Syphon Filter
Member
Sales= the winner.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why do people keep saying that "Wii won last gen?"
- Thread starter Comandr
- Start date
Wii Sports was bundled in PAL land too.
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
Really? I assume your lumping the PS3 in with that aswell because those platforms were were host to all the awesome 3rd party games of last gen.
Wel, if you doing it that way, won't it overcomplicate things? Don't PS3 also had their bundled games? Like Uncharted, Last Of Us and even GTA5?
If u cut down those number from Wii, won't we also need to cut down the number from PS3 and 360 too to get the perfect number here?
SirUltimos
Member
Other interesting numbers!
The Wii had a total of 103 games that sold over one million copies.
The Xbox 360 had a total of 56 games that sold over one million copies.
the Playstation 3 had a total of 27 games that sold over one million copies.
The Wii had a total of 103 games that sold over one million copies.
The Xbox 360 had a total of 56 games that sold over one million copies.
the Playstation 3 had a total of 27 games that sold over one million copies.
I'm surprised at how drawn out this thread has become.
It's clear that the confusion here stems from the consoles lineup rather than its sales.
It seems to have made more money and sold more units than the competition meaning that it won the only measurable metric on which these things could be judged.
What's unprecedented in this situation, however, is how quickly it "retired" from the market. Up until last generation, the "winning" console also tended to last longer than the competition. The NES, SNES, PSX, and PS2 all continued to deliver software and sales even following the release of next-generation machines. They all had very lengthy life spans.
I'm sure that plays some role in why people perceive it as a "loser". It did remarkably well in a very short period of time.
It's clear that the confusion here stems from the consoles lineup rather than its sales.
It seems to have made more money and sold more units than the competition meaning that it won the only measurable metric on which these things could be judged.
What's unprecedented in this situation, however, is how quickly it "retired" from the market. Up until last generation, the "winning" console also tended to last longer than the competition. The NES, SNES, PSX, and PS2 all continued to deliver software and sales even following the release of next-generation machines. They all had very lengthy life spans.
I'm sure that plays some role in why people perceive it as a "loser". It did remarkably well in a very short period of time.
If that is indeed the case then, man, the cash-ins were worse than I thought. The lead consoles always receives a lot of shovelware but the Wii took it to new heights, it seems.
Why would I lump the PS3 in with it? I stated a few pages back it was my favorite console last gen (in fact it's still my most used console, and has prevalence over my Wii U in the living room). From what I recall I played the following 360 exclusives: The Last Remnant, Infinite Undiscovery, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey. After '08 I got rid of my 360 due to funds and while there's probably been a few games I would've enjoyed, I honestly can't think of a single one not also available on PS3.
Edit: And no. PS360 were not host to all awesome 3rd party games last gen. Not only do I have many many awesome 3rd party games on the Wii, they're almost all exclusive, which certainly appeals to me more than the interchangeable library of PS360.
Comandr
Member
Apparently there was already an answer. Yes. It is included.
So by this logic, is GBA also a loser? Especially coming from GB which lasted over one decade.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
I don't think it's a stretch to say that by the only objective metrics the Wii won, it not only had the most hardware sales but it also had the most software sales and if I had statistics for the peripherals I'm sure those sold a lot more than the PS3 and 360.
Oh I didn't realize that. So only Japan had to buy it? Or Asia as a whole? Either way, that wouldn't sit right with me haha.
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
I preferred the PS3 aswell (possibly my fave of all time) but the 360 was host to all those huge amount of third party games that the Wii lacked. The wealth of those games easily eclipses the Wii's exclusives imo.
Edit: to put it simply, would you honestly choose the Wii's total library over that of one of the PS3 or 360? If so you must really like waggle controls, JRPG's and 2D platformers.
ChiefofCitadelSecurity
Member
Most units, most profits, and bigger impact especially with the casuals. It was like the iPhone before the iPhone. When that shit was big it was big.
He never said it was a loser? Just pointed out an interesting trend-bucking fact.
Dark-Cloudz
Member
Revisionist history.
Projecting one's personal taste of which console had the best games onto the entire gamer landscape is always a bad idea, because everyone's tastes are going to be different so there's really no point. That's why more objective things like sales and profit matter in "discussions" like these.
If one wants to pretend that the Wii didn't win the console war in every way imaginable, go ahead. But trying to imply that "real gamers know that Nintendo lost" is quite literally a non-argument and frankly is kinda sad too. Just let it go, and maybe focus on how bad the Wii U is doing or something. That's much more objective and grounded in reality.
not_so_special
Banned
i love nintendo fans in this threads 
Comandr
Member
Well my stipulation here is that almost EVERY Wii came with a game, sometimes two. But only a small number of the other consoles came with any games. The few bundles sprinkled over the course of the generation wouldn't make a significant impact. It definitely would impact, but not to the dramatic degree that it would for Wii.
Shin Johnpv
Member
Attach rate only tells one part of it. While the Wii has an attach rate of right around 9 it sold 100 million units, which is close to 900 million units of software. The 360 is around what 80 million units sold and around an attach rate of 10, so that is 800 million units of software sold.
Attach rate is IMHO worthless with out also looking at number of Hardware units sold, and then getting total number of software units sold.
There were a shit ton of bundles. There was almost always a constant 360 or PS3 bundle, specially the 360 with 2 game bundles.
NavyPharaoh
Member
There it is. Another sign wii won is both ps3 & xbox tried their hand in motion control. Both xbox and sony wouldve loved to trade sales numbers with the Wii. But where Nintendo won a battle, that battle is costing them the war. The wii u is great, but because of the negative stigma attached to it, it'll be lucky to reach GC numbers
That you don't need a 360 to play those games makes that argument a bit weak IMO. I never bought a 360 because I owned a PS3 (and Wii), so to me, 360 was just a PS3 without PS3 exclusives, a controller I didn't like and no free online. Not a better console than my Wii, which has a mostly exclusive library of stuff I really loved.
GBA was a pretty different situation, though, don't you think?
Between it's release and the release of the DS there really wasn't much in the way of real competition (a few contenders in Japan tried, I suppose). GBA was all by itself most of the time and it was awesome. By 2004 it really didn't seem to be losing much momentum and I'm sure they could have kept it going longer but, by that point, a competitor in the form of PSP was looming so I'm sure that incentivised them to release a new machine.
Plus, Iwata took control of Nintendo during the lifetime of GBA which no doubt changed that systems trajectory in some way.
The GBA was well supported from beginning to end while the Wii seemed to fizzle out and lose support in the end despite massive support early on.
Again, I never said the Wii was the loser (it's not). Simply noted that its situation was different from previous "winning" consoles which may contribute to the perception of being a loser.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
If only there was a true gamer sales chart. Everyone knows that real gamers only care about Halo and Uncharted.
The whole thing should make people realise that there is no such thing as a winner. You buy, you play and you enjoy. If you buy a system and you don't enjoy the games it has BUT it made the most money and it sold the most...is it really a winner? To You?
Likewise if a system has a library of games that you absolutely adore and you have a heck of a time with it BUT it sold like crap is it really a loser?
Financially and in PAL charts or Media Create or NPD discussions sure but it's meaningless to the consumer. A console that sells more should be better for the consumer. It'll have more support right? That doesn't always hold true either. 3DS and Wii will attest to that.
If you want to talk about the system that sold the most or made the most money then it is a valid point. Or if you're discussing if an idea like the Wii Remote was popular and successful. But beyond that it's useless. Vita will always be a champion to some and Wii U is my champion. Some look back to the Dreamcast with love and affection and others long for the era of GameCube to return. Just have fun and enjoy your system.
Likewise if a system has a library of games that you absolutely adore and you have a heck of a time with it BUT it sold like crap is it really a loser?
Financially and in PAL charts or Media Create or NPD discussions sure but it's meaningless to the consumer. A console that sells more should be better for the consumer. It'll have more support right? That doesn't always hold true either. 3DS and Wii will attest to that.
If you want to talk about the system that sold the most or made the most money then it is a valid point. Or if you're discussing if an idea like the Wii Remote was popular and successful. But beyond that it's useless. Vita will always be a champion to some and Wii U is my champion. Some look back to the Dreamcast with love and affection and others long for the era of GameCube to return. Just have fun and enjoy your system.
SirUltimos
Member
Let's take off, say, 100 million software sales from the Wii to account for bundled software. I feel that's a fair number since it would every copy of Wii sports sold (including those that were not bundled) as well as about 20 million additional units to account for other bundled titles.
That brings the Wii's attach rate to 7.85 games per console, down roughly half a game per console. That would mean the total is still 0.4 units above that of the PS3 and still significantly below what I believe to be the 360's attach rate.
That brings the Wii's attach rate to 7.85 games per console, down roughly half a game per console. That would mean the total is still 0.4 units above that of the PS3 and still significantly below what I believe to be the 360's attach rate.
3DS doesn't have the most support compared to what other portable?
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
True but were directly comparing libraries here, if given the choice what would you choose?
The answer to that is that "winner" is not decided by my personal preference. I think Avatar was a crappy movie, but I cannot reasonably argue that it was a failure. It was an enormous success, full stop.
If you personally feel Wii was secretly a bad system in your heart, great, super, fine. I don't care. This is the value of objective analysis; it is true whether you like it or not.
Yes. I'll repeat for emphasis: I do not care about your personal opinion. I don't even care much about my own opinion. If you want to go have a conversation with some where they say "I really liked the Wii," and you say "I didn't," have fun, I guess, but it strikes me as completely meaningless.
You said you don't like platformers and JRPGs. Well, they're my favorite two genres and criminally underrepresented on the 360. I don't particularly like fps games, or racing games, or sport games, or fighting games... so honestly what am I missing on the 360 that isn't on the PS3? I've probably bought less than 5 fps games in the last generation (Resistance 1-3, Goldeneye 007 off the top of my head), 2 racing games (Burnout: Paradise City, Trackmania Wii), and 1 fighting game (Smash) so I can't say I'm fans of those genres outside a few outliers.
Gone way off topic now though, sorry. Not that staying on topic on this threads pointless "discussion" has any merit any more.
You know, in that sense, I'm kind of glad phones have taken over that market as it has forced Nintendo to focus more on the types of games I love.actually that would be the DS
Wii. More games I like, free online, GCN backwards compatibility, Classic Controller. One of my favorite consoles ever, easily, as someone who has owned every single Nintendo and Sony system (excluding WiiU, PS4 and Vita... for now).
Hyperactivity
Banned
For it's best games, you weren't going to be wildly flailing your arns around. No, you moved it slightly about a millitmeter, and that's it. Even in SS, things like controlling the bird and sword would be better done not through flailing, but methodical small and limited wrist movements. Flailing got you nowhere, and there's not a single game I HAD to get off my couch for.
Plus, if you're doing long term gaming for hours, the Wiimote+Nunchuk setup was really comfortable. Separated controllers really reduce stress on your hands.
umm fair enough. Hard to compete with the daily flow of new games on phones.
jim-jam bongs
Member
It's pretty clear that if you care about the generation winner as a historical discussion point, rather than a validation of your own preferences, the Wii was it.
You just prove my point and what I was saying. It's all subjective. A financially successful Product like the Wii is a winner but so is the Wii U but for different reasons and for different people. It's what you feel to be true. That's my point.
You just prove my point and what I was saying. It's all subjective. A financially successful Product like the Wii is a winner but so is the Wii U but for different reasons and for different people. It's what you feel to be true. That's my point.
Hahaha, but he didn't agree with you
You just prove my point and what I was saying. It's all subjective. A financially successful Product like the Wii is a winner but so is the Wii U but for different reasons and for different people. It's what you feel to be true. That's my point.
I think his point is the only subjectivity present in this thread is the people arguing that Wii didn't win. There's a pretty clear objective winner.
Edit: The self delusion of people in this thread is pretty god damned amazing. I wonder if in 25 years people will look at the generations of console "winners" and be like "NES won, SNES won, PSX won, PS2 won, Wii kind of but didn't really win because I mean it's games just weren't for hardcore gamers and the controller was this long stick thing and even though it smashed the competition in hardware and software and critical reception it wasn't the same, x won, x won" etc.
Muppet of a Man
Member
I'm not sure the exact numbers but I know that the 360 wiped the floor of both the Wii and the PS3.
You just prove my point and what I was saying. It's all subjective. A financially successful Product like the Wii is a winner but so is the Wii U but for different reasons and for different people. It's what you feel to be true. That's my point.
It isn't all subjective. Objectively, there is a system that sold more than others. Objectively, there is a system that sold more software than others. Objectively, some corporations made more money than others and had higher margins.
These are how we define success. The subjective preferences are fine but are irrelevant to objective analysis, which his what we're trying to do here.
