Nintendo will provide four to five times as many consoles for the Japanese launch than Sony was able to, the BBC has learned.
The Japanese video game maker said it will ship almost 400,000 units of its Wii console, compared to 100,000 for Sony's PlayStation 3.
However Nintendo has not said how many consoles it will make available in the US where the Wii debuts on 19 November.
Undoubtedly, that Japanese launch shipment will sell through instantaneously. And given that Nintendo will also be able to put more consoles on US shelves this week, which is highly likely, while launching in Europe at least three months before Sony, it is obvious now - if it had not been obvious before - that the Wii will sell a multitude of the PS3´s sales figures.
Learning the actual size of Nintendo´s launch shipment for the US will be the real indicator as to whether they can deliver production-wise, though. The target of four million consoles worlwide by the end of the year is an ambitious one.
Source: BBC
14 comments:
Go Nintendo!! Its funny how Nintendo werent the ones boasting about a Worldwide launch, yet there the ones launching in all places with minimal gap between them.
PS : Hey fal would u mind having a read of an article I wrote today?
traveller, cant your mumy do it? lol jokes my gf checks my english essays so i cant talk.
i just got away from a txt debate with a mate of mine whos gonna be waiting untill march 4 his ps3. he was cussing nintendo till i said its a shame we wotn know who wins till sony actually get a decent number of consoles on the shelves.
i got my Wii VIP card yesterday so ive been flashing that round and using my limited orthority for no real good.
The Bussinessweek Miyamoto interrview that sets the record straight :
http://www.businessweek.com/technol
ogy/content/nov2006/tc20061116_7505
80.htm
-IALS
Never heard someone overacting as cleverly as Peer Schneider from IGN in his latest blog entry:
Things couldn't be more different with Wii. I'm liking the games but I'm lukewarm on the console hardware itself. I'm sure I'm not the first to say that the actual machine from a raw power perspective is simply behind the times. I remember the day we first announced on IGN that it's basically GameCube 1.5 and were met with a wave of scoffing and some pretty nasty insults about our journalistic integrity. Well, if you haven't taken off your fanboy glasses over the last few months, take them off now and read this: the Wii hardware is weak.
Hardware Power
The lack of upgrades in the graphics and audio departments over GameCube is almost insulting considering half a decade has passed by. Zelda: Twilight Princess looks pretty because of the prowess of the development staff -- the hardware certainly isn't putting in the extra cycles to make things easier on the eyes. If you still believe that Wii is in any way comparable to Xbox 360 and PS3 when running in 480p mode, wake up now. There is no comparison. This may sound harsh, but I would be surprised if Wii will ever be able to duplicate the best-looking Xbox 1 games. Sure, for PS3 and 360 the resolution upgrade from standard def to HD is significant for those of us with the right displays, but Wii appears to lack the bells and whistles that made games like Chaos Theory shine on Xbox and titles like Riddick look more "bumpy."
Now, I know that it's impossible to judge a machine's power from the titles available at launch, but Nintendo didn't do much to future-proof Wii. No optical output or audio processor to ever give you more than 2-channel matrixed surround, no capabilities to output higher resolutions, no shader technology to produce more realistic grass, hair, or dirt textures. Wii is a GameCube+. Accept it and there's nothing to stand in the way of your enjoyment of the machine.
>When it comes to power i bet the Xbox360 and PS3 wont be able to keep up with the Wii in 640*480 due to it's architechture
Again, this is the point I'm trying to make. There are still lots of people like you who think that's the case. It isn't. There is no way Wii will ever do what 360 and PS3 will even in 640x480. If you read above, my main complaint isn't about clock speed -- it's about completely ignoring established graphics techniques that CAN make a difference. Stuff that should be hardwired into Wii -- even if the machine is outputting 640x480 visuals only.
Many of you keep on saying that the launch lineup of any console is never graphically as strong as the games three or four years in. I don't doubt that. I'm sure it'll be the same with Wii. But consider the difference between a PS2 launch game and a PSX one. Now consider the difference between an Xbox 360 launch game and an Xbox one. For one, Wii's launch games do not look better than GameCube games -- that's despite the similarities in architecture AND the added power. Whereas other consoles had developers struggling with new hardware, clearly the similarities between Wii and GameCube haven't made it easier for anyone to deliver graphically impressive games.
There were five years between GameCube and Wii. Surely five years of chip advancement should have left a mark on the system's outward power -- otherwise all we're paying for is a peripheral. In which case, why isn't it an attachment for Xbox 360 or PS3?
Also, please don't misconstrue my rant as dissatisfaction with Wii as a whole. I KNOW the machine is small and neat looking. The control is a breath of fresh air. Zelda is awesome. But I still feel there are many out there who WANT and WISH the machine's graphical capabilities to be stronger than they are -- and I want to be completely honest with you and let you know that you're dealing with a machine that's close to Xbox, and not a low-res PS3 or 360.
There's a difference between having to do everything yourself in software and having your console do the work for you.
Of course Wii can do bump-mapping. GameCube could, too. But you have to program everything from scratch and it comes at a definite cost. Adding loads of effects will impact the framerate and requires expert teams. That's why GameCube textures were usually flat, why only Star Fox Adventures served up that fancy grass and why Rogue Squadron games were some of the few to do self-shadowing on the machine.
As I mentioned in my write up, great developers can achieve great things as can be seen with Zelda, but let there be no doubt that Xbox 1 could've handled Twilight Princess just fine just like a capable developer could have cranked out a mighty pretty looking Rebel Strike on that machine (Xbox 1 had different limitations, Factor 5 really played to GameCube's strength with the title). Run Chaos Theory's light house level on a crisp CRT TV and you'll marvel at the lighting, texture depth and effects work. That could not be done on GameCube -- no matter which developer tackled it and I sincerely doubt Wii can do it. Just telling you my opinion, not intending to flame the console.
Super Mario Galaxy looks colorful and vibrant, but it's got simple geometry and some basic (but effective) texture effects. I didn't see anything that couldn't be done on Xbox, honestly.
To me, it boils down to this: Nintendo/ATI should not have skipped endowing its console with crucial graphics techniques that have clearly shown to improve visuals radically. Who knows, perhaps the GCN architecture Wii was built on didn't easily allow this -- but I think we can expect a bit more graphical oomph from a machine that came out five years after GameCube and four years after Xbox (especially considering it omits the DVD playback and hard drive functions of its competitors, which are already huge money savers for Nintendo).
You can call Activision and Ubisoft lazy for not spending many more months optimizing COD3 and Far Cry for Wii, or you could take the stance that Nintendo's new machine should've made it easier to make those games look better than GameCube when porting them over.
-------------------------------------------------
THE BEST READER RESPONSES :
"There were five years between GameCube and Wii. Surely five years of chip advancement should have left a mark on the system's outward power -- otherwise all we're paying for is a peripheral. In which case, why isn't it an attachment for Xbox 360 or PS3?"
You are paying for what you are always paying for. You are paying for the content. Nintendo think they have games you want to play, regardless of the graphics. They think that they can pull in other people with different games and less Whizz Bang graphics, which can be becoming intimidating to non gamers. It can look complicated, even when it isn't.
Why isn't it a 360/PS3 add on. Simply because neither MS or Sony have the innovation or balls, and because we both know Nintendo make a shed load more money if the Wii is a success. The question might be "Why isn't a GC periphal"? That's simply down to marketing - they needed a new push, a fresh image and to define a new vision.
The DS could have been more powerful than a PSP. It wasn't. It prints money, and the PSP dies with the Playstation 2 if it continues to do so badly in comparison. No one talks so much about the DS's lack of graphical clout, I note.
"Also, please don't misconstrue my rant as dissatisfaction with Wii as a whole. I KNOW the machine is small and neat looking. The control is a breath of fresh air. Zelda is awesome."
Then please, for the love of god stop going on about the graphics. Please critique the controls, the interface, the games, everything else, but negative based on graphics is pointless at this stage.
"But I still feel there are many out there who WANT and WISH the machine's graphical capabilities to be stronger than they are -- and I want to be completely honest with you and let you know that you're dealing with a machine that's close to Xbox, and not a low-res PS3 or 360."
The Xbox stuff is pushing it. The PS2 stayed close to Xbox for most of it's life. I don't believe a single game has been built for Wii using final tools from the ground up yet, and Resident Evil 4 and Twilight Princess were pulled off on a GC. And do remember some appalling Xbox 360 conversions last year (Gun, anyone?). There is still clearly a lot more to come. But you are 100% right, this isn't going to be near Xbox360 or PS3 technically. Thing is, though, that there are great looking NES games and there'll be appalling looking PS3 games.
So, for the love of god start a swear box for every time a Wii review says something along the lines of "It's obviously not as good looking as the Xbox 360 version" and start judging it on the artistic direction and whether or not looks nice. Would Wii Sports be really improved with bump mapping and realistic people and all the rest? It would move it totally away from what it was trying to do.
-------------------------------------------
I accept the fact that the Wii is not, in fact, as powerful as any other current-gen (the xbox 1 is now last-gen) hardware. I accept that the xbox's best is far beyond what we're doing now. I accept that you're saying that Zelda: TP graphics are gorgeous, but not because of the hardware.
I have no clue why you think TP and Wii Sports (or even Excite truck, really) are going to define the best of Wii graphics. You may as well have told me that RE 4 is never going to look good on the Gamecube due to hardware limitations. I don't know if they got around them, or milked every last drop out of the system, but I'm willing to argue that if you'll concede that RE:4 was as good in graphics as some xbox games, then the Wii, which is at LEAST 1.5 times stronger (no matter how you argue, really) than its predecessor, can pull off better.
TP is a gamecube port with gamecube graphics. Wii Sports is a pack-in. Everything else is also first-gen. Yes, the Wii may be barely as powerful as an xbox, but, uh... seriously? It's more powerful than the PS2, and I'd like you to tell me that FFXII doesn't have xbox-level graphics. Then I'll admit that you either know something I don't or know something I don't want to know.
And, about that part where you suggested Nintendo do what Sega's done (and look what became of it):
Nintendo's a beast from an older generation, and yes, it's getting long in the teeth. But for some reason I really don't like the idea of Zelda on any other company's console.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
keep reading through this debate and wondering what the point of it all really is. I respect your opinion Peer, but can't help but feel that you've made a jump with little to no supporting evidence. No offense, but the simple fact of the matter is the Gamecube and Xbox were essentially equal. Essentially. By that I mean that the average person looking at the games for both would not notice a difference. Each system had different strengths and so each system had good looking games in different ways. This debate is akin to the debate about whether the SNES or Genesis had better graphics--who cares. It's a stupid argument that doesn't mean anything.
In the end the Wii almost certainly shares the strengths and weaknesses of the Gamecube. In other words in some ways games for it WILL look better than Xbox games, and probably some aspects will never quite manage to top it. We could go back and forth till we're blue in the face arguing which strength leads to the best looking games--in the end, much like that worn Snes vs. Genesis debate, it doesn't really matter does it?
What we have is the first generation of games for a system. Just like every other first generation of games they have next to nothing to do with what the final generation will look like. Why try and pretend otherwise?
You ask at one point what difference it makes who designed the player and it stopped me and made me think. What difference does it make? And yet doesn't it make a difference? It seems to me that the console maker always cultivates a certain atmosphere for their system. Think back to Sega and Nintendo. Hell Sega is a great example--look how their games have fared since they stopped making consoles. The games just aren't the same. Why is this? I don't know, maybe they've just become spread too thin or maybe it's simply that they no longer have one unified home with a unified mission statement.
I think that's what it's all about for me. One place with one mission statement. The reason I want the Wii is that I know I can trust Nintendo to focus on the kind of games I like. I like all games, but I only really love the games that Nintendo (and Sega of old) makes. Nintendo is making a statement, and I don't think they could make that statement if they didn't have their own console. I believe in their statement. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do. This industry needs competition. Microsoft and Sony need someone who isn't just playing "Me too!!" in order for THEM to improve. That is why the day Nintendo stops making their own system is the day a lot of people will loose faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the pics MBUEL! It is clear that the Wii is capable of a lot more than the original xbox. I think people are mad because it's not HD so they are just inclined to insult it even more than necessary or say it is less capable than it really is.
I really think it's a matter of what developers are going to try to get away with. For the launch, I think a lot of developers will sneak past some mediocre efforts in the graphics dept. Look at "Far Cry", it looks like diahrhea. Even though we all know the Wii is more capable than the xbox, ubisoft still chose to use basically the same graphics as they did with the xbox version.
As more and more games begin to push the envelope on Wii, developers won't be able to sneak over these mediocre efforts. Unfortunately, we're going to have to sort through the bullshit for the first year. Gameplay>Graphics all the way, but come on developers, if your not even going to try to max out on a systems capabilities, then you don't deserve to be making games for it. I think ubisoft does a lot of this. I think they get away with what they can. Think about how mediocre the graphics on "Red Steel" looked before. I think they got so many bitches and moans, that they were scared the game wasn't going to sell, which caused them to have to fine tune the graphics. But then look at "Call of Duty" or "Call of Doody", another crap looking game from ubi, but to their credit and other launch titles, they have been working off gamecube hardware for the majority of the time. All in all, I think these launch titles are just scratching the surface of Wii's potential and it's up to the developers to do it. I think once we start getting games form Konami, Capcom, and Square, they will push the system and it will cause other developers to have to man-up!
Good post though, Peer! Your opinion is always much appreciated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don't think Wii will be able to do the same advanced lighting and texturing routines even in the hands of this same developer.
Excuse me? But Star Wars Rebel Strike for the GC is not only pushing far higher texture layers per pass than Chaos Theory, it pushes more polygons, features the advanced 'light scattering' technique, higher poly count (despite some normal AND bump mapping, it pushes upwards of 20million polys pers ec, Chaos Theory doesn't even come close) and a higher frame-rate, far more enemies on screen, more self-shadowing and all that jazz, it's a technical beast of a game. I STRONGLY disagree here. I have both games. And Rebel Strike is technically more impressive, no doubt about it.
Man, I so wish Factor 5 was working on something. The Wii benefits from a significantly higher fill-rate, texture resolution, texture layers, added GPU effects etc that would push it notceably higher than the XBox. The Xbox wasn't even able to outdo the GC, so why shouldn't the Wii surpass it? We'll see though, Mario Galaxy already is doing SOME stuff that is better than the GC and Xbox's best.
Peer talks as if Zelda was a Wii game when in reality it is a Gamecube game.
The truth is that we haven't really seen any games that take advantage of the Wii hardware.
Take for example Red Steel.
In a recent cvg.com interview the director himself admited that they didn't focus too much on getting the most out of the hardware.
He said they merely tweaked them a bit when they got the final hardware a couple of months ago(shortly after E3) (and reworked the character models I should add).
Red Steel had to meet the deadline.
And so is it with most other Wii launch games.
They only had a couple of months.
Excite Truck gives you a very very small glimbse of the added power of Wii.
I think when titles like MP3 and Galaxy start to emerge you will finally get a good idea of what Wii is capable of.
As you might have heard MP3 graphics are suppopsdly leaps and bounds improved over the E3 version which was no slouch either.
Sure it's unfortunate to not have one single title that indicates the power of Wii or at least surpasses the visuals of games like RE4 and Metroid Prime at launch but to jump to conclusions without the Wii being even out yet as Peer does, is just as if not more absurd I'm afraid to say.
People should be more patient.
-IALS
i dont find nintendos sales figures of wii by year end ambicious i find it CONSERVATIVE nintendo know they can hit 6 milion if not more by ps3 euro lournch WII IS GOING TO ROCK
wii carnt do next gen graphics
can the scared sony zealots leave amidiatly as if wii anit got advanced graphic stop getting suckered in to HYPE off course wii can do great graphics FOR FUCKS SAKE RED STEEL WAS DEVELOPED ON CUBE DEV KITS UP TO E3 2006 THEY ONLY HAD WII DEV KITS WEEKS AGO MORONS OR SONY ZEALOTS TALKING CRAP what really cracks me up is people who say wii carnt do this wii carnt do that WEN THE GAMECUBE WAS ALLREADY DOING IT DDDERRRRRRRR TALK ABOUT BULL SHIT
wii carnt bump mapp yet cube could
idiots
wii carnt normal map yet cube could
idiots
textures require the highspeed feed and bottleneck data path to deliver textures to screen
wii has 1tsram-r fastest possable ram avalable
it uses nec edram mim2 process thats big bandwidths think 10mb gpu catche on 360 but better
priority disc drive =highspeed data feeding loading for streaming of data like indirect texturing etc
16 stage 8 times layered texture engines
you anti wii graphics whore argument doesnt hold water HD is resolution and nothing else
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They should've sent a poet!
:)
-IALS
I dedicated a whole thread to the anonymous above.
Because I admire his words so much so much.
http://boards.ign.com/nintendo_wii_
lobby/b8270/131344785/p1/?17
-IALS
you need to take your happy pills.
you may get more than 100 hours on zelda TP with the talk of downloadable quests going on
910do you are the man!!!
-IALS
the DS took the gameboy legacy and has almost no challenger
This perception needs to die.
Look at the DS sales and all the 3+ million selling games. I seriously doubt Nintendogs, the Brain games, Animal Crossing, New Super Mario Brothers, and their ilk are selling primarily to the GameBoy crowd. Nintendo hedged a big bet that they could sell the DS games to people that never buy such games.
It worked.
readin what one person has put about the wiis power and "its nothing i havent seen on xbox" or another of my favorite lines "twilight princess looks pretty yes but thats down to programmers not the hardware and so on and so on" i kinda laughed and had funny looks from everyone else here in the library. the fact of the matter is if they can make a game run that good and look that good on an "underpowered" console without the need for all that extra processing power then why should they waste money by putting more power in? it only affects our pockets in the end. the wii does everything it needs to do and nothing more. games dont need to be realistic... thats why its a game. an artist impression. its what it is and what it should be seen as. not a competition to have the "shiniest car" or "realistic grass". but a playable enjoyable and hopefully rememberable game.
anyone for tetris? the game that pushed an "underpowered" handheld to the numberone spot in all time sales? think about it before you start calling people fanboys eh...
Post a Comment