You can only have a limited amount of VC games...

You can delete and redownload any VC game you want, for free, as long as you already bought it.

There is no reason for anyone to have 30 games on their Wii at one time. I can't even get through 5 different games a day, why would I need 30?

If anyone needs to play more than 30 games a day, they have A.D.D.

Well that's pretty superficial, wouldn't you say?

Besides, all you need to do is click on the Wii Shop Channel and see your games, all right there in "Titles You've Downloaded".

It's just one click away...or 2.

Also. There is no way to fill the 30 screens full of VC games. You will run out of memory before you get there.

Unless you buy all NES games

When you delete games off the channel to make room for newer ones, does it replaces the blocks used up? Because if it doesn't then that means you arelimited in the amount of VC games you can buy.Dragon_Rebel05

That's what delete means

It's gone

Besides, all you need to do is click on the Wii Shop Channel and see your games, all right there in "Titles You've Downloaded".

It's just one click away...or 2.

bob_newman

Or in my case, 10.

The trick is to have games you've recently bought matched up beside ones you haven't beaten. I do themes with mine.

try deleting channels you dont use such as everyone votes and the news channel. they free up some space.muscle_shark

Yeah and you can never get those channels back! I'm not stupid.

[QUOTE="muscle_shark"]try deleting channels you dont use such as everyone votes and the news channel. they free up some space.Dragon_Rebel05

Yeah and you can never get those channels back! I'm not stupid.

This is the second time I've had to say this

You are either misinformed or lying, either way it does not look good for you

[QUOTE="muscle_shark"]try deleting channels you dont use such as everyone votes and the news channel. they free up some space.Dragon_Rebel05

Yeah and you can never get those channels back! I'm not stupid.

yes you can just download it again like the VC titles all the downloadable Apps/Games channels on Wii work like that unless they are a limited time channels

When you bring up the question,you make an excellent point; what's the point of having all those channels when there is absolutely no way to fill all of them up?I would have never thought of that.VGobbsesser

You could fill it up if you only downloaded NES games...the smallest NES games, that is.

Take out the Everybody Votes, Weather, News, etc., as well as your Brawl save data, MK save data, etc., and replace them with tiny NES files. I think you could technically do it.

[QUOTE="VGobbsesser"]When you bring up the question,you make an excellent point; what's the point of having all those channels when there is absolutely no way to fill all of them up?I would have never thought of that.bob_newman

You could fill it up if you only downloaded NES games...the smallest NES games, that is.

Take out the Everybody Votes, Weather, News, etc., as well as your Brawl save data, MK save data, etc., and replace them with tiny NES files. I think you could technically do it.

It would be pushing it but you might be able to do that. But are there even 30 NES games worth purchasing?

[QUOTE="bob_newman"]

[QUOTE="VGobbsesser"]When you bring up the question,you make an excellent point; what's the point of having all those channels when there is absolutely no way to fill all of them up?I would have never thought of that.PlasmaBeam44

You could fill it up if you only downloaded NES games...the smallest NES games, that is.

Take out the Everybody Votes, Weather, News, etc., as well as your Brawl save data, MK save data, etc., and replace them with tiny NES files. I think you could technically do it.

It would be pushing it but you might be able to do that. But are there even 30 NES games worth purchasing?

[QUOTE="bob_newman"]

[QUOTE="VGobbsesser"]When you bring up the question,you make an excellent point; what's the point of having all those channels when there is absolutely no way to fill all of them up?I would have never thought of that.PlasmaBeam44

You could fill it up if you only downloaded NES games...the smallest NES games, that is.

Take out the Everybody Votes, Weather, News, etc., as well as your Brawl save data, MK save data, etc., and replace them with tiny NES files. I think you could technically do it.

It would be pushing it but you might be able to do that. But are there even 30 NES games worth purchasing?

Yes.

Also. There is no way to fill the 30 screens full of VC games. You will run out of memory before you get there.

Unless you buy all NES games

alexh_99

I was always wondering why they made so many boxes

[QUOTE="muscle_shark"]try deleting channels you dont use such as everyone votes and the news channel. they free up some space.Dragon_Rebel05

Yeah and you can never get those channels back! I'm not stupid.

Actually yes you can. You can redownload the Everybody Votes channel anytime you want, it was already free to begin with anyways. And you can't even delete the News and Weather channels.

Sort of on this topic, if you move your game data (like Super Smash or Mario Kart) to an SD will the games pull the data from the SD card next time you run them?Skie7

I`m not 100% sure.. but I think that the wii is not able to read game data directely from teh SD card. Yu have to put it back to the wii memory to use it.

Sort of on this topic, if you move your game data (like Super Smash or Mario Kart) to an SD will the games pull the data from the SD card next time you run them?Skie7

You can't copy MK or Brawl data to the SD card. It won't let you.

another solution get a damn sd card thier cheap now ge one lol, you can then copy each game to it as you get hem and when ready to delete it jus delete it when you want to replay it , instead of going online you can go to the memory settings and copy it back , after deleting the other one that took your spot, /space ugh why are people so lazy

You can delete and redownload any VC game you want, for free, as long as you already bought it.

There is no reason for anyone to have 30 games on their Wii at one time. I can't even get through 5 different games a day, why would I need 30?

If anyone needs to play more than 30 games a day, they have A.D.D.

bob_newman

This is Nintendo madness. What's the point of a gaming collection if you can't have all your games available at all times? The problem is those greedy Nintendo bastards equipped the Wii with a $2 512MB flash memory as the only means of storage, which is inadequate even for mobile phones, let alone internet-connected consoles. If they weren't so cheap and included a freaking hard drive, we wouldn't have to juggle our games on and off the shop channel.

I know all that but I like having all my games displayed on the list.Dragon_Rebel05

Tottaly agree

Just do what Nintendo wants you to do. Buy another Wii, and then u got double the storage ability and twice the number of channels. LOL ;)

another solution get a damn sd card thier cheap now ge one lol, you can then copy each game to it as you get hem and when ready to delete it jus delete it when you want to replay it , instead of going online you can go to the memory settings and copy it back , after deleting the other one that took your spot, /space ugh why are people so lazy

mariokart64fan

[QUOTE="bob_newman"]

You can delete and redownload any VC game you want, for free, as long as you already bought it.

There is no reason for anyone to have 30 games on their Wii at one time. I can't even get through 5 different games a day, why would I need 30?

If anyone needs to play more than 30 games a day, they have A.D.D.

Black_Knight_00

This is Nintendo madness. What's the point of a gaming collection if you can't have all your games available at all times? The problem is those greedy Nintendo bastards equipped the Wii with a $2 512MB flash memory as the only means of storage, which is inadequate even for mobile phones, let alone internet-connected consoles. If they weren't so cheap and included a freaking hard drive, we wouldn't have to juggle our games on and off the shop channel.

If they didn't include a cheap $2 flash memory, the price would have gone up, and then what does the Wii have to compete with the competition?

$300 for an HD 360, or

$300 for a Wii.

Which one do you think people would choose?

$250 is the maximum that most casual people will pay for a console.

Sort of on this topic, if you move your game data (like Super Smash or Mario Kart) to an SD will the games pull the data from the SD card next time you run them?Skie7

As bob said you cant move brawl or MK to the SD card. But for games you are allowed to move to the Sd card. The answer is no. The game must be on your wii memory to play the game.

If they didn't include a cheap $2 flash memory, the price would have gone up, and then what does the Wii have to compete with the competition?

$300 for an HD 360, or

$300 for a Wii.

Which one do you think people would choose?

$250 is the maximum that most casual people will pay for a console.

bob_newman

There's another factor: the Wii is composed of 4-5 years old hardware that Nintendo sells us for 300% its value. The Wii is nothing but a slightly upgraded Gamecube. If they were honest, they would have at least included a real storage device in those $250.

[QUOTE="bob_newman"]

If they didn't include a cheap $2 flash memory, the price would have gone up, and then what does the Wii have to compete with the competition?

$300 for an HD 360, or

$300 for a Wii.

Which one do you think people would choose?

$250 is the maximum that most casual people will pay for a console.

Black_Knight_00

There's another factor: the Wii is composed of 4-5 years old hardware that Nintendo sells us for 300% its value. The Wii is nothing but a slightly upgraded Gamecube. If they were honest, they would have at least included a real storage device in those $250.

And still Nintendo is winning in sales. The problem is Nintendo did underestimate Wii as a console with download content. They didn't think about this in this gen. For Next gen, Nintendo seems to work on holographic storage for next gen.

[QUOTE="bob_newman"]

If they didn't include a cheap $2 flash memory, the price would have gone up, and then what does the Wii have to compete with the competition?

$300 for an HD 360, or

$300 for a Wii.

Which one do you think people would choose?

$250 is the maximum that most casual people will pay for a console.

Black_Knight_00

There's another factor: the Wii is composed of 4-5 years old hardware that Nintendo sells us for 300% its value. The Wii is nothing but a slightly upgraded Gamecube. If they were honest, they would have at least included a real storage device in those $250.

300%? I don't know about that.

They were only making $50 off of each system when they released the Wii. $50 is not 300% of $250.

Now, 2 years later, I'm sure it's worth less than at launch. But they can't really release a Wii with new specs half-way through a system's lifespan. It cuts off half of their install base.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="bob_newman"]

If they didn't include a cheap $2 flash memory, the price would have gone up, and then what does the Wii have to compete with the competition?

$300 for an HD 360, or

$300 for a Wii.

Which one do you think people would choose?

$250 is the maximum that most casual people will pay for a console.

bob_newman

There's another factor: the Wii is composed of 4-5 years old hardware that Nintendo sells us for 300% its value. The Wii is nothing but a slightly upgraded Gamecube. If they were honest, they would have at least included a real storage device in those $250.

300%? I don't know about that.

They were only making $50 off of each system when they released the Wii. $50 is not 300% of $250.

Now, 2 years later, I'm sure it's worth less than at launch. But they can't really release a Wii with new specs half-way through a system's lifespan. It cuts off half of their install base.

The more time passes, the cheaper it is to manufacture parts. This is why companies can drop prices of electronic products, like Microsoft and Sony have done (despite the fact that they were losing money when they first started manufacturing their respective new gen consoles.) Nintendo has not dropped its console's price, unlike its two competitors, yet technology has similarily gotten cheaper for them to produce/manufacture.

While 300% is doubtlessly hyperbole, they already had a healthy profit margin at launch, and it has only increased since the cost of manufacturing parts has dropped, without a price drop accompanying it.

Nintendo could have included a better storage solution with the Wii at the same price, taking a smaller profit margin, and still made a mint.

While 300% is doubtlessly hyperbole, they already had a healthy profit margin at launch, and it has only increased since the cost of manufacturing parts has dropped, without a price drop accompanying it.

Nintendo could have included a better storage solution with the Wii at the same price, taking a smaller profit margin, and still made a mint.

clicketyclick

That's exactly my point. I'm no hardware guru, but I think that adding the market values of the Wii components we wouldn't reach $150. Sure, by saying 300% I exaggerated on purpose, but the general concept that the Wii is overpriced remains.

By this I'm not saying Nintendo should have sold it for $150, more likely they should have made a more powerful machine and sold it for a legitimate $250-300.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]

While 300% is doubtlessly hyperbole, they already had a healthy profit margin at launch, and it has only increased since the cost of manufacturing parts has dropped, without a price drop accompanying it.

Nintendo could have included a better storage solution with the Wii at the same price, taking a smaller profit margin, and still made a mint.

Black_Knight_00

That's exactly my point. I'm no hardware guru, but I think that adding the market values of the Wii components we wouldn't reach $150. Sure, by saying 300% I exaggerated on purpose, but the general concept that the Wii is overpriced remains.

By this I'm not saying Nintendo should have sold it for $150, more likely they should have made a more powerful machine and sold it for a legitimate $250-300.

but then they wouldnt have made as much money!

Yeaaa u can have more than 30 games i have about 35 on my wii and 3 deleted.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]

While 300% is doubtlessly hyperbole, they already had a healthy profit margin at launch, and it has only increased since the cost of manufacturing parts has dropped, without a price drop accompanying it.

Nintendo could have included a better storage solution with the Wii at the same price, taking a smaller profit margin, and still made a mint.

Black_Knight_00

That's exactly my point. I'm no hardware guru, but I think that adding the market values of the Wii components we wouldn't reach $150. Sure, by saying 300% I exaggerated on purpose, but the general concept that the Wii is overpriced remains.

By this I'm not saying Nintendo should have sold it for $150, more likely they should have made a more powerful machine and sold it for a legitimate $250-300.

Sorry, I didn't mean to steal your idea without giving you credit. I just meant to bolster your argument and show that it is rational. I know it's kinda annoying when people say the exact same thing as you right after you. I meant it to be exactly your point, but I should have mentioned that. :P

but then they wouldnt have made as much money!

Sword-Demon

Imagine a room filled with gold bars. Imagine removing one. Big loss, right? :P

Oh oh, I've got another analogy! Imagine all the fish in the sea. Imagine catching and eating a net-full of them. Are there no more fish in the sea?

:D

Basically, Nintendo would still earn a mint. And still have a license to operate a mint within their HQ.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="clicketyclick"]

While 300% is doubtlessly hyperbole, they already had a healthy profit margin at launch, and it has only increased since the cost of manufacturing parts has dropped, without a price drop accompanying it.

Nintendo could have included a better storage solution with the Wii at the same price, taking a smaller profit margin, and still made a mint.

clicketyclick

That's exactly my point. I'm no hardware guru, but I think that adding the market values of the Wii components we wouldn't reach $150. Sure, by saying 300% I exaggerated on purpose, but the general concept that the Wii is overpriced remains.

By this I'm not saying Nintendo should have sold it for $150, more likely they should have made a more powerful machine and sold it for a legitimate $250-300.

Sorry, I didn't mean to steal your idea without giving you credit. I just meant to bolster your argument and show that it is rational. I know it's kinda annoying when people say the exact same thing as you right after you. I meant it to be exactly your point, but I should have mentioned that. :P

but then they wouldnt have made as much money!

Sword-Demon

Imagine a room filled with gold bars. Imagine removing one. Big loss, right? :P

Oh oh, I've got another analogy! Imagine all the fish in the sea. Imagine catching and eating a net-full of them. Are there no more fish in the sea?

:D

Basically, Nintendo would still earn a mint. And still have a license to operate a mint within their HQ.

1 gold bar doesn't sound like that much, but times that by 34+ million gold bars.

Nintendo has no other means of making money. Sony has their TVs and entertainment units, MS has Windows. They can dip into those funds to help recoup their losses on console hardware.

Nintendo, on the other hand, has to make a decent profit on systems in order to stay afloat.

Yes, they could lower the price, but why would they do that when they're selling out each week anyway?

[QUOTE="Sword-Demon"]

but then they wouldnt have made as much money!

clicketyclick

Imagine a room filled with gold bars. Imagine removing one. Big loss, right? :P

Oh oh, I've got another analogy! Imagine all the fish in the sea. Imagine catching and eating a net-full of them. Are there no more fish in the sea?

:D

Basically, Nintendo would still earn a mint. And still have a license to operate a mint within their HQ.

but if they sold the console for 150, rather than 250, then they wouldnt make that $100 per system. nintendo has sold about 24 million wiis so far.

so if they sold them at $150, they would have made $3.6 billion

by seeling them at $250, theyve made $6 billion..

do you think a company wont make a move that will give them $2,400,000,000 more?

1 gold bar doesn't sound like that much, but times that by 34+ million gold bars.

Nintendo has no other means of making money. Sony has their TVs and entertainment units, MS has Windows. They can dip into those funds to help recoup their losses on console hardware.

Nintendo, on the other hand, has to make a decent profit on systems in order to stay afloat.

Yes, they could lower the price, but why would they do that when they're selling out each week anyway?

bob_newman

Like the Black_Knight, I'm not saying that they should lower the price. I'm saying that they had large profit margins on the Wii (i.e. sales price minus manufacturing costs) which would only be slightly reduced by including better hardware, and while they would make less money, they would still make oodles of money and meet their sales projections (currently, they're exceeding them.)

Unlike Sony and MS, Nintendo is making money in this insecure financial time. The other guys have been reporting losses. And even in these times, Ninty is dialing up their financial forecasts. This is only in part due to the inflation of the price (versus the value of the parts) and is mostly due to demand; they could have then inflated the price less and still reported profits.

I'm not saying Nintendo should have done this - they're a business and in a capitalist system, a business should make as much money on their ideas/products as people are willing to pay, similar to how businesspeople should make as much money as people are willing to pay. But I would think that, given that you disagree with me about that, you would also be disagreeing with me that Nintendo was right to inflate the price and would instead be asserting that they should have included a better storage solution because they could afford it and they'd only be slightly less rich, whereas now, they are grossly rich.

[QUOTE="bob_newman"]

1 gold bar doesn't sound like that much, but times that by 34+ million gold bars.

Nintendo has no other means of making money. Sony has their TVs and entertainment units, MS has Windows. They can dip into those funds to help recoup their losses on console hardware.

Nintendo, on the other hand, has to make a decent profit on systems in order to stay afloat.

Yes, they could lower the price, but why would they do that when they're selling out each week anyway?

clicketyclick

Like the Black_Knight, I'm not saying that they should lower the price. I'm saying that they had large profit margins on the Wii (i.e. sales price minus manufacturing costs) which would only be slightly reduced by including better hardware, and while they would make less money, they would still make oodles of money and meet their sales projections (currently, they're exceeding them.)

Unlike Sony and MS, Nintendo is making money in this insecure financial time. The other guys have been reporting losses. And even in these times, Ninty is dialing up their financial forecasts. This is only in part due to the inflation of the price (versus the value of the parts) and is mostly due to demand; they could have then inflated the price less and still reported profits.

I'm not saying Nintendo should have done this - they're a business and in a capitalist system, a business should make as much money on their ideas/products as people are willing to pay, similar to how businesspeople should make as much money as people are willing to pay. But I would think that, given that you disagree with me about that, you would also be disagreeing with me that Nintendo was right to inflate the price and would instead be asserting that they should have included a better storage solution because they could afford it and they'd only be slightly less rich, whereas now, they are grossly rich.

Well, as you know, I don't support the idea that anyone should be that rich. But they lost so much money in the past that they're taking advantage of the situation now. Maybe saving up for the future?

Well, as you know, I don't support the idea that anyone should be that rich. But they lost so much money in the past that they're taking advantage of the situation now. Maybe saving up for the future?

bob_newman

The same could be said for businesspeople. The financial market is very risky, and businesses have a high failure rate. I read that 50% of startups fail within 4 years on a fact-checking site. People who go into business have a lot at stake if they fail or get fired. On the other hand, if they succeed, they can do extremely well.

So should "saving up for the future" be an acceptable excuse for executives, businesspeople, and their companies raking in billions at the expense of those who have way less, despite that they could easily afford to not make quite as much money so that the less well off could be benefited?