Wii in September?

[D_o_S]

Nintendo has stated numerous times that its next generation video game machine will be less expensive than the competition. Now it appears that it might be on store shelves considerably earlier than many were expecting as well.

While Nintendo has not made any formal announcements about the launch date for the Wii, most of the industry has expected the machine to hit retail at approximately the same time as Sony's PlayStation 3 (which is set for November 17). Now, industry observers - and insiders - say they expect the system to be available in October, with late September a dark horse candidate.

Indeed, the company appears to be already manufacturing final retail units of the Wii, according to a June 21st analyst's note from P.J. McNealy of American Technology Research. That would give it a significant head start over Sony, which has yet to begin final manufacturing of the PlayStation 3. Microsoft's first Xbox 360 did not roll off the assembly line last year until 69 days before the on sale date of Nov. 22. (That late start in production is the root cause behind last holiday's shortages.)

"October is a reasonable timeframe," wrote McNealy.

Nintendo has downplayed any suggested dates. Other industry insiders, who asked not to be named, though, said they, too, are expecting a September or October launch for the Wii.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[gygabite]

Great news, you rescued my day! Super Smash Bros. Brawl is coming

 

[Jimmy 2004]

I've decided not to get any of these consoles, my PS2 is now sitting redundant because as soon as PCs become noticably faster again no one will want to hear about the 360 and PS3. Admittedly Nintendo have taken a different path of trying to make fun games rather than graphically complex games, so I'm most interested in that now.

 

[overcast]

Yeh so instead of spending from $250-$600 ONCE. You spend at least $600 on JUST a video card every year to keep up with changing technology.

I assure you PC gaming just isn't feasible for everyone.

I've decided not to get any of these consoles, my PS2 is now sitting redundant because as soon as PCs become noticably faster again no one will want to hear about the 360 and PS3. Admittedly Nintendo have taken a different path of trying to make fun games rather than graphically complex games, so I'm most interested in that now.

 

[newtekie1]

Yeh so instead of spending from $250-$600 ONCE. You spend at least $600 on JUST a video card every year to keep up with changing technology.

I assure you PC gaming just isn't feasible for everyone.

My 9700 Pro, which I paid $300 for a few weeks after release is still holding its own and playing all the newest games in my secondary rig. However, in that time I have had to buy 3 PS2s due to units failing and being out of warranty, and 2 xboxes for the same reason, my gamecube failed also but it wasn't worth replacing so I just sold the few games I had for it. In fact that last console that I had to only buy ONCE was my N64. I actually don't know anyone that hasn't had to buy a console twice in the last generation because of hardware failure.

However, a good gaming PC, made out of parts with lifetime warranties of course, will last much longer then a console and play the latest games for far longer. And hell with 7900GTs down in the $230 range, and $130 Dual Cores, and 1GB of RAM costing $65, you can put a very nice gaming system together for the same price as a Xbox or a PS3. The only console that remotely looks interesting is the Wii and only because of the cheap price, but I will have to wait and see if the games are worth spending $250 on a console.

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Yeh so instead of spending from $250-$600 ONCE. You spend at least $600 on JUST a video card every year to keep up with changing technology.

You don't have to. In a couple of years, PCs will have overtaken PS3s and Xboxes again and for a decent price you'll be able to buy a PC that will last for years and is better than one. Most people would never spend $600 on a graphics card.

 

[overcast]

Alright listen, you're not going to sit there and convince me that your 9700pro is playing any new game at ANY reasonable resolution with ANY effects added. I've had a 9800xt and an x1800xl, and now an x1900xtx.

Granted the game might actually load and be barely playable at the worst possible image quality, wtf is the point. Because the 9800pro and even the x1800xl for that matter were NOT playing anything even close to recent games.

My 9700 Pro, which I paid $300 for a few weeks after release is still holding its own and playing all the newest games in my secondary rig. However, in that time I have had to buy 3 PS2s due to units failing and being out of warranty, and 2 xboxes for the same reason, my gamecube failed also but it wasn't worth replacing so I just sold the few games I had for it. In fact that last console that I had to only buy ONCE was my N64. I actually don't know anyone that hasn't had to buy a console twice in the last generation because of hardware failure.

However, a good gaming PC, made out of parts with lifetime warranties of course, will last much longer then a console and play the latest games for far longer. And hell with 7900GTs down in the $230 range, and $130 Dual Cores, and 1GB of RAM costing $65, you can put a very nice gaming system together for the same price as a Xbox or a PS3. The only console that remotely looks interesting is the Wii and only because of the cheap price, but I will have to wait and see if the games are worth spending $250 on a console.

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Alright listen, you're not going to sit there and convince me that your 9700pro is playing any new game at ANY reasonable resolution with ANY effects added. I've had a 9800xt and an x1800xl, and now an x1900xtx.

Granted the game might actually load and be barely playable at the worst possible image quality, wtf is the point. Because the 9800pro and even the x1800xl for that matter were NOT playing anything even close to recent games.

Your talking rubbish to put it bluntly. An X1800XL can certainly play most modern games at above medium settings, if not high. And I bet that his 9700 can play games with much better graphics than the PS2. I reckon a 9800pro is actually quite close to playing recent games as well.

 

[raymanxp]

I'd still say PC games will always play a huge roll on the video game industry. Why? Few simple reasons. The Ati vs. Nvidia "grahpics race". Consoles do not "upgrade", while PCs constantly refreshes after several months (really depending on wat parts; cpu,gpu,etc). Developers try to look for the edge and therefore, create the most advance engine they can, and license it.
It's the prolific way that PC industry work to keep pushing new products for consumers to purchase.
Now, i would like to add this is very simple and narrow view. I could say more, but that involves really delving deep into the tech areas and social expectations/demands etc..

For more relevant stuff related to Wii. I'm 'sold' on it definately. Why? Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Solid Snake! That and the fact it's goin to be the most affordable system, and Nintendo sells great FUN games. Interestingly enuf, my # of GC games almost = my # of PS2 games. Nintendo has great 1st party but lack 3rd party support. PS2 has tremendous 1st party and 3rd party support, but their games r very mainstream.

As for when Wii will be released, i feel it's goin to be late oct, early nov. Just becuase EB Game's new release schedule is that way. BUT THAT"S SUBJECT TO CHANGE!

 

[newtekie1]

Alright listen, you're not going to sit there and convince me that your 9700pro is playing any new game at ANY reasonable resolution with ANY effects added. I've had a 9800xt and an x1800xl, and now an x1900xtx.

Granted the game might actually load and be barely playable at the worst possible image quality, wtf is the point. Because the 9800pro and even the x1800xl for that matter were NOT playing anything even close to recent games.

My 9700 Pro plays Oblivion just fine at the defualt MEDIUM settings @ 1024x768 which is what oblivion auto detected for the card. And the game looks just fine and is certainly playable and enjoyable. Just as enjoyable as any PS2 game, and looks just as good too.

You obviosly seem to not know what you are talking about since you seem to think an x1800XL can't play modern games. What exactly does that mean to you? A 1600x1200 resolution with everything maxed out in the game? Is that your measure for reasonable resolution with effets added? Because that certainly isn't reasonable.

 

[overcast]

My 9700 Pro plays Oblivion just fine at the defualt MEDIUM settings @ 1024x768 which is what oblivion auto detected for the card. And the game looks just fine and is certainly playable and enjoyable. Just as enjoyable as any PS2 game, and looks just as good too.

You obviosly seem to not know what you are talking about since you seem to think an x1800XL can't play modern games. What exactly does that mean to you? A 1600x1200 resolution with everything maxed out in the game? Is that your measure for reasonable resolution with effets added? Because that certainly isn't reasonable.

At least 1280 with every setting on HIGH, 4x AA, 16x HQ AF, AAA and HOPEFULLY HDR. If the card can not do that, then the game isn't being played the way it was meant to be seen.

I've owned all the cards, I've played games with all of them. Don't tell me what is or isn't. End of story. Medium settings at 1024 and Oblivion looks like shit, you are missing half the game. While you may think it's fine, I don't spend $50 on a new game to see only half of it by limiting myself. K?

And for the record PS2 looks like garbage, so I don't exactly know what you're comparing.

 

[newtekie1]

At least 1280 with every setting on HIGH, 4x AA, 16x HQ AF, AAA and HOPEFULLY HDR. If the card can not do that, then the game isn't being played the way it was meant to be seen.

I've owned all the cards, I've played games with all of them. Don't tell me what is or isn't. End of story. Medium settings at 1024 and Oblivion looks like shit, you are missing half the game. While you may think it's fine, I don't spend $50 on a new game to see only half of it by limiting myself. K?

And for the record PS2 looks like garbage, so I don't exactly know what you're comparing.

Your insane. OOOOOOwwww....I get to see grass 40 feet in front of my character instead of 20...man if I couldn't see that I would be missing half of the game. Completely stupid.

You compared paying $250-300 once to buyinga $600 graphics card every year. You are completely insane or stupid, one of the two.

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Your insane. OOOOOOwwww....I get to see grass 40 feet in front of my character instead of 20...man if I couldn't see that I would be missing half of the game. Completely stupid.

You compared paying $250-300 once to buyinga $600 graphics card every year. You are completely insane or stupid, one of the two.

I agree, you're crazy if you need your games to run that high quality. To be honest, there is very little difference in quality as you go up the settings, they're just pushing out little extras here and there. Personally, I'm much more interested in the game itself than what it looks like, but if you only want to play games because they look good, that's up to you of course.

 

[newtekie1]

Besides that if all you are looking for is game to look good then a console will look like shit compared to PC games after a year or two, so his original statement about spending less money on a console is complete crap.

If graphics are so important then I guess it must kill him to play console games at 1280x720 with worse looking graphics then PCs.

It makes no sense first he talks about how buying a console once is better then buying a PC once, but then says graphics are important. What about the fact that console graphics look like shit after a few years in their life.

It has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

 

[overcast]

I never once stated that buying a console is better. I agree they are crap. However, to the average consumer that will not , and can not afford to upgrade their expensive computer hardware. Consoles are THEIR ONLY CHOICE. It is convenient, cost effective and guaranteed to be around for the next 4-5 years.

So let's resort to personal attacks, because that really shows your own maturity and intelligence level.

 

[newtekie1]

You are complete ignorant, and that is very obvious. This isn't the first time your ignorance has been obvious and it won't be the last. You talk about others resorting to personal attacks, but you are the one that is trying to say we are all stupid if you think we will believe the complete BS you keep posting.

As already stated, consoles are not the average gamers only choice. Computer hardware is not very expensive. I showed you that already. You can build a $600 computer today and it would last as long as any console or probably longer. Just because you seem to think that any PC that can't play a game at ridiculously high settings is outdated and has to be upgraded or the game is unplayable doesn't mean the average gamer thinks that. Like I said my 4 year old 9700 Pro still plays the newest games, no upgrades required on that computer at all in the past 4 years since I built it, and the games look just as good as their console counterparts that were also bought around the same time.