and reliability to a certain extent. I mean, 360 isn't a lot worse just for having a pretty bad failure rate. By reliability I mean mainly stuff like, crashing on every game, stuff falling apart all the time or just any issues/errors that may interfere with the gaming mainly.

Soo let's look at it this way:

GAMES:
1.Xbox 360
2.Ps3
3.Wii

ONLINE:
1.Xbox 360
2.Ps3
3.Wii

ACCESSIBILITY:
1.Xbox 360
2.Ps3
3.Wii

RELIABILITY:
1.Wii
2.Ps3
3.Xbox 360

demondragondude wrote:

Yeah well..... it's one of the reasons I don't think sales make a difference in the console war. What matters is: games, online service/features, accessibility (stuff like the interface, load times, installs, etc) and reliability to a certain extent. I mean, 360 isn't a lot worse just for having a pretty bad failure rate. By reliability I mean mainly stuff like, crashing on every game, stuff falling apart all the time or just any issues/errors that may interfere with the gaming mainly.

Soo let's look at it this way:

GAMES:
1.Xbox 360
2.Ps3
3.Wii

ONLINE:
1.Xbox 360
2.Ps3
3.Wii

ACCESSIBILITY:
1.Xbox 360
2.Ps3
3.Wii

RELIABILITY:
1.Wii
2.Ps3
3.Xbox 360

ps3 won nothing besides hardware

If I was a top Sony Exec, I would of released the PS3 in 2005 without a blu ray drive at a lower price. Then in the future, offer a Blu-ray drive add on like xbox did with HDDVD.

The Wii won this generation and it has some great timeless classics, but it's off in it's own world. It not on the same level as the Xbxo 360 and the PS3. There are games for the HD consoles that are truly impossible on the Wii due to it's hardware limitations.

But it did do what no other console has done before. Sell games to soccer moms and senior citizens. That's quite an accomplishment. Too bad it was at the expense of hardcore games.

Iron_Patriot wrote:

If I was a top Sony Exec, I would of released the PS3 in 2005 without a blu ray drive at a lower price. Then in the future, offer a Blu-ray drive add on like xbox did with HDDVD.

Sony isn't just a game company. They needed Blu-Ray to succed more than the PS3. They have a monopoly on HD movie discs. Any publisher that wants to release a movie on HD has to buy Blu-Ray discs from Sony.

That's bigger than the PS3.

But did their plan really work? I mean, they're still hemorrhaging money each month.

Iron_Patriot wrote:

If I was a top Sony Exec, I would of released the PS3 in 2005 without a blu ray drive at a lower price. Then in the future, offer a Blu-ray drive add on like xbox did with HDDVD.

If i was Microsoft i would've put the HDDVD player IN the 360. Sure it would've pro longed the HD war and would've been a a little bit pricier. But HDDVD is faster than blue ray and the with compression there wouldn't be such a big "space" issue.

Sure Blue Ray won the HD war, but it's far from winning the Game Formatting war.

BlackStigma wrote:

Iron_Patriot wrote:

If I was a top Sony Exec, I would of released the PS3 in 2005 without a blu ray drive at a lower price. Then in the future, offer a Blu-ray drive add on like xbox did with HDDVD.

If i was Microsoft i would've put the HDDVD player IN the 360. Sure it would've pro longed the HD war and would've been a a little bit pricier. But HDDVD is faster than blue ray and the with compression there wouldn't be such a big "space" issue.

Sure Blue Ray won the HD war, but it's far from winning the Game Formatting war.

I don't know, man. I think Blu-ray and the cell processor is what really screwed over Sony. If Microsoft had released the 360 at $600 with HDDVD built in, they might have met a similar fate. If the PS3 had been released at $400, at the same time as the 360, they might have been able to ride the success of the PS2. I mean, I was ready to buy a PS3 on day one until I saw the $600 price tag. I didn't end up getting one until 2 years after the thing came out. Plus, if it it had a normal processor it would of been a lot easier for developers to make games for it.

Iron_Patriot wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Iron_Patriot wrote:

If I was a top Sony Exec, I would of released the PS3 in 2005 without a blu ray drive at a lower price. Then in the future, offer a Blu-ray drive add on like xbox did with HDDVD.

If i was Microsoft i would've put the HDDVD player IN the 360. Sure it would've pro longed the HD war and would've been a a little bit pricier. But HDDVD is faster than blue ray and the with compression there wouldn't be such a big "space" issue.

Sure Blue Ray won the HD war, but it's far from winning the Game Formatting war.

I don't know, man. I think Blu-ray and the cell processor is what really screwed over Sony. If Microsoft had released the 360 at $600 with HDDVD built in, they might have met a similar fate. If the PS3 had been released at $400, at the same time as the 360, they might have been able to ride the success of the PS2. I mean, I was ready to buy a PS3 on day one until I saw the $600 price tag. I didn't end up getting one until 2 years after the thing came out. Plus, if it it had a normal processor it would of been a lot easier for developers to make games for it.

HD DVD players where much cheaper than Blu-Ray players. MS could have included an HD drive and still only risen the price by $50. It would have cut into Sony's Blu-Ray sales and we might have actually seen HD DVD win the HD format war.

But MS doesn't care about formats, Sony does.

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

Iron_Patriot wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Iron_Patriot wrote:

If I was a top Sony Exec, I would of released the PS3 in 2005 without a blu ray drive at a lower price. Then in the future, offer a Blu-ray drive add on like xbox did with HDDVD.

If i was Microsoft i would've put the HDDVD player IN the 360. Sure it would've pro longed the HD war and would've been a a little bit pricier. But HDDVD is faster than blue ray and the with compression there wouldn't be such a big "space" issue.

Sure Blue Ray won the HD war, but it's far from winning the Game Formatting war.

I don't know, man. I think Blu-ray and the cell processor is what really screwed over Sony. If Microsoft had released the 360 at $600 with HDDVD built in, they might have met a similar fate. If the PS3 had been released at $400, at the same time as the 360, they might have been able to ride the success of the PS2. I mean, I was ready to buy a PS3 on day one until I saw the $600 price tag. I didn't end up getting one until 2 years after the thing came out. Plus, if it it had a normal processor it would of been a lot easier for developers to make games for it.

HD DVD players where much cheaper than Blu-Ray players. MS could have included an HD drive and still only risen the price by $50. It would have cut into Sony's Blu-Ray sales and we might have actually seen HD DVD win the HD format war.

But MS doesn't care about formats, Sony does.

What i wanna know is what Microsoft will come out with next gen, but i'm thinking that they will try making powerful hardware and software like at a PC level so then the format won't really matter. Well as long as it's not slow anyways.

Wii is very successful because it invited parents who hated gaming and people who wanted to lose weight to it's marketplace. Let's not forget the kids and little babies that also find this console very eye catching and fun (which ofcourse isn't a bad thing).

And also the Wii brings a very good invitation for a big audience that really enjoy playing their games with another human in the same room on a lot of multiplayer games like "Wii Sports" & "Wii Sports Resort"

The launch price and the lack of games in the first 2 years is what screwed up Sony's PS3. Releasing the PS3 for $599 1yr after the launch of X-Box 360 was really a bad move for Sony but it is quite understandable for them letting the PS3's price be that high back then because of the Blu-ray players.

Static103 wrote:

Wii is very successful because it invited parents who hated gaming and people who wanted to lose weight to it's marketplace. Let's not forget the kids and little babies that also find this console very eye catching and fun (which ofcourse isn't a bad thing).

And also the Wii brings a very good invitation for a big audience that really enjoy playing their games with another human in the same room on a lot of multiplayer games like "Wii Sports" & "Wii Sports Resort"

The launch price and the lack of games in the first 2 years is what screwed up Sony's PS3. Releasing the PS3 for $599 1yr after the launch of X-Box 360 was really a bad move for Sony but it is quite understandable for them letting the PS3's price be that high back then because of the Blu-ray players.

I 100% agree you Static. They appealed to mostly non-gamers.

It's based only upon price.

The Wii attracted the youngsters and baby boomers this generation, that's who they aimed for anyway.

BlackStigma wrote:

ghost23 wrote:

It's won in terms of sales and the fact that it managed to grab the large casual audience before the 360 or ps3.

Again sales is that the only reason? Microsoft would probably be winning too if the 360 launched at half the price of the other 2.

But it didnt thats the key and sales is really the main thing it mostly about which company gets the most money out of there system Nintendo wins by far at 70 mil.

This is Shokio

Power and features alone isn't enough to win. The Wii has won due to innovation and pure, raw appeal. And the fact that it's a Nintendo console doesn't hurt it's chances either, and by that I mean you're 100% guaranteed to have First-Party AAA titles (Metroid, Mario, Zelda, etc.) The Wii innovates gameplay and interaction with games, something features and online simply can't do (to a certain extent)

It's ashame the Wii didn't incorporate the motion plus technology from the get go. If it had true 1:1 motion control from day one, maybe their games wouldn't all be a waggle fest right now.

The Wii is winning in sales, it is selling more than the 360 and PS3. However I think the 360 won this generation. Because it has the best line up of games.

The only reason why the Wii is winning this generation is because of its appeal to casual games / non gamers....

For example my Dad...