Nintendo Stomps the Competition with November Sales

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

Last month was huge for video game sales, and the data from NPD Group proves it. November is always a good month for sales of any kind, and the reason is obvious. Christmas and other common religious celebrations occur in December, and people attempt to get their shopping done in good time (as if that ever happens!). Of course, Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales help, so it goes without saying that it's a good time to be a retailer.

For the most part though, where video games were concerned, it was Nintendo who was dominating. Last month, the company sold 2.04 million Wii consoles, which is 208% of what the company sold during the same month last year. That's truly staggering, especially when you consider the console has been out since November 2006! Either people are breaking a lot of these things, or there's really that many more hopping on the bandwagon.

If you think that's where Nintendo's streak ends, think again. During the same month, they sold 1.57 million copies of their Nintendo DS handheld, and surely, countless games. For two consoles that don't offer near as much power as their competitors, it goes to show that it's the games that sell these things, not the graphics. Although their numbers pale in comparison to Nintendo's, both Microsoft and Sony had good months too, with 836,000 Xbox 360's sold, as well as 378,000 PlayStation 3's.

"The video games industry continues to set a blistering sales pace, overall, with total month revenues 10% higher than last November, even with 7 less days of post-Thanksgiving shopping this year [over last]," said NPD analyst Anita Frazier. "With $16B realized for the year so far through November, the industry is still on pace to achieve total year revenues of $22B in the U.S."

Source: Shacknews
​

 

[Kougar]

I just read one article that stated the Xbox 360's ATI R500 graphics chip is the equivalent to an x800 XT crossed with the features of an x1800. Trying to compare one of those to an HD 4870 just seems incredibly crazy... So really if you think about it, any console's GPU isn't really all that impressive.

 

[Merlin]

And I Was surprised to see Guitar Hero take off so well.
Just about every house I go to has one of these stringless guitar shaped game controllers, laying around in the basement game room.

 

[madstork91]

I just read one article that stated the Xbox 360's ATI R500 graphics chip is the equivalent to an x800 XT crossed with the features of an x1800. Trying to compare one of those to an HD 4870 just seems incredibly crazy... So really if you think about it, any console's GPU isn't really all that impressive.

There was actually a big todo about the actual capability of the wii GPU and what it was actually capable ~ a year + or more ago. (you'd be hard pressed to find it now, im sure)

The summation of it was, "We might not be able to go toe to toe graphically, but what they have atm is still something we can handle, because they are hardly maxing anything out."

Granted that was over a year ago, and games have been going crazy with their texture map sizes lately... so the wii might be in trouble for w/e the next blockbuster game is, and crysis for sure...

But the actual capabilities of the wii... they are no where near being "tapped"

 

[Rob Williams]

But the actual capabilities of the wii... they are no where near being "tapped"

I'm not sure what you mean. Every-single console manufacturer has said that in the past about their own console, so how long does it take before we see it being pushed as hard as it can be? The Wii has been out for over two years, and the graphics on even new games are nowhere close to the other consoles. But this console isn't about graphics... it's about games found nowhere else.

 

[Kougar]

Not to pick on you Madstork, but I gotta agree with Rob on this one. The Wii uses almost an identical GPU as in the GameCube. It's a surprisingly small specced chip, no official details exist but supposedly it is a 243MHz clocked chip with ~30MB of various memory onboard. And the CPU is just an overclocked Gamecube prcoessor. I am sure the Wii is being "tapped" to it's fullest.

 

[madstork91]

Not to pick on you Madstork, but I gotta agree with Rob on this one. The Wii uses almost an identical GPU as in the GameCube. It's a surprisingly small specced chip, no official details exist but supposedly it is a 243MHz clocked chip with ~30MB of various memory onboard. And the CPU is just an over clocked Gamecube processor. I am sure the Wii is being "tapped" to it's fullest.

... madstork91. No caps. +91

and in reply:
http://revoeyes.blogspot.com/2007/07/wii-has-more-power-than-you-think.html
http://wii.ign.com/articles/733/733464p7.html

http://www.destructoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/COD3SUCKAGE.jpg
This is a link showing how they completely ignore the Wii's capability, and is modified by a 360fag. You will notice such a comment as "where's my shadow?", which is kinda interesting... since the wii can handle shadows... and higher textures than what is on that tank.... they simply didn't put them on there.

one dig poster summed it up saying
"Seems like a really unfair "comparison shot" to me, and I'm not even a Wii Zealot.
--------
1) They're different tanks, even a different type.

2) They're in different environments. Is there SUPPOSED to be grass? Because I'm pretty sure the Wii could have handled it if there was.

3) Different weather & lighting conditions

4) They're different angels, the Wii's tank is much closer, and you can see more of it.

Submitter's right on one thing though, it does look like it's "from a different" game. Not from differences in graphic capabilities, but from crafty selecting by a dumb ass fanboy."

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/947/947233/img_4801430.html
A screen shot of medal of honor for the wii... you will notice that the games doesn't have the artifacts from the other picture.

An argument online is that the wii technically has more power than an xbox... (of the non 360 kind) and so far the only "responses" to that argument use ported psp games for it.

Developers are most notably creating games for use on both the psp and wii... (same textures with ultimately the same quality) Because it is easier to build to the psp specs and shove shit on the wii gaming community. Why can they get away with this? Because people do not expect much from the graphics of the wii...

http://o.aolcdn.com/gd-media/games/the-legend-of-zelda-twilight-princess/wii/1.jpg
I now leave you with this... a shot of twilight princess... A game that has been stated is "not the most the wii is capable of" and this shot of it isnt even good... Just something form the first page of google-ing "twilight princess" and hitting the images tab.

 

[Rob Williams]

I don't think it can be denied that the Wii is far less powerful than the other two consoles. Nintendo did this on purpose. They wanted to offer cool game mechanics while making the console affordable. That's my theory on why the graphics are nowhere near the other consoles, and for the most part... that's fine.

Gameplay > Graphics

As for the Twilight Princess screenshot, I hope that's not supposed to change our minds, because it sure as hell doesn't alter mine. I played most of that game (never bothered finishing it, though I'm about 80% in), and I can say that nowhere in the game does it come close to anything the Xbox or PS3 can handle. I didn't mind that too much, since I loved Ocarina of Time a great deal, but that's not the argument here.

That aside, if you really think the GPU is more capable than we are led to believe, don't you think the console would support 720p, along with the other two consoles? No, it instead offers 480p, which looks like crap on almost every HDTV I've seen it on (although most of the Wii's audience wouldn't even know the difference). I'd be pleased if I could have those graphics at 720p, but we only get them at 480p... hard to be excited about those capabilities.

It might be the that the developers are half-assing the graphics, but even with the Wii at it's full potential, I don't think it would be very appealing. The entire console turns me off in the worst way possible as it is, even though I try to like it.

 

[Kougar]

Well I would agree with the IGN link that stated the Wii is more powerful than the original Xbox... but definitely less powerful than the 360 or PS3. As Rob said 480p is an incredibly low resolution for the GPU to have to handle. This alone causes plenty of Aliasing issues on the Wii, as evidenced by that last screenshot, and is why so much of the scene and other Wii games involve rigid, straight lines wherever possible.

There have been some nice looking games for the Wii, but for whatever reason they don't hold a candle to either other console and look dated compared to any current PC game. I don't claim to have any of the consoles though.

 

[madstork91]

There have been some nice looking games for the Wii, but for whatever reason they don't hold a candle to either other console and look dated compared to any current PC game.

The PS3 and 360 would have a tough time competing toe to toe with a PC. Period.

So... Modified quote:

There have been some nice looking games for the Wii, but for whatever reason they don't hold a candle to either [of the] other console

Any by that, I am going to assume you mean the 360 and the ps3.

The mains reason that the wii gets "straight line games" is mentioned in my other post. They simply do not spend time developing games for the wii graphically. Period.

The reason is that they are either changing existing code and models to also go on the wii from things that have even less graphical power (re psp, gamecube, and ps2 (which still has new games for it)), or the developers simply do not care so much about graphics, because, "hey, its the wii! our games are "unique" not beautiful"

This alone causes plenty of Aliasing issues on the Wii, as evidenced by that last screenshot, and is why so much of the scene and other Wii games involve rigid, straight lines wherever possible.

um... Iunno if you know this, but the twilight princess was also for the gamcube, and thus the in game models, and textures were limited by the gamecube capabilities. The shaders and "bloom" were enhanced and use more in the wii version, as well as having the wii interface for gameplay.

This actually means that most of the twilight princess stuff you see for the wii would have been a -lot- better, but like a -lot- of games for the wii it was nerfed by another systems max specs.

Edit: In addition
http://wii.ign.com/articles/913/913996p1.html

 

[Rob Williams]

The PS3 and 360 would have a tough time competing toe to toe with a PC. Period.

Hmm... who said the consoles were comparable to the PC? No one would dispute the fact that the PC has the better graphics of them all, and that will always be the way.

The mains reason that the wii gets "straight line games" is mentioned in my other post. They simply do not spend time developing games for the wii graphically. Period.

Twilight Princess is a Nintendo-developed game. They'd care more about pushing the limits of the console than anyone, but guess what? That game is still underwhelming.

um... Iunno if you know this, but the twilight princess was also for the gamcube, and thus the in game models, and textures were limited by the gamecube capabilities.

There have been enough chances for huge improvement with the graphics... Nintendo themselves have released multiple flagship series on the Wii, and neither of them are graphically impressive. I've said it before, but the console suffers from more than one issue, and the main one is the fact that it supports a maximum of 480p. That's almost 1/3 the resolution of the other consoles:

720x480 (480p) = 345,600 pixels
1280x720 (720p) = 921,600 pixels
1920x1080 (1080p) = 2,073,600 pixels

Even if the Wii had the graphical capabilities of the PC, the games would look like crap given the lackluster resolution. Go hop on a PC and max out the graphics to any game, and run it at a resolution of 720x480 (or similar) and see how it looks. It's not going to be pretty.

I'm trying to figure out why you are such a spokesman for the Wii, though. Is it because you don't own any of the other consoles or something? I can tell you one thing... I have owned all three consoles since launch, and I haven't even touched the Wii since this past January, and have two games half-beaten. Nothing that the Wii offers appeals to me, and as I've said, that's fine. It's definitely not targetted toward's the same audience that grew up with the 8-bit NES.

You can continue to shoot along these URLs that offer proof to your claims, but they're not going to do any good. I think my points laid out here are enough to explain why the Wii never has a chance of matching another console in terms of raw graphics. By the time they "max" out the console, the graphics will still be nowhere near the 360 or PS3, and plus, we'll probably have follow-ups to all three consoles anyway.

 

[madstork91]

The argument I am making, isnt that the wii CAN do as well graphically.

But that it CAN handle most of the crap the 360 gets, as well as some of what the ps3 gets. It just never gets the chance to.

 

[Kougar]

Aye, but I don't think it can.

The Wii's GPU is almost half the clockspeed, and has just 64MB of GDDR3 RAM linked to it. 88MB in total counting onboard and external memory. The Xbox 360 has 512mb of external RAM for the GPU plus slightly more onchip memory. The Wii's Hollywood chip has to be really efficient, but it doesn't have anywhere near the video buffer space for 720p let alone with all the same detail as almost any Xbox 360 game.

From what I can tell a hacked Wii can't even play 720i resolution DVDs. If Nintendo wanted to showcase what the Wii can do, they would have done so with their own 2007-2008 Mario/Zelda/etc games. It's a >2 year old console. If the game's graphics haven't gotten better now, then they likely aren't ever going to be.

 

[madstork91]

While zelda, as previously stated, was limited by the gamecube...

You are spot on to state that mario did not have normal mapping to make him look more realistic.

But should mario look realistic?
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/28/realmario_2.jpg

And bowser?
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/.s...uncategorized/2008/04/28/bowserheadergr_2.jpg

Saying that Nintendo didnt make mario look better than he did in mario galaxy is kinda a mute argument. Mario is meant to look cartoonish, and live in a cartoon like world. To that extend, the game was beautiful.

Do i really need mention this argument for other nintendo franchises?

The hardware is capable. Capable of rendering movies at 720? No. Because they are limited to a lower res.

As rob has argued, they would have to render the things at their lower resolution, and while that does detract from the "awe" of it all, it is still capable of doing so.

Taking stats from 720p systems and saying that "well nintendo just isnt quite there for doing that visual stuff" when the system wasnt meant to run at that to begin with.

It can normal map, it can bloom, and it can AA: at its native resolution, and at a decent frame rate.

 

[Kougar]

I never said it should be fully realistic, (those were very amusing links, thanks!) I said the graphics should have been better. And they more than anyone should of had the best looking games for the platform.

The games it does have don't include high enough AA to make it look smooth. As the resolution is decreased, you must use higher levels of AA to offset the increased Aliasing. Which brings me back around to the point the GPU lacks sufficient memory (the horsepower issue aside) for the higher amounts of AA that are needed.

The bitmaps or whatever they use for most games doesn't look that different from my N64 except they are now much more colorful and more defined. Except for better use of shadows/shadiow, lots more colors, and significantly more definition/depth it might as well be an N64 game. The only game that didn't appear to have glaring Aliasing was a few of the mainstay Mario titles. Anything else from Mario Party to Sonic to Zelda to anything else I've looked at looks like only a tiny/insufficient bit of AA was used.

Colorful textures but still poor bitmapping and visible AA: http://www.nintendo-play.com/Reviews_article/Nintendo_Wii-id_14.htm

The road looks good, but everything else looks like recolored N64 mapping with more definition. http://www.nintendo-play.com/Reviews_article/Nintendo_Wii-id_10.htm

 

[madstork91]

The bitmaps or whatever they use for most games doesn't look that different from my N64 except they are now much more colorful and more defined. Except for better use of shadows/shadiow, lots more colors, and significantly more definition/depth it might as well be an N64 game.

... really?

So, minus all the advancements that technology has made available to them (higher res textures, realtiem shadows etc.) and minus the ability to have more detail (normal maps and high poly base models) it might as well be a N64 game?

If you strip down a Crysis model's textures to Basic colors, and reduce its poly count a lil bit, it too would look like an N64 model.

The bitmaps or whatever they use for most games

Most of my friends prefer .tga for saving on file size and still getting a decent look, while .png is argued to "higher quality". Bitmap is still used quite a bit though.

Colorful textures but still poor bitmapping and visible AA: http://www.nintendo-play.com/Reviews_article/Nintendo_Wii-id_14.htm

A party game has poor quality graphics? you're KIDDING! ...
You're essentially having to render up to 4 cameras at a time... meaning that graphics are limited by your systems ability to do just that, 4 real time renders at a time. And yes... I will say the wii absolutely sux at this.

You found a key weakness to the system. Congrats.

The road looks good, but everything else looks like recolored N64 mapping with more definition. http://www.nintendo-play.com/Reviews_article/Nintendo_Wii-id_10.htm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these latest sonic games have basically been a rail game set up in a sandbox like engine... (most sandbox games have limited detail for in world objects.

What sux most about your link is that the last picture is qualified in that review as being the best of the three shots they show... and the picture isn't loading for me

But I will once again ask... how much detail on sonic are you really wanting?
While thinking that over, remember, he doesn't wear pants.

 

[Rob Williams]

You are one hell of a Wii advocate, Stork, so go ahead and believe whatever you want. You are far too blind to the facts to care otherwise. I agree that the Wii can likely handle some cool effects, but how much does that matter when it can't handle them all at the same time? Even with decent AA, the memory allotted to the GPU is going to become taxed... causing any game run sluggish.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, even if the Wii had graphics power that could put the PC to shame, it wouldn't matter. The ultra-low resolution kills whatever hopes we have of seeing great graphics on that console. It's that simple.

 

[Kougar]

So, minus all the advancements that technology has made available to them (higher res textures, realtiem shadows etc.) and minus the ability to have more detail (normal maps and high poly base models) it might as well be a N64 game?.

That's precisely my point... it's been two consoles since the N64, but I wouldn't know it looking at Wii's games. I'd expect those graphics to be on a GameCube, not a console released after the Gamecube. Obviously the Wii wasn't aimed at stellar graphics and instead focused on the gameplay, but that's why I don't own one and have no interest in it. Or why I never got a Gamecube either, I don't see any improvement in games that I'd care for and the innovative gameplay of the Wii isn't sufficient by itself to lure me into the franchise.

I'm simply too spoiled by the graphics on my PC, and get all the free multiplayer I want and game updates I need already.

If you strip down a Crysis model's textures to Basic colors, and reduce its poly count a lil bit, it too would look like an N64 model..

I would beg to disagree. Anyway, if it was this easy then the Wii would be running games that look like those on the 360 or PS3.

A party game has poor quality graphics? you're KIDDING! ...
You're essentially having to render up to 4 cameras at a time... meaning that graphics are limited by your systems ability to do just that, 4 real time renders at a time. And yes... I will say the wii absolutely sux at this..

You found a key weakness to the system. Congrats.

Well that is odd if so, because the N64 had no issues doing 4 camera screen splits. I won't pretend to understand why this would be an issue for the console to begin with since it doesn't change the total max resolution fed to the display.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these latest sonic games have basically been a rail game set up in a sandbox like engine... (most sandbox games have limited detail for in world objects.

What sux most about your link is that the last picture is qualified in that review as being the best of the three shots they show... and the picture isn't loading for me

By sandbox I am guessing you mean something like a emulator mode?? If so then that isn't it at all, the Wii doesn't have the hardware to run emulators beyond those for previous Nintendo consoles. The PS3 had all sorts of issues just emulating older consoles in software after they removed the PS2 emotion hardware, but they at least had a 6 or 7 core CPU to dedicate to the task.

That last image wasn't loading here either. But I only gave those two because they were convenient examples, my opinion is similarly reflected by all the other Wii games, not those two specifically.

But I will once again ask... how much detail on sonic are you really wanting?
While thinking that over, remember, he doesn't wear pants.

Well that's an amusing thought. But there is a difference between more detail, better detail and "realism"... I never said anything about the games lacking realism.

 

[madstork91]

That's precisely my point... it's been two consoles since the N64, but I wouldn't know it looking at Wii's games. I'd expect those graphics to be on a GameCube, not a console released after the Gamecube. Obviously the Wii wasn't aimed at stellar graphics and instead focused on the gameplay, but that's why I don't own one and have no interest in it. Or why I never got a Gamecube either, I don't see any improvement in games that I'd care for and the innovative gameplay of the Wii isn't sufficient by itself to lure me into the franchise.

I'm simply too spoiled by the graphics on my PC, and get all the free multiplayer I want and game updates I need already.

Maybe you misunderstood me... the Wii has these advances... Also, you've proven yourself to be a graphics fag with little care for gameplay from your last post.

That is why we disagree fundamentally. Im a gameplay groper.

I would beg to disagree. Anyway, if it was this easy then the Wii would be running games that look like those on the 360 or PS3.

Im not really going to go into this... I may, at some point, explain how normal mapping works, and give examples of models with and without normal mapping, and then explain how higher resolution textures make the difference for greater detail... but it seems every post or topic involving you lately involves me making massive amounts of links that could really be googled by you. Allow me to use a meme: Lurk moar!

Well that is odd if so, because the N64 had no issues doing 4 camera screen splits. I won't pretend to understand why this would be an issue for the console to begin with since it doesn't change the total max resolution fed to the display.

For most of the models they were using did not use bitmap textures... they were using shading and diffuse colors. This requires little to no actual gpu work, and can be done many times for the entire 256 rgb color scale in as many instances as the hardware can render different colors as the same time... which since the N64 days has been a fairly insane and unreachable number unless using some very high detail bitmap textures with huge resolutions. I swear if you make a point about bitmaps being better here then I will drop the argument because you will have obviously missed the above mentioning of "lurk moar" and refused to look things up on your own. This also means, to me, that you have no idea how modeling and textures work... which is ok, because for me to expect you to know everything about it would make me sound like an elitist ass, but a base knowledge of it can be acquired by GOOGLING for it.

By sandbox I am guessing you mean something like a emulator mode?? If so then that isn't it at all, the Wii doesn't have the hardware to run emulators beyond those for previous Nintendo consoles. The PS3 had all sorts of issues just emulating older consoles in software after they removed the PS2 emotion hardware, but they at least had a 6 or 7 core CPU to dedicate to the task.

To further illustrate my point on your need to "lurk moar", I give you the VERY FIRST LINK TO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON "sandbox game":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game#Sandbox_mode

"Sandbox game" is "hot topic" in games these days... as well as "hot words"

While the actual definition of a "sandbox game" is still up for debate, it is nowhere in the realm of "emulation"... (unless you were trying to emulate the orig GTA on a computer.)

And lastly...
We have already agreed and stated that the wii is better than the orig xbox... the orig xbox was better than a ps2...

The wii is therefore capable of handling emulation of both of these systems from a hardware perspective, as it has the technical capability.

 

[Kougar]

Maybe you misunderstood me... the Wii has these advances... Also, you've proven yourself to be a graphics fag with little care for gameplay from your last post.

So the simple fact I prefer decent looking graphics for a $50 game means I don't care about the gameplay? You should take a look through my collection before you say such things. Not to mention keeping the argument civilized.

Im not really going to go into this... I may, at some point, explain how normal mapping works, and give examples of models with and without normal mapping, and then explain how higher resolution textures make the difference for greater detail... but it seems every post or topic involving you lately involves me making massive amounts of links that could really be googled by you. Allow me to use a meme: Lurk moar!

That is perfectly fine, I wasn't intending for you to delve into this side-topic. If I wished to learn about game programming and how console games work these days I'd research it. Obviously I don't really have any interest in that subject, and I think by itself it wouldn't change my overal opinion of the Wii's graphics regardless.

For most of the models they were using did not use bitmap textures... they were using shading and diffuse colors. This requires little to no actual gpu work, and can be done many times for the entire 256 rgb color scale in as many instances as the hardware can render different colors as the same time... which since the N64 days has been a fairly insane and unreachable number unless using some very high detail bitmap textures with huge resolutions. I swear if you make a point about bitmaps being better here then I will drop the argument because you will have obviously missed the above mentioning of "lurk moar" and refused to look things up on your own. This also means, to me, that you have no idea how modeling and textures work... which is ok, because for me to expect you to know everything about it would make me sound like an elitist ass, but a base knowledge of it can be acquired by GOOGLING for it.

Well you certainly know more on the subject than I do. And if I wasn't clear enough, I don't pretend nor profess to know how modeling and textures are done for modern games, I only remember bits and pieces. From what you've said here it would explain very well how they were able to "do more with less" from a hardware POV. Good info to know.

To further illustrate my point on your need to "lurk moar", I give you the VERY FIRST LINK TO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON "sandbox game":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game#Sandbox_mode

"Sandbox game" is "hot topic" in games these days... as well as "hot words"

I actually did look at that exact link, but I failed to see how that kind of sandbox mode was relevant to graphics, so I thought you meant something else. Reading back I now see what you where getting at.

I'm sorry if my above two posts seemed open-ended, I wasn't intending to dive us into the ins and outs of console graphics. You are pretty resolute on your views and the same goes for me and that's fine, I respect that.