Why yes, the Wii was proof of something indeed. It was proof that you can release a console which is underpowered from Day 1 and still successfuly market it and sell it, the DS was the exact same deal.
Exactly my point. Power isn't everything, it's not what should sell consoles IMO. Obviously, that's not true in all cases, though.
You mean the WiiMote, right?
Well, not really. The Wii had a useless gimmick but not bleeding edge technology. Even the Wii remote was technologically retarded, which is why they had to release the Plus version. What I'm trying to say is "Pick one, gimmick or bleeding edge hardware". Choosing both usually hikes the price beyond what people are willing to pay, as evident in this case.
Processing power does not eye-watering graphics make. If you want to have games released for the system, it has to match the requirements for contemporary and future game engines. The processing power of both the GPU and the CPU go towards not just graphics, but also game logic in general, for example physics or AI. The console also requires a sufficient amount of memory so that the game code, textures, sound and other content can be stored in a fast access area. Needless to say, those things cost.
I was referring to what many common folk look at when buying a games console. Barely any non-nerd gives a flying fuck what engine a game runs on. Also, most contemporary and future game engines are/will be scalable. Those that aren't could be ported to a specific underpowered system if the developers thought it financially feasible (which isn't what I'm arguing). Either way, it's beside the point, game engines do not have to be targeted at bleeding edge technology either (just like graphics).
Because having ten boxes next to your TV is practical. A video game console has more than enough horsepower to support video playback and online streaming and the cost of adding those features is minimal - give me one good reason why it shouldn't have them? It was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Wii's disc drive supports DVD discs and was merely gimped not to do so so that Nintendo doesn't have to pay royalties to the DVD format owners - why? I would gladly pay the extra $5-25 for my unit if it had that feature because I hate clutter.
I also hate clutter, but I like sound and my sound system includes a Blu-Ray player. Even with the XBox One, I couldn't get rid of that box, so I'm not gaining any space by buying one and I'm not benefiting in any way by that feature. Nintendo were justified in their reasons for not including DVD playback (
everyone already had a DVD player), although I do think they could have offered a shop purchase to turn the Wii into a DVD player.
To reiterate, I really hate clutter. In my bedroom, I have nothing but a Smart TV, although I'll temporarily stick a console in there from time to time. I stream via Netflix and Plex Media Server and I'm more than happy with that setup.
Not if those features are essential for the operation of the unit itself. If XBox One games or the GUI will use the Kinect 2.0 extensively, be it for voice commands or motion sensing, the device suddenly becomes indispensible. The Wii was bundled with the WiiMotes and the Sensor Bar despite having four perfectly usable Gamecube gamepad connectors - why wasn't the GUI in any way operational without the WiiMote? Should I be upset about that and rave that the system's price was unnecessarily inflated by such a move?
You're interpreting what I'm saying incorrectly. I'm neither upset nor raving, I just think people are justified in their claims that the XBox One is too expensive.
No, becausethe Sensor Bar and the WiiMote were indispensible. Now so is the Kinect 2.0, and the only difference is that it's far more advanced than the Wii's IR Camera + IR diodes combo. I don't have a problem with the Kinect 2.0 being bundled with the system, I just sincerely doubt that it costs $100 on its own.
Exactly again. The Wii Remote retailed for £30 when the Wii first launched, but it probably cost less than a third of that to pack in with the Wii. It probably costs Microsoft much less than $100 to pack in a Kinect. So, given that the PS4 has superior hardware, how does the XBox One justify a further $100? From a
consumer's perspective, they're getting the equivalent of a PS4 console
plus Kinect when the Kinect system itself sells for more than $100. That's how it seems they're justifying it, but my argument is that many people won't want or even use Kinect even though they want an XBox. I know lots of people with XBox 360s but, out of the relatively few that own a Kinect, none of them make use of it and I doubt any of them would be interested in upgrading it to a Kinect 2.0.
Furthermore, on the same point that you just made, I'm still using the Wii remotes that came with my Wii on my Wii U... Nintendo didn't pack them in and charge me an extra £30 which is probably a more fair and apt comparison to the Kinect 2.0. Granted, the 2.0 can see you winking, but along the same lines the Wii U is compatible with original Wii remotes and doesn't force the upgrade to Plus even though the latter is required for many newer games.