Other posters have summed it up pretty well, but I’ll reiterate points.
The Wii is packaged with its killer app.
Also, as I’ve said time and time again: the Wii’ software lineup is not sub-par. At all. If you think the Wii’s lineup at the moment is sub-par, go take a look at release dates over the lifetimes of past consoles. It took the PSX a long time to get a library as strong as the Wii’s. The N64 even longer. The Dreamcast had a library of similar or greater quality at this point in its life, and the Dreamcast had what was probably the strongest launch lineup ever. The PS2 has an incredible library now, but it took the better part of a decade to build it up.
People act like the PS2 launched with the library currently available to it, but that’s not how things work. Look back at the 360’s first year. Heck, the PS3 - which launched the same time as the Wii - doesn’t have as strong a library as the Wii.
It’s fun and it’s easy to use for nearly everyone.
This weekend I had my friends and their parents over (early 50s folks). We were all golfing and bowling and having a grand old time. I’ve known these people for over 15 years and I’ve never played video games with them, even though I’ve always had them. Everyone had fun.
Oh and the other thing that I greatly enjoy is that in addition to the games created for the console (Mario Galaxy and Paper Mario are my current favorites), I have also downloaded the original Super Mario Brothers (1 &3), which were my original obsessions back in the day. I love that I’m able to play them again without coaxing an old NES to work properly.
Although it’s only tangentially related to the OP, there’s another aspect of the system that makes it attractive to a class that you wouldn’t expect: Wiihabilitation.
Somehow I can’t imagine it working so well with an XBox-whatever or a PSx.
I think it is a price thing. Now, without looking it up, my impression is that the Wii would cost me $250, the X-Box 360 somewhere around $400, and the PS3 around $600. These may not be accurate prices, but these are my uninformed casual-gamer impressions. I can’t justify dropping $400 on a gaming system when I could just play games on my computer. $250, however, is just about my price range.
That’s pretty much it right there.
(Killer app = killer application, or, to put it another way, a game that you simply must have and a game that you need that particular console for.)
Anything that’s still selling strongly after a year and half is doing so because it’s a good product not because of hype. If it was just hype the sales would have slowed. I really think some of the more hard core gamers are a bit jealous that casual system is doing so well. Just a theory.
A theory that I agree with 100%. You see a lot of hostility toward the Wii not only among “hardcore” gamers, but among certain people who work in the industry as well.
Lots of people are really pissed that a system that isn’t built on the principle of “moar grafix” is completely dominating its HD-enabled competition.
That’s certainly one reason why the Wii’s library get so much scrutiny and why people throw logic and history out the window when they complain about it.
Another theory, which I was reminded of by the moar grafix thing, is that the Wii isn’t designed to be played on an HD screen. You have to have a pretty posh setup to really get the most out of the 360 and PS3, while the Wii can be played reliably on an old round-screen CRT as well as a good HD setup. That also helps it be more accessible to a wider customer base.
Its also designed to appeal to parents and kids. The XBox is a lousy console for parents/kids. Sure there are games out there that appeal to kids, and lots of downloadable stuff, but its expensive and the “killer” XBox games are pretty adult and violent. The Playstation 3 is too expensive. Playstation 2 has some good kids games - buts is a dated console. Nintendo has always had the “mom and kid” market - from the Gamecube to the DS. The Wii is an extention of that. Its easy for Mom to understand. Its not very expensive. It gets kids up off the couch and moving (at least some of the games). Don’t underestimate the appeal of that - my ‘no video games’ friends all went out and bought Playstation 2s when they saw the EyeToy, it wasn’t until they saw their kids moving with video games instead of slouched on the couch button mashing that video games started appealing to moms.
Nintendo has always aimed for a different audience than Sony and Microsoft. FPSes and the like have always pushed graphics, so those gamers would care about HD compatibility. The Wii is aimed at people who don’t care, and who like different kinds of games.
Honestly, I think it’s a good angle to take. Screw flashy graphics–just make something that doesn’t hurt the eyes and make the game fun enough to play that no one gives a damn.
The Wii looks fine in HD. I run mine in 480p through component cables on a 48" LCDTV. Mario Galaxy looks gorgeous, as do older Gamecube games like F-Zero GX and Viewtiful Joe.
Does it look as good as 360 and PS3 games running in 720p? Of course not. Still looks great, though.
It’s not true that Nintendo has never cared about graphics - the Super Nintendo (Mode 7, Super FX, sprite scaling stuff that the Genesis/Mega Drive could only dream of) and N64 were head and shoulders above the competition graphically (other than the useless FMV stuff that Saturn/PlayStation games were stuffed with).
It’s certainly true that beginning with the GameCube, they’ve given up on the “moar grafix” crowd- but it wasn’t always so.
Nope. Wii in HD highlights the jaggies in a game like SMG. It looks gorgeous on my SDTV because of the natural blurring/anti-aliasing, but on HD it looks like a completely different - and very jaggy - game.