or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Wii: does it do it for you? How much longer until it's passed by?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Wii: does it do it for you? How much longer until it's passed by?

post #1 of 165
Thread Starter 
There was lots of response to a raised-from-the-dead Wii thread, so I'll continue with a more general followup.

---------------

So, we have reached the Wii's second holiday buying season, and as far as I can tell things still seem to be going well for it. Nintendo was clearly in at the right time with the motion controller -- look what has become the biggest video game franchise of recent times: Guitar Hero / Rockband.

But, at the same time I feel this is what's going to kill the Wii. People are clearly not shy about forking over big dollars for specialized controllers. The PS3, also, seems to be gaining all sorts of steam in Japan. Xbox has Halo, which I suppose is enough to keep it around.

I've noticed that a lot of adults seem to dig the Wii. I mean, folks that are way outside of the traditional gaming demographic have been excited about it. Interest has dropped off somewhat since last year, but it hasn't disappeared. Nonetheless, I just don't see how the PS3 is not going to win the battle. Now that specialized controllers are not at all exclusive to any particular system, prices are falling for PS3 components (bluray, cell), and game development methods are maturing for the platform, I'm pretty certain that it can't be stopped. A year ago I said that Wii would be a two-year fad. Now, I'm sure that I was right.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #2 of 165
I played my brother-in-law's Wii at Thanksgiving for several hours. That thing is a joke! The Wiimote works well on a couple of the Wii Sports games, but for other games, it stinks. The graphics are worse than the PS2. The PS3, however, is worth every penny.
post #3 of 165
I played the Wii a bit right after it came out, and thought Wii Sports was awful. I was fighting the controls, not playing the game, and didn't feel in control at all after a hour of playing.

Just a week ago I met the Wii again, played some Excite Truck (what a great sense of speed that game has!) and watched Super Mario Galaxy being played. Both look very fun.

I despise the requirement of GC controllers for GC games. What were they thinking? Who wants to go back to cords or pay $70 for a wireless GC controller? Also, why does the Wii have region codes when the super-successful DS didn't have any...

The console costs too way too much for how much controllers cost and considering the component output comes separate. I'd feel 149€ would be a decent price for it. That would put Nintendo well in the black while the bulk of the profits would come from game and additional controller sales. But at 279€, the base Wii costs twice as much and has never dropped in price. The 360 is cheaper already.
199€ with one of the good games and component included would be okay too, and retain a significantly higher margin than the barebones 149€ system.

PS3 is indeed gaining steam, but I'm still not sure Sony will recover from the immense stupidity of all their previous moves and end up ahead of the 360. They have also never ceased to piss on Europe, selling us worse games for more money half a year late. They'll have to stop that if they want me to buy another console.
post #4 of 165
The Wii is a fantastic success but clearly also not a next gen console. It certainly allowed Nintendo to rise from the nearly dead after the last generation. I enjoy Wii sports and for family fun Wii is top notch.

However, if Nintendo wants to continue to complete as a top end console maker they are secretly working on a next gen console with their newly found console warchest because I don't think the Wii is going to be the same roaring success next XMas. The 360 and PS3 are getting their legs and starting to have a richer library of top games with graphics that make the last generation look more and more dated.

By XMas '10 IMHO the Wii will look fairly bad and the PS4 and next XBox will be on the horizon. Nintendo internal developers will have spent a decade fiddling around TEVs on an architecture 3 generations old while Sony and MS devs have been working with advanced shaders giving them normal, parallax, ambient occlusion, and variance shadow maps, HDR, PRT, dynamic branching and host of other acronyms enabled by 2 generations of graphics hardware and architecture improvements. Sony and MS devs are also working with multi-core and SPU development and improving these tool chains.

To jump to 2012 technology is a 2, possibly 3 (depending on how you count it) generation leap for their internal studios. With a tool chain also 2, possibly 3, generations old.

Fortunately Mario is not all that demanding graphics wise.

But if they don't have a PS3/XBox 360 generation console ready by XMas 2009 they may have to buy back into the hard core console market like MS has been doing the last 2 generations. They certianly have the $$$ to do so but not likely the desire to bleed money like MS.

Nintendo may be stuck in the casual console market but given the NDS and Wii that's not so bad a place to be and certainly a viable strategy from a 2007 perspective.

From a MS and Sony perspective the Wii isn't a threat and Nintendo likely out of the game. Then its a only a 2 horse race in 2012 and by then PC gaming will really be on the ropes. I walked into a GameStop and they had ZERO PC game shelves. Granted this was in a mall with two GameStops (one was an EB) but even the other GameStop had only one freestanding, shoulder height bookcase of PC games.
post #5 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

The console costs too way too much for how much controllers cost and considering the component output comes separate.

Yeah it doesn't make sense to pay the same for the hardware spec when you can buy a much more powerful XBox.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

PS3 is indeed gaining steam, but I'm still not sure Sony will recover from the immense stupidity of all their previous moves and end up ahead of the 360. They have also never ceased to piss on Europe, selling us worse games for more money half a year late. They'll have to stop that if they want me to buy another console.

I think that has something to do with the PAL conversion but I don't get how it takes them so long. Sometimes they even change the game a little. Sure the resolution and frame rates differ but some recent games have taken over a month to come out in Europe relative to the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Nintendo internal developers will have spent a decade fiddling around TEVs on an architecture 3 generations old while Sony and MS devs have been working with advanced shaders giving them normal, parallax, ambient occlusion, and variance shadow maps, HDR, PRT, dynamic branching and host of other acronyms enabled by 2 generations of graphics hardware and architecture improvements. Sony and MS devs are also working with multi-core and SPU development and improving these tool chains.

I think that will set them back. Although one advantage is that they let the other companies do all the R&D and then pick up the most successful pieces on the next run. They still have to implement these things but the concept/technique is more important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

I walked into a GameStop and they had ZERO PC game shelves. Granted this was in a mall with two GameStops (one was an EB) but even the other GameStop had only one freestanding, shoulder height bookcase of PC games.

I've noticed that in my local game stores too. They also don't take trade-in PC games but they do for all consoles. I don't get it because even if people were copying the discs, they only get trade-in value back again. It's like they are trying to discourage PC game sales.

Another problem is the selection the game stores offer, which seems to be related to system spec and this has always been the downside on the PC. How do the stores ensure the games they sell cover the customer base who have the machines capable of playing the games? Most PC games I see are RTS games or just really old ones that will work on pretty much any computer. The number of high end recent titles is very small and I'm sure they won't sell well at all.

After I got rid of my PS2, I went to PC gaming for a little while and despite the fact that some games were great, I don't have any desire to stick with PC gaming and my next console will be a next gen machine. Currently I'm sticking with the PSP and I'll wait for maybe a year or two more when there will be a much larger selection of cheap, used games and the consoles should be cheap enough.
post #6 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think that has something to do with the PAL conversion but I don't get how it takes them so long.

No, Sony just thinks we're chumps. Out of all US/Japan region PS2 games that support progressive scan, to my knowledge there is just one whose PAL version also supports it (Shadow of the Colossus). Some significant titles like Katamari Damacy were never released for the PAL market. Half a year delay for all PS2 games has been normal, so we'd occasionally see a major title (with progressive scan, of course!) having dropped to $20 in the US while it lands on our shores crippled at 65€ = $94. There have also been instances where games (such as Virtua Fighter 4 Evolution) have been originally released in the US market at $20 and still come to us at full price. What's probably the worst of all is that many PAL conversions have ran 17% slower in real time. If that isn't a gameplay ruining change for an action game I don't know what is.
Quote:
Sometimes they even change the game a little. Sure the resolution and frame rates differ but some recent games have taken over a month to come out in Europe relative to the US.

I'm not up to speed on the PS3 game situation, but the console hardware itself has been a big raised middle finger to the EU region from start to finish. It got here half a year late. The 40GB stripped non-PS2 compatible model is currently about $560 plus VAT, $685 total.
Quote:
After I got rid of my PS2, I went to PC gaming for a little while and despite the fact that some games were great, I don't have any desire to stick with PC gaming and my next console will be a next gen machine. Currently I'm sticking with the PSP and I'll wait for maybe a year or two more when there will be a much larger selection of cheap, used games and the consoles should be cheap enough.

I'm so fed up with all console makers I'm probably moving on PC for the next few years. It might be more trouble to set up, but that's where the trouble stops, while on a console you have to live with any faults the thing has. Maybe console makers will get it right with the next generation or so.
post #7 of 165
I've never been impressed by Nintendo consoles, and the wii (what were they on when they came up with that name???) is no exception. It's all based around this gimmick of an idea for user input that will probably be laughed about in the not too distant future. The games are childish and one-dimensional and don't even look that good. It's only been popular because it's the cheapest console.
post #8 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Nintendo may be stuck in the casual console market

Are you really stuck if that's the biggest market?
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #9 of 165
Nintendo thrives because they make fun, engaging games. It's that simple.

My favorite part of this thread was the listing of all these silly graphics acronyms. That's just darling.

As far as the "Well I can just buy motion controllers for my Xbox 360 and/or PS3"… good luck with that. If they do not ship with the console they will not be accepted by different developers across games. As fun as the Rock Band drums are, what other games are they useful for? What can the mic be used for? So Halo fans can play High School Musical - The Game after rocking out to Metallica on Rock Band? The guitar can be used (or not, depending on compatibility) with the Guitar Hero series. Huzzah!

You people talk about ancient technology on the Wii, but the Xbox360 and PS3 have, essentially, the same goddam control scheme as the NES. "PRESS BUTAN FOR GO!"

There is nothing at all innovative about piling on shaders and bloom filters. That is incremental improvement to the gameplay. You are only amazed by graphics relative to what you have seen before.

I love good graphics. The better the graphics the more immersive a game. But they are not everything; they are not the ultimate criteria by which to judge the quality of a game. Crysis is, currently, peerless in graphical prowess but I find the game to be rote and boring. I think many people agree.

But what do I care if a Mario game is "one-dimensional"? What do I care if a bowling game is "one-dimensional"? How many dimensions does poker or Trivial Pursuit have? How many dimensions does solitaire have? How many dimensions does football have?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #10 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Nintendo thrives because they make fun, engaging games.

At least for the market they're going for, they win hands down on this. My son couldn't put Mario Galaxy down (but he's a Mario fan), and I have to admit, it was entertaining (he was playing while I was working, and I'd see everything he was going through), and the Sports games are pretty rigorous as far as full-body, get tensed for the next pitch or strikeout kinda things.

Also, Wii's going for an online component that brings in social and community aspects, again something my son and his friends like. But they like the DSes also, and having wireless between DSes for them is pretty great. If you want to hole up and play advanced shoot-em-ups, Wii's certainly not the platform... but who says they won't keep improving their resolution, etc to bring that experience in better?

Anyway, I'm happy Nintendo's doing so well with the Wii.
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #11 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

the console hardware itself has been a big raised middle finger to the EU region from start to finish. It got here half a year late. The 40GB stripped non-PS2 compatible model is currently about $560 plus VAT, $685 total.

I found some ok deals round where I am, the 40GB version costs £299 = $437 including VAT. I think that's close to the US models that I've seen around $400 = £273.

I don't think I'd get the PS3 model without the PS2 compatibility though. That's just cutting out a huge selection of games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

I'm so fed up with all console makers I'm probably moving on PC for the next few years. It might be more trouble to set up, but that's where the trouble stops, while on a console you have to live with any faults the thing has. Maybe console makers will get it right with the next generation or so.

I actually thought that at first but the more I got into PC gaming, the worse it seemed. Recent titles tend to be about 2-3GB+ per installation so you have to wait about 15-20 minutes before you even begin. When it's done, you often get a message about Star Force protection or something which needs to be installed to make sure you have a legal copy of the game and requires a reboot. Then you have to keep the disc in the slot.

But that only happens once at the start of the game so it should be fine from there. But then you start the game and unlike the console version, the game often isn't set up for your machine it will be on low-medium settings. So you spend ages tweaking all the 20-30 settings to try get the game looking good but also not choking. So you find yourself adjusting anisotropic filtering levels, shadow buffer quality, resolution, HDR options, experimenting whether or not you can get away with using FSAA.

Then when you find the right settings, your framerate might be fine on one level but then you get to one full of water and it turns into a slideshow. Some games you can just be playing and then it drops you back to the Windows desktop and you lose your game progress. You can easily come across DirectX errors and things preventing you from playing the game at all for no apparent reason.

In summary, when PC gaming works, it's rarely better quality than a console and there is far more possibility that something goes wrong. Console games are well optimized, easy to pick up and play and usually more thoroughly tested because they only have to test on one target hardware configuration. Plus there are more good titles.

But sure on the downside you can get late games and they are more expensive. Also mouse and keyboard is a good control system so it's all down to which system is least frustrating. For me it is console gaming but I did think PC gaming would be better before I tried it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Nintendo thrives because they make fun, engaging games. It's that simple.

Nope they thrive for the same reason Apple thrives. People have grown accustomed to what they offer and form a strong fan base. Then they make marketing gimmicks like Leopard, ipods, motion sensing controls, software like brain training, Products that make people stop and look and say, hey that's different. When you look below the surface, you find that it's mostly just hype and though some of the products are better, most are just lower or equal value to the competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

My favorite part of this thread was the listing of all these silly graphics acronyms. That's just darling.

Those silly acronyms are what go into making the Harry Potter special effects you love so much.

Nintendo (or should I say the developers who struggle to make good looking games for their hardware) will be using them too. It's just that Nintendo owners won't know what they mean so they dumb it down into 'hey, a new Mario game wheee'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

As far as the "Well I can just buy motion controllers for my Xbox 360 and/or PS3" good luck with that. If they do not ship with the console they will not be accepted by different developers across games.

They do ship with the console. The PS3 comes with a SIXAXIS controller that senses tilt. This is actually better than having to stand in the middle of the room flapping your arms about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

You people talk about ancient technology on the Wii, but the Xbox360 and PS3 have, essentially, the same goddam control scheme as the NES. "PRESS BUTAN FOR GO!"

Isn't that what you still do on the Wii? The only difference is that instead of moving the view around with carefully controlled stick movements, you have to wave the whole controller around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

There is nothing at all innovative about piling on shaders and bloom filters.

There is actually, a lot of research has to go into shader writing in order to optimize effects so that the games can reach the highest level of realism the console can handle. These developments have implications for film too as these optimizations cut down deadlines significantly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

That is incremental improvement to the gameplay.

In a way, purely graphical effects are. However, things like motion blur in Burnout would be seen by some as eye-candy but it makes a huge difference to the feel of the game and the sense of speed. When you have bounce light and dynamic shadows, it changes how you sense enemy movement in an FPS game.

Plus you make it seem like motion sensing controls are somewhat revolutionary and that's really all Nintendo has brought to the table. So the controller has changed to something that doesn't appeal to everyone and the games are the same.

The other console makers are pushing the boundaries of player immersion by advancing game technology while sticking with controllers that people are familiar with and yet also adding in motion sensing but not to an extent that it might negatively affect gameplay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

But what do I care if a Mario game is "one-dimensional"? What do I care if a bowling game is "one-dimensional"? How many dimensions does poker or Trivial Pursuit have? How many dimensions does solitaire have? How many dimensions does football have?

That's great that those games work on that level but when you have games like Call of Duty 4, you can't keep using old games as benchmarks. You can't say that because Mario works on such a basic level that far more advanced games and by extension the developments required to set them apart from older titles are unnecessary.
post #12 of 165
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

As far as the "Well I can just buy motion controllers for my Xbox 360 and/or PS3" good luck with that. If they do not ship with the console they will not be accepted by different developers across games. As fun as the Rock Band drums are, what other games are they useful for? What can the mic be used for? So Halo fans can play High School Musical - The Game after rocking out to Metallica on Rock Band? The guitar can be used (or not, depending on compatibility) with the Guitar Hero series. Huzzah!

First of all, these are all assumptions -- it's like reading a manifesto. Secondly, the market has spoken, and it says that it doesn't mind shelling out for custom controllers. Whether or not they are useful in other contexts doesn't really matter.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #13 of 165
Marvin:

I know very well what these acronyms stand for, I just know they are not important when it comes to making a good game. They can add to the enjoyment of a good game, but they are not necessary components.

With regards to graphics, do you sincerely believe that Nintendo doesn't understand graphics power? I tend to believe that Nintendo made a conscious choice to not compete with Sony and Microsoft in the uber-console race. The assumption in your entire argument is that console manufacturers should include cutting edge graphics. No one does that, they all make trade-offs for cost and availability.

What matters is how engaging the game itself is. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it as "hype", as if Nintendo users are deluded into having hours and hours and hours of fun with simple, cheap games.

The main thing here is that no one is arguing that PS3 and Xbox360 games are not fun, yet people are frothing at the mouth with regards to Nintendo and the Wii. It's just odd.

Quote:
Plus you make it seem like motion sensing controls are somewhat revolutionary and that's really all Nintendo has brought to the table. So the controller has changed to something that doesn't appeal to everyone and the games are the same.

I never said they were revolutionary, but they definitely change the way you interact with the games you play compared with the way Nintendo games used to be interacted with. It is different. You might not like it, but it is pretty fun in a lot of circumstances.

Quote:
The other console makers are pushing the boundaries of player immersion by advancing game technology while sticking with controllers that people are familiar with and yet also adding in motion sensing but not to an extent that it might negatively affect gameplay.

Taken straight out of some marketing handbook.

Does the Wii controller "negatively affect gameplay"?


Splinemodel:

What game-specific controllers are useful across multiple games? The Wii's controller is no more gimmicky than any other controller, and just like every other console's default controller its functions are available across the entire platform.

Game-specific controllers are only useful to that specific game and maybe others. If that were not the case, why would Sony even bother with tilt in their default controllers?

You can say that people don't mind paying a lot for different controllers, but that is not strictly true. Rock Band will never sell like Halo and the like, even if people like it more than Halo because there is a big difference between a $200 outlay and a $60 outlay.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #14 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

I know very well what these acronyms stand for, I just know they are not important when it comes to making a good game. They can add to the enjoyment of a good game, but they are not necessary components.

With regards to graphics, do you sincerely believe that Nintendo doesn't understand graphics power? I tend to believe that Nintendo made a conscious choice to not compete with Sony and Microsoft in the uber-console race. The assumption in your entire argument is that console manufacturers should include cutting edge graphics. No one does that, they all make trade-offs for cost and availability.

You're right, high-end graphics aren't necessary and everyone makes trade-offs. I own a PSP and I'm really happy with it and I even played some older PSone games from the playstation store on it and I was happy with them. The main problem I really have with the Wii and I guess Nintendo is the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

What matters is how engaging the game itself is. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it as "hype", as if Nintendo users are deluded into having hours and hours and hours of fun with simple, cheap games.

The main thing here is that no one is arguing that PS3 and Xbox360 games are not fun, yet people are frothing at the mouth with regards to Nintendo and the Wii. It's just odd.

But it's the price. Nintendo basically packed up a Gamecube in a new box with a new controller and pushed it out with the next-gen consoles at nearly the same price. I guess you could say it's not hype, it's a lie. The Wii is not a next generation console when the games it plays look like PS2 or original XBox games.

The PSP is 5 times faster than the DS and has a bigger and better screen and yet they cost about the same. They just aren't good value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Does the Wii controller "negatively affect gameplay"?

I think so because I don't always want to have a workout. Gaming is for relaxing and if I've been at work all day, the last thing I want is to be jumping around. In fact, there are very few times I'd ever want to jump around while playing on a computer. If it's possible to play all Wii games using a standard controller and you aren't forced to use the Wii-mote then fair enough but then all you're left with is a last-gen console with less game selection than the PS2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

The Wii's controller is no more gimmicky than any other controller, and just like every other console's default controller its functions are available across the entire platform.

I think it's the fact that Nintendo have made the controller the main selling point. When you see any of the marketing videos and people are asked what's so great about the Wii, they'll say it's the controller. Sony and Microsoft talk about how the design effort they put into the technical side of the machines make the games better. Better AI, better physics, more objects, larger and more destructible environments, online play, better output on HD displays. The Wii *just* has the Wii-mote.
post #15 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Nintendo thrives because they make fun, engaging games. It's that simple.

And the reason that GameCube was third in market share was?

Quote:
My favorite part of this thread was the listing of all these silly graphics acronyms. That's just darling.

And if we were talking about cars we'd have a completely different set of acronyms and the same point. Why is it that US manufacturers have to license hybrid technology from Japanese companies despite the fact they had prototype electric vehicles and R&D money?

Because building production hybrid systems requires experience in building production hybrid systems. By not investing in making advanced green production vehicles US makers didn't have the internal capability to build advanced reliable hybrid systems for their cars.

But hey, why address a point when you can simply ridicule it? That's just darling.

Quote:
As far as the "Well I can just buy motion controllers for my Xbox 360 and/or PS3" good luck with that. If they do not ship with the console they will not be accepted by different developers across games.

The effective use of Wii controllers is somewhat spotty. If Microsoft and Sony added Wii like motion controllers you would see the most effective game types to use those kinds of controllers actually use them. The rest of the games would not.

Sports games probably would. Some other specialized games might as well but there's a reason the current standard controllers have evolved to be fairly similar in layout.

Quote:
There is nothing at all innovative about piling on shaders and bloom filters. That is incremental improvement to the gameplay. You are only amazed by graphics relative to what you have seen before.

Or disenchanted by graphics that are now seen as too primitive but were deemed adequate before. Some games are more immune than others.

There are some older games with great gameplay that simply don't get played anymore. Why? Because poor graphics in comparison to the state of the art became too much a distraction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Marvin:

I know very well what these acronyms stand for, I just know they are not important when it comes to making a good game. They can add to the enjoyment of a good game, but they are not necessary components.

They are necessary when the competition has them and you do not. They provide much higher immersion which is important for some class of games.

Quote:
With regards to graphics, do you sincerely believe that Nintendo doesn't understand graphics power? I tend to believe that Nintendo made a conscious choice to not compete with Sony and Microsoft in the uber-console race. The assumption in your entire argument is that console manufacturers should include cutting edge graphics. No one does that, they all make trade-offs for cost and availability.

The point isn't that they didn't understand or didn't make a conscious choice but that their choice will preclude them from effective competition in the uber-console race for at least one generation. Probably two or three.

You can say that the casual market is more lucrative and Nintendo doesn't have to compete in the uber-console market but with respect to its ability to compete if it wanted to, its hard to argue that the Wii was a positive step except for revenue.

If the competition has both fun casual games and uber-hard core games and the hardware to support both it will be very easy to go from Wiiiiiiii to GameCube. Neither MS nor Sony is going to conceed the casual market to Nintendo uncontested and Nintendo is unlikely to be able to compete in MS and Sony's market for quite some time.

Money is important but it doesn't always buy success or technical competence. It is dangerous to conceed technical prowess to the competition in a technical industry even if you are making rather pedestrian products. This is why car companies invest in racing technology and rotate engineers in and out of racing duty.

That Nintendo decided to drop out of the "Forumula One" category of consoles doesn't mean they'll make less money today. It might mean some serious issues tomorrow since building a motion controller is a heck of a lot easier than building a next gen "uber" console.
post #16 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think so because I don't always want to have a workout. Gaming is for relaxing and if I've been at work all day, the last thing I want is to be jumping around. In fact, there are very few times I'd ever want to jump around while playing on a computer. If it's possible to play all Wii games using a standard controller and you aren't forced to use the Wii-mote then fair enough but then all you're left with is a last-gen console with less game selection than the PS2.

I'm not a Wii owner, but it's my impression that you can play practically everything with the motion inputs sitting down. Large body motions are optional.
Quote:
I think it's the fact that Nintendo have made the controller the main selling point. When you see any of the marketing videos and people are asked what's so great about the Wii, they'll say it's the controller. Sony and Microsoft talk about how the design effort they put into the technical side of the machines make the games better. Better AI, better physics, more objects, larger and more destructible environments, online play, better output on HD displays. The Wii *just* has the Wii-mote.

The Wii has good exclusives, which is also the main draw of both of the other platforms.

Sure, the others are talking about all that technology, but unless I'm mistaken, dynamic destructible environments have completely failed to materialize to this date, and the latest Civilization still doesn't have an AI that poses any challenge to an average human player on equal footing. The technology doesn't deliver!

I think for their next console, Nintendo should catch up with Sony's and MS' current gen performance and go a little step ahead. The jump from smooth 480p to smooth, detailed, antialiased 720p is huge. From there onwards it doesn't matter that much. I'm not confident that Sony and MS are capable of making much of a change in gameplay with whatever hardware comes next gen.

Nintendo should also dive in online play instead of the current toe-dipping. I'd think it best if they have free online with cheap subscriptions for a number of specific games (mostly MMORPG-type). Headset and camera shipped with every Wii2. There has been plenty of time to see what works and what doesn't, just steal everything off XBox Live and the PS store/community/wtf.

Wrap that up with full Wii controller compatibility ie. both consoles use the same controller. Maybe Wii software compatibility. Some kinds of deal to transfer your Virtual Console stuff on your new console. $300 pricepoint, early summer 2009 intro, good availability at launch two months before holidays?
post #17 of 165
Marvin:

Quote:
But it's the price. Nintendo basically packed up a Gamecube in a new box with a new controller and pushed it out with the next-gen consoles at nearly the same price. I guess you could say it's not hype, it's a lie. The Wii is not a next generation console when the games it plays look like PS2 or original XBox games.

The Wii is not a repackaged Gamecube, it has very different hardware and specially-designed chipsets.
Further, what the hell does "next-generation" mean? What is the criteria?

You are talking falsehood and nonsense.

Quote:
The PSP is 5 times faster than the DS and has a bigger and better screen and yet they cost about the same. They just aren't good value.

The DS has a better game library and has touch-sensitive screens. What is the "value" you want? What is the measure of "value"?

Quote:
I think so because I don't always want to have a workout.

Have you ever, in your life, played a Wii game?
What Wii game gives someone a workout? The only game I have found that requires some level of physical effort is, ironically, Wii bowling.

Quote:
Gaming is for relaxing and if I've been at work all day, the last thing I want is to be jumping around.

Then a Wii shouldn't bother you, because it doesn't involve jumping around.

When you talk about "jumping around" you might as well post "I HAVE NEVER PLAYED A WII GAME" in bright all-caps after every single one of your sentences. I might as well say the PS3 requires me to shove dollar bills into the Blu-Ray slot every 30 minutes.

Quote:
I think it's the fact that Nintendo have made the controller the main selling point. When you see any of the marketing videos and people are asked what's so great about the Wii, they'll say it's the controller. Sony and Microsoft talk about how the design effort they put into the technical side of the machines make the games better. Better AI, better physics, more objects, larger and more destructible environments, online play, better output on HD displays. The Wii *just* has the Wii-mote.

So?


vinea:

Quote:
And the reason that GameCube was third in market share was?

Nintendo thrives. They make profit. The GameCube made profit. The Wii makes profit. The DS makes profit. The GBA makes profit. Does the MS Xbox division make profit? Does Sony's PlayStation division? If so, how much compared to Nintendo?

Quote:
But hey, why address a point when you can simply ridicule it? That's just darling.

What's to address? Am I supposed to believe the Wii inherently inferior because it is not as impressive technologically?

Quote:
The effective use of Wii controllers is somewhat spotty.

What do you mean by "effective use"? Myself, and many others, find the dual-stick controls of FPS on consoles to be completely absurd compared to the keyboard/mouse combination. Is my frustration with that an instance of "ineffective use" by Sony and MS?

Quote:
If Microsoft and Sony added Wii like motion controllers you would see the most effective game types to use those kinds of controllers actually use them. The rest of the games would not.

Wait… is this not what can happen with the Wii?
Will Nintendo murder developers who choose to use the Wii for regular controller usage?

Quote:
Or disenchanted by graphics that are now seen as too primitive but were deemed adequate before. Some games are more immune than others.

True dat. While the "next-gen" fanboys are griping about the Wii's "primitive" graphics I'll be using the little pointer to gather up star bits and smiling while Mario jumps around on little rocket ships.

Quote:
They are necessary when the competition has them and you do not.

How, then, do you explain the Wii's success relative to the PS3 and Xbox 360? "Necessary"? Are you quite sure that's the word you want to use?

Quote:
You can say that the casual market is more lucrative and Nintendo doesn't have to compete in the uber-console market but with respect to its ability to compete if it wanted to, its hard to argue that the Wii was a positive step except for revenue.

If Nintendo wanted to compete in the uber-console market, do you think they would have released the Wii?

I might as well act pissed off that the Xbox 360 is not a microwave oven and dishwasher.

Quote:
Neither MS nor Sony is going to conceed the casual market to Nintendo uncontested and Nintendo is unlikely to be able to compete in MS and Sony's market for quite some time.

Perhaps we can have MS and Sony catch up to Nintendo before we start worrying about whether or not Nintendo can hang with them.

Quote:
Money is important but it doesn't always buy success or technical competence.

Money can very easily buy technical competence. Tell me, who makes the chipsets that run in the Xbox 360 and PS3. I will give you a clue: The answer is neither Sony nor Microsoft.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #18 of 165
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

What game-specific controllers are useful across multiple games? ...

You can say that people don't mind paying a lot for different controllers, but that is not strictly true. Rock Band will never sell like Halo and the like, even if people like it more than Halo because there is a big difference between a $200 outlay and a $60 outlay.

To answer the former, I don't think it matters. To answer the latter, if Harmonix is making the same profit margin as Bungie/MS, then they don't have to sell nearly as many copies. Personally, I think their profit margin is probably substantially higher than that which Halo earns. The revenue generating ability of Guitar Hero and Rockband are not in dispute.

In response to a later claim you made about the difference of the Wii from the gamecube, a good analog here is that the gamecube is like an early PowerMac G4 and the Wii is like a later PowerMac G4. Except that the main CPU in the Wii is just a 2x clocked Gamecube CPU. But these are just technical niggles. I don't see the point in arguing about hardware that only a tiny percentage of the market cares about. With that said, I still think the value of the Wii as a product will diminish much more quickly than that of its competitors, due to its handicapped facilities.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #19 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

The Wii is not a repackaged Gamecube, it has very different hardware and specially-designed chipsets.

Further, what the hell does "next-generation" mean? What is the criteria?

You are talking falsehood and nonsense.

And you haven't a clue. Do you believe that you understand the Wii better than Shigeru Miyamoto?

"The hardware is basically a GC. We've upgraded our development tools to new versions but, you can still use GC programs as they are. With that in mind, I thought we could remake GC titles for the Wii and modify them to work with the Wii remote so that they're more fun to play. "

http://kotaku.com/gaming/shiggy/miya...-gc-205086.php

Who's talking falsehood and nonsense now?

Quote:
Have you ever, in your life, played a Wii game?
What Wii game gives someone a workout? The only game I have found that requires some level of physical effort is, ironically, Wii bowling.

Any of the sports games if your inclined but yes, you can cheat and do minimal movement on nearly all of them, even bowling. I dunno if that's really a plus though.

Quote:
So?

So...if its basically a gamecube with a nifty controller then there's no technological leap for MS or Sony to replicate the gameplay now is there?

Quote:
Nintendo thrives. They make profit. The GameCube made profit. The Wii makes profit. The DS makes profit. The GBA makes profit. Does the MS Xbox division make profit? Does Sony's PlayStation division? If so, how much compared to Nintendo?

Sony's game unit varies from being the anchor around Sony's neck to supporting the whole company. MS believes strongly enough that the console is a strategic move that it's been willing to bleed money for quite a while.

Yes, Nintendo has been very profitable and stable. But we're not talking about which company's stock to buy but which company's console.

Quote:
What's to address? Am I supposed to believe the Wii inherently inferior because it is not as impressive technologically?

No, the point to address is that Nintendo has effectively written itself out of the uber-console market.

Quote:
Wait is this not what can happen with the Wii?
Will Nintendo murder developers who choose to use the Wii for regular controller usage?

No, your assertion was that no one would use motion controllers if Sony and MS introduced them. Why wouldn't they?

Quote:
True dat. While the "next-gen" fanboys are griping about the Wii's "primitive" graphics I'll be using the little pointer to gather up star bits and smiling while Mario jumps around on little rocket ships.

No, the next gen fanboys will be playing other games not available for the Wii. And while Mario will never be on another console you will likely have access to any other Wii game because there's no challenge in porting it to either the 360 or PS3.

If you like Mario, that's awesome. Enjoy.

Quote:
How, then, do you explain the Wii's success relative to the PS3 and Xbox 360? "Necessary"? Are you quite sure that's the word you want to use?

Cost and the fact its no longer in the same weight class.

Yes, necessary is the word I want to use when the topic is "uber-console". Wii's success relative to the PS3 is like asking "how, then, do you explain the success of Toyota Corolla relative to the Porsche 911 and BMW 7 series? "Necessary?" Are you quite sure that "luxury interior" and "performance" are the words you want to use?"

Quote:
If Nintendo wanted to compete in the uber-console market, do you think they would have released the Wii?

I might as well act pissed off that the Xbox 360 is not a microwave oven and dishwasher.

Nintendo was an uber-console maker even through the GameCube. Now they are not.

You cannot both assert that the Wii is equivalent to a "next-gen" console and then claim its not the same thing and therefore can't be compared. Either the Wii is an uber-console and should be compared in terms of CPU and Graphics capability to same generation uber-consoles or its not a "next-gen" uber-console.

Quote:
Perhaps we can have MS and Sony catch up to Nintendo before we start worrying about whether or not Nintendo can hang with them.

Catch up to what? Nintendo has no uber-console offering by your own admission.

Quote:
Money can very easily buy technical competence. Tell me, who makes the chipsets that run in the Xbox 360 and PS3. I will give you a clue: The answer is neither Sony nor Microsoft.

Tell me, who writes the first party games for the XBox 360 and PS3? Oh hey, by definition, first party games are written by the company that owns the platform. Which first party developers are getting real world experience coding for next generation platforms and which one isn't? Which two platforms have high-end exclusives and which non-uber platform doesn't have high-end exclusives?

Software is key right? Because you've been arguing that hardware specs are irrelevant.

As far as hardware, Sony did a lot of the hardware work on the PS3 that it likely won't do on the PS4. Many current hardware companies are going to bow out after 45nm. The last fab that TI will build is 45nm. Going the next process step will be too expensive for everyone except Intel, IBM, AMD (if they're lucky), a couple other companies like Toshiba and Samsung and the uber-foundries. But not Sony which is why it sold its Cell production to Toshiba.
post #20 of 165
You know the most interesting thing about Nintendo writing itself out of the uber-console market is that its competitors are no longer really Sony and Microsoft but Apple.

The types of games that Nintendo is moving toward are the same kind of games that would most likely appear on Apple products. Like the iPhone, iPod vs NDS and the AppleTV vs Wii. Hardware wise Apple isn't all that far behind in capability.

Software wise Apple is vastly behind Nintendo but given that the graphics capabilities will trail PCs and consoles for both platforms the software deficiency is a lot easier to make up for Apple and Apple has the advantage of better music and video integration.

The focus is very different given that Apple will only really do games to support their set top strategy for audio and video dominance but that really only means they aren't going to do any hard-core games. Not that they won't try to do casual games as well as Apple does everything else. The downside for Apple is it doesn't really seem to grok games.
post #21 of 165
Splinemodel:

No one ever argued that the Wii was on par with the PS3 and Xbox 360 hardware-wise. I have argued that the Wii is not just a GC in a different box, and that is true. Even if it's just more powerful GC hardware, then it's more powerful and more capable.

The criteria to be truly "next-gen" is completely arbitrary, based on whatever the speaker wants to argue.

As far as diminishing, the GBA is still the #1 selling portable game system.

Quote:
To answer the former, I don't think it matters. To answer the latter, if Harmonix is making the same profit margin as Bungie/MS, then they don't have to sell nearly as many copies. Personally, I think their profit margin is probably substantially higher than that which Halo earns. The revenue generating ability of Guitar Hero and Rockband are not in dispute.

Do you mean margin of profit per unit sold? I cannot imagine something being more profitable in that sense than Halo. It's only a disc. Rock Band, on the other hand, has all kinds of fragile equipment, and if you've been keeping up with it, you'll see a lot of people sending equipment back RMA already.



vinea:

What does Miyamoto's quote show me? It is similar to the GC in framework, and I am not sure why that is necessarily something I should care about. It certainly isn't a repackaged GC. Even if it's just a higher-clocked GC, it's not a GC.

Quote:
Any of the sports games if your inclined but yes, you can cheat and do minimal movement on nearly all of them, even bowling. I dunno if that's really a plus though.

Cheat? In what way is it cheating?

Quote:
So...if its basically a gamecube with a nifty controller then there's no technological leap for MS or Sony to replicate the gameplay now is there?

There's the nifty controller…

Quote:
Yes, Nintendo has been very profitable and stable. But we're not talking about which company's stock to buy but which company's console.

And people seem to think the Wii is well worth buying. Why? Because game systems are about games, not about who put the most R&D into the hardware.

Quote:
No, the point to address is that Nintendo has effectively written itself out of the uber-console market.

So they're uncompetitive in a market they apparently didn't want to compete in… what a revelation.

Quote:
No, your assertion was that no one would use motion controllers if Sony and MS introduced them. Why wouldn't they?

I have already discussed this. The controllers that ship with the console are what developers will develop for. People will not be willing to continually buy new controllers just to play new games. There might be exceptions like Rock Band, but those are rare exceptions. If you want evidence, please think of an add-on controller than became widely used across many different game titles.

Quote:
Wii's success relative to the PS3 is like asking "how, then, do you explain the success of Toyota Corolla relative to the Porsche 911 and BMW 7 series? "Necessary?" Are you quite sure that "luxury interior" and "performance" are the words you want to use?"

Uh-oh, people, we have entered the land of car analogies!

I am not sure where to begin when someone starts comparing Xboxes and Playstations to Porsches and BMWs. There is no similarity here. What makes the 911 and the 7 series special is their brand image, for the most part. Anyone who gets hard over the name "Sony Playstation" or "Microsoft Xbox" isn't worth considering. The image of an Xbox or a Playstation is not worth anything, except to those whose approval no one seeks.

As for "performance", what performance, specifically? Teraflops?

Quote:
You cannot both assert that the Wii is equivalent to a "next-gen" console and then claim its not the same thing and therefore can't be compared. Either the Wii is an uber-console and should be compared in terms of CPU and Graphics capability to same generation uber-consoles or its not a "next-gen" uber-console.

I never said the Wii was equivalent. I merely said it was not a repackaged GameCube (which is true) and that it is obviously not an attempt to be like the PS3 and Xbox 360. I don't know how that qualifies it from being "next-gen", you still haven't provided any kind of criteria for that.

Buy the very words "next" and "generation" it seems that the Wii is obviously "next-gen" because it came chronologically after the GC and has different/improved features.

Quote:
Software is key right? Because you've been arguing that hardware specs are irrelevant.

Yes, it is key, and what first-party makes better software than Nintendo?

And if Nintendo is making profit and cannot adjust to better graphics (a baseless assertion on your part), they can do exactly what Microsoft did, buy your intellectual property and its developer (Bungie).

Microsoft and Sony, for the most part, buy their exclusives with money. Nintendo could easily do the same if they chose to, especially since they sell more units and are more profitable.

Quote:
As far as hardware, Sony did a lot of the hardware work on the PS3 that it likely won't do on the PS4. Many current hardware companies are going to bow out after 45nm. The last fab that TI will build is 45nm. Going the next process step will be too expensive for everyone except Intel, IBM, AMD (if they're lucky), a couple other companies like Toshiba and Samsung and the uber-foundries. But not Sony which is why it sold its Cell production to Toshiba.

Did Nintendo not do any of the "hardware work" on their consoles?

You make grand statements about what these companies do and do not do, yet you provide no evidence.

Quote:
The types of games that Nintendo is moving toward are the same kind of games that would most likely appear on Apple products.

Again, confident statements about a reality you can know nothing at all about.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #22 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

What does Miyamoto's quote show me? It is similar to the GC in framework, and I am not sure why that is necessarily something I should care about. It certainly isn't a repackaged GC. Even if it's just a higher-clocked GC, it's not a GC.

When you can't even accept that the statement "the hardware is basically a GC" to mean that...well the hardware is basically a GC then no amount of further evidence that you claim to want will change your opinion in the slightest.

Quote:
Cheat? In what way is it cheating?

It is cheating because a simple wrist flip is not any more engaging than pushing a joystick. The point of the controller is to mimic real sports behaviors for higher immersion.

Quote:
There's the nifty controller

Which is easily replicated.

Quote:
Uh-oh, people, we have entered the land of car analogies!

I am not sure where to begin when someone starts comparing Xboxes and Playstations to Porsches and BMWs. There is no similarity here. What makes the 911 and the 7 series special is their brand image, for the most part. Anyone who gets hard over the name "Sony Playstation" or "Microsoft Xbox" isn't worth considering. The image of an Xbox or a Playstation is not worth anything, except to those whose approval no one seeks.

As for "performance", what performance, specifically? Teraflops?

BMW's and Porsches are performance vehicles and that is part of their image. This is why they don't make non-performance cars under their own brand.

For consoles the performance is the graphics capability as well as compute capability to support advanced physics models.

Don't play dumb to be an ass please.

Quote:
I never said the Wii was equivalent. I merely said it was not a repackaged GameCube (which is true) and that it is obviously not an attempt to be like the PS3 and Xbox 360. I don't know how that qualifies it from being "next-gen", you still haven't provided any kind of criteria for that.

Buy the very words "next" and "generation" it seems that the Wii is obviously "next-gen" because it came chronologically after the GC and has different/improved features.

Next-gen uber-console. It is technologically "basically a GC" so hardware wise "basically last generation".

Quote:
Yes, it is key, and what first-party makes better software than Nintendo?

Depends on the games you like doesn't it? If you like casual games that is skewed to the kid demographics then yes, Nintendo makes some of the best in class games.

If you like more mature games then no, Nintendo is not the best software maker.

Quote:
And if Nintendo is making profit and cannot adjust to better graphics (a baseless assertion on your part), they can do exactly what Microsoft did, buy your intellectual property and its developer (Bungie).

And Microsoft is hemmoraging money. Since this is not traditional Nintendo strategy it seems unlikely that they would pursue this. I also covered that in the original post.

Quote:
Did Nintendo not do any of the "hardware work" on their consoles?

Not to the same extend as Sony. Did Nintendo own its own fab and build some of its own components? No.

Quote:
You make grand statements about what these companies do and do not do, yet you provide no evidence.

There appears to be no point to provide you with any evidence since you simply disregard even the most un-ambigious statement from the best source.

Quote:
Again, confident statements about a reality you can know nothing at all about.

Nintendo has stated they are not interested in the hard core market and seek the casual market.

Apple has stated an interest in games and now is patenting potential mobile game technology for multi-touch. They certainly are not going for the hard core market at all.

You have completely failed to provide any evidence of your own for your absurd assertions.
post #23 of 165
Thread Starter 
Grove: the bulk of the cost in a game is development, and the second biggest is marketing. I would say that Halo 3 definitely required a lot more development dollars than Rockband did, and marketing seems about the same. In calculating the final profit, you have to factor in all these things.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #24 of 165
vinea:

If it was just about performance then BMW and Porsche customers would do far better spending far less money. But it's not just about performance. The BMW and the Porsche are about image first and foremost (also, do you really contend that all BMW vehicles are "performance" vehicles?).

The BMW provides a comfortable, stylish ride. The 7 series is not exactly barreling around tracks and setting records. The 911 is easily outmatched performance-wise by cheaper vehicles (like the Z06).

The PS3 and Xbox 360 are not like BMWs and Porsches because there is no image to them. They are game consoles. Anyone showing outward allegiance above the age of 12 to a games console, as a BMW/Porsche driver might, would rightly be ridiculed.

Even further, a Corolla is a lot cheaper than the BMW/Porsche. The Wii is ~$250 and the PS3 80GB is ~$500. A $250 difference is minor. The $65,000 difference between a Corolla (~$15k) and a Porsche 911 (~%80k) is just a tad more substantial. The car analogy does not work, especially when as absurdly cast as you drew it. I could buy an Xbox 360 and a PS3 on my way home from work and my wife wouldn't even be angry at the expenditure, just the amount of space they would take up in the living room. Do not mention BMWs and Porsches.

The PS3 and Xbox 360 are direct competitors.
The Wii is something that's a little different.

The Wii is outselling the Xbox 360 and the PS3, it has been since it was released and there's no real indication that is going to change. I truly fail to see how Nintendo is losing anything here except mindspace among people who aren't their customers in the first place. WHAT THE HELL MICROSOFT DOESN'T HAVE ZELDA THEY ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!

Nintendo dominates the casual games market and Apple is absolutely no threat to that. As long as Nintendo controls Mario and Link and Pokemon and so many other intellectual properties what is the threat Apple brings?

Am I supposed to think that Apple will just, by its very nature, dominate whatever space it enters? I guess that's why we're all playing Dogcow: Extreme on the Pippin 6.0, right?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #25 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

When you can't even accept that the statement "the hardware is basically a GC" to mean that...well the hardware is basically a GC then no amount of further evidence that you claim to want will change your opinion in the slightest.

He's not specifically referring to performance in that quote, it's in the context of game compatibility, and performance is likely about 1.5-2x the gamecube. It's irrelevant, though, really.

Honestly, it's pretty strange you have such a bug up your ass about wii. It's a great, fun system that features fantastic games and gameplay that you can't get on the other systems, and lots of people recognize that. You don't get the wii to play COD3, you get it to play Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports, Metroid, Zelda, etc. And, frankly, they are a ton of fun.

If you don't like them, don't get a wii. Personally, I like all kinds of games, so I just get them all.
Quote:
Depends on the games you like doesn't it? If you like casual games that is skewed to the kid demographics then yes, Nintendo makes some of the best in class games.

If you like more mature games then no, Nintendo is not the best software maker.

Eh, huh? And as someone who plays Halo or COD just about every night, I can't image how any sane person would describe the environment as "mature." Oh, you must mean superficially, like how graphics help you momentarily forget that a quarter of the people your are running around killing are 8-14 year olds. I can honestly say that it's been probably a decade since I last even witnessed IRL the severe level of immaturity I've encountered on xbox live. I'm not complaining (I love xbox live), it just is what it is, and mature it is not. And with manhunt on the wii...
post #26 of 165
Hello. I'm going to jump in here and explain why the Wii wins and the others do not and here is something fun, I'm not going to address nor do I even care about technical specs.

Hardware doesn't make dad swipe the bankcard when junior is begging, a host of other factors do.

So about me. I'm 37, I don't own any of these consoles but I am considering one. I have a friend who is my age and just purchased a Wii as his first console EVAR! Between us we have five kids aged respectively 5,6,6,8 and 15. (He had that free love isn't free thing going on when he was young.)

So anyway, suppose you are an adult, suppose you have kids, suppose those kids want you to occasionally play games with them so you don't feel like terrible parent what do you buy?

Are you going to buy, something with 14 buttons that you don't understand, or something with motion controllers, that real or not justified or not, factual or not make you believe you can attempt the game?

I mean the motion controller could completely stink. You expected to stink. At least now you stink with something you can understand as opposed to something you don't.

So justified or not, good hardware or not, the motion controllers get parent buy in which means you buy a Wii.

Now, the kids have brought in the videogame system. We plugged it into the wonderful, large screen, HD television in my friend's living room. My TV is large screen but still SD. Either way we plug it in and the graphics look....good enough. The parents swiped the card and they don't have a true comparison most of the time. My friend is a PC gamer so in his view all consoles look worse. He doesn't care if it is 20% worse versus 30-40% worse. It is still worse so no matter what he buys he has to tolerate sub par. So you either care and tolerate or are clueless and don't care. Neither of those points matter because here is the crux of the whole issue, when we are done swinging at baseballs, making Mario chase stars or kicking super striker goals, your butt is going to to drag that console back upstairs, get it the hell away from MY television so I can watch the Lakers hopefully in HD.

So the real point is that even if the households have X% of HD television penetration, parents do not want arguments with kids about who controls the television. IF there is a second television in the family room, kid's room, whatever, it had better be able to play well on that set. It might even mean I intentionally buy something NOT HD just so we don't have another point for the kids to toss into the argument over MY TV.

Remember, adults swipe those cards. Do I want junior complaining he can't play his console because it isn't on an HD television, or do I get something that works on all televisions?

Wait.. I know what you are saying that Xbox360 and PS3 work on SDTV's as well. However the parents who are fronting this cash would rather not argue and be safe rather than sorry. No HD, no kids swearing they have to monopolize the largest and most expensive television in the house.

Finally there is cost. In the real world cost is a serious concern and that means cheap for the win. There are no gotchas to the Wii and a fair amount of value, real or imagined, that can get folks to commit. There is only one system to consider and it doesn't leave off compatibility or storage to entice a larger buy. The console is $250 and comes with one game. You buy a second game called Wii Play for $50, the cost of the controller and you get the game for free. These things matter when calculating value.

In fact people seldom purchase what is best. To argue that something is the greatest or best often means it won't make a dime and the commitment to it in terms of cost is too large to overcome
.

So from the view of value Wii totally wins even if it is inferior to several other choices in every possible way, because it provides the best value. It works equally well on all sets. It is the cheapest. You get the system, two games and two controllers for $300. More fun, fewer arguments and I can still afford my DVR on the main TV after buying it.

Is the Wii technologically inferior to the other two consoles? It depends upon what you mean by inferior. Are the graphics worse? Undoubtedly. Might they even suck in comparison to the XBox360 and PS3? Sure!

But being behind technologically in performance can also mean being ahead when it comes to space, power needs and dependability. Let's say everyone here talking about technology is completely correct and the Wii is nothing more than an overclocked gamecube. Umm.... who cares. My kids can drag that overclocked gamecube away from my television and back to their own because it is only the size of a few DVD cases. They can take the Wii into the travel trailer on camping trips. They might be able to even plug it into the inverter in the car on long driving trips.

Big, bulky, lots of heat, fans and power draw are all losers here. Portable wins. I cannot tell you what resolution the GBA SP runs, how many megahertz it has or how many colors it can show. I CAN tell you that it lasts around 14-15 hours before needing a charge though and that means it rules in my book. It WINS!

Parents talk and when the wife hears about so and so's mom having to stop at the UPS store to drop off the broken XBox360 AGAIN due to reliability issues, it gets passed around in the mom gossip. If I buy a console will the network effect make me more likely to consider a Wii so my kids can bring over their controllers and games to play with the other family? Sure. I'm not even sure how it works but a couple of the nephews don't even have a Wii. They just bought the controller that I guess stores their information in it some how?

Either way most things do not win by having the best technology or graphics. I have no doubt that we will probably have to get a Wii someday. It is cheap enough to get me to buy in. Other people have stuff to use and share. It can go anywhere and I can give it a shot if I care to and then send them away without complaint when I don't.

I bet all those non-technological variables weigh in much more.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #27 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

vinea:

If it was just about performance then BMW and Porsche customers would do far better spending far less money. But it's not just about performance. The BMW and the Porsche are about image first and foremost (also, do you really contend that all BMW vehicles are "performance" vehicles?).

No, the point is that for upscale vehicles in that category, performance is a given even if the drivers never really expect to use it and dono't have the skill. There are other brands more luxurious and both of those companies stress "driver experience".

If you don't have performance then you aren't competing in that segment. It's a requirement along with leather seats.

Quote:
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are not like BMWs and Porsches because there is no image to them. They are game consoles. Anyone showing outward allegiance above the age of 12 to a games console, as a BMW/Porsche driver might, would rightly be ridiculed.

Fine, they aren't luxury items but that doesn't invalidate the analogy that market segments often have defining characteristics that if you don't have, you simply can't compete in.

Performance is an easy analogy since for uber-consoles the "performance" aspect is graphics capability. You don't have it, you don't compete in that segment. Lack of eye-candy will kill you with the target demographic.

Quote:
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are direct competitors.
The Wii is something that's a little different.

Wii is something a lot different. Just because its a console doesn't mean its in the same category selling to the same demographic.

Quote:
The Wii is outselling the Xbox 360 and the PS3, it has been since it was released and there's no real indication that is going to change. I truly fail to see how Nintendo is losing anything here except mindspace among people who aren't their customers in the first place. WHAT THE HELL MICROSOFT DOESN'T HAVE ZELDA THEY ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!

Again, relative sales don't matter if they aren't direct competitors or shooting for the same demographic. How hard is this to understand?

Nintendo can be fantastically successful as a game company. The point is that it does not compete in the uber-console market. You can claim it is by choice but it is also possible that it is not by choice but an inability to execute in making a competitive uber-console.

That they changed to a market segement that they can dominate is a wonderful strategy and will be very successful.

But the point is that in the last generation they failed execution, ended up in third and this generation didn't bother to play. There is no indication that even if they CHOOSE to compete next time that they would be successful in execution.

Will they be wildly successful in not competing? Sure.

If you wish a computer analogy vs cars, this is the same kind of thing with Apple. Wonderful company, excellent strategy, big moneymaker, relatively low share.

Apple does not compete in the commodity PC market against HP and Dell. You can say this is a choice but in my opinion the Apple corporate culture really precludes very good execution in a commodity market. Try to enact a commodity strategy with the current staff and executive team and you're likely in for very poor execution.

When Jobs came back to Apple, he decided that Apple was ineffective in pursuit of market share and went back to a strategy of pursuit of profits (and excellence). No more clones, drastic reduction on models, and higher ASPs.

Was it by choice? Surely.

Could he have made the choice to stay the course? Surely. But it would have sucked.

If Nintendo had gone head to head with MS and Sony it likely would have lost. Again. So it didn't.

But that certainly doesn't imply very great things about Nintendo's console hardware abilities.

Quote:
Nintendo dominates the casual games market and Apple is absolutely no threat to that. As long as Nintendo controls Mario and Link and Pokemon and so many other intellectual properties what is the threat Apple brings?

What threat did the Playstation pose to Nintendo? What threat does the iPhone pose to Nokia? What threat does any new entrant pose to an incumbant?

Mario, Link and Pokemon are great franchises. But new franchises are also possible.

Quote:
Am I supposed to think that Apple will just, by its very nature, dominate whatever space it enters? I guess that's why we're all playing Dogcow: Extreme on the Pippin 6.0, right?

Yes, because the Newton sucked Apple will never be successful in that market. Ever.

What threat does Apple bring? Innovation just like Nintendo does. The iPod Touch will be far more a threat than the PSP if Apple started to think games because they tend to think a bit more outside the box product-wise than Sony has shown in the past.
post #28 of 165
Last year, I got all 3 of them, Xbox 360 (April), Wii (Nov), and PS3 (Dec). Today, I have only the Wii and PS3.

Honestly, I haven't turned on the Wii for almost 2 months. Nintendo needs to come up with something more fun. I'm waiting for the Wii fit tho. On the PS3 side, I love it. Now, I'm thinking of getting a PSP Slim.
post #29 of 165
vinea:

What market is it that Nintendo "can't" compete in? The "uber-console" market? Is that a profitable market to be in right now?

Your "uber-console market" and "casual console market" are false dichotomies. The Wii is selling like crazy, and not just to people who were never in the market for consoles before. If the Wii is not working in the same market as Sony and Microsoft, then how the hell do you explain the massive sales advantage the Wii has? Do you really think that Nintendo opened a big new market?

You are going to have to show that the Wii is selling to people who do not normally buy consoles to prove this absurd idea that the Wii is only successful because non-gamers are buying it.

Quote:
What threat did the Playstation pose to Nintendo? What threat does the iPhone pose to Nokia? What threat does any new entrant pose to an incumbant?

Is Nintendo any less profitable now than before the PlayStation?

You just argued that they were in different markets and now you are saying that they are in the same? Pick an argument.

Quote:
Yes, because the Newton sucked Apple will never be successful in that market. Ever.

They might be, but their past failure shows us something. Hell, you made the same point yourself with the GC, but the GC wasn't even a failure, it turned great profits for a long time and moved a lot of units. Talking out of both sides of your mouth yet again.

Apple has no valuable experience in the games market. They have no franchises. There is no reason to think they are any kind of threat until they show a reason.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #30 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

He's not specifically referring to performance in that quote, it's in the context of game compatibility, and performance is likely about 1.5-2x the gamecube. It's irrelevant, though, really.

No, he's referring to hardware architecture and general design. Sure its updated and faster with slightly better graphics but essentially its the same thing update to 2007 specs with whatever commodity parts best fit today.

Quote:
Honestly, it's pretty strange you have such a bug up your ass about wii. It's a great, fun system that features fantastic games and gameplay that you can't get on the other systems, and lots of people recognize that.

Who says I have a bug up my ass about the Wii? Someone asked for opinions, I provided mine. Did I ever say I didn't like the Wii? No.

Quote:
You don't get the wii to play COD3, you get it to play Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports, Metroid, Zelda, etc. And, frankly, they are a ton of fun.

The point is you don't get the wii to play COD3 and the disagreement is whether Nintendo has the chops anymore to build a console to compete with Sony and MS in that market.

No one disagrees that Nintendo has fun games.

Quote:
Eh, huh? And as someone who plays Halo or COD just about every night, I can't image how any sane person would describe the environment as "mature." Oh, you must mean superficially, like how graphics help you momentarily forget that a quarter of the people your are running around killing are 8-14 year olds.

No I mean I wouldn't let my 2-12 year olds play Halo or COD. Arguably they should even be more mature than 13 even for some Teen rated titles.

Quote:
I can honestly say that it's been probably a decade since I last even witnessed IRL the severe level of immaturity I've encountered on xbox live. I'm not complaining (I love xbox live), it just is what it is, and mature it is not. And with manhunt on the wii...

Killing people is a mature topic. Halo 3 has a ESRB Mature rating. COD4 has a ESRB Mature rating (except on the NDS).

Pokemon and Mario are ESRB Everyone. Zelda can be ESRB Everyone or Teen. Go to the ESRB site and most Nintendo games are E with a few Ts. Sony is T's with some Es and a few Ms.

So who makes better Everyone games? Nintendo. Who makes better Mature games? Well, given that Nintendo doesn't have any M's for the Wii it sure as heck aint them.
post #31 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

vinea:

What market is it that Nintendo "can't" compete in? The "uber-console" market? Is that a profitable market to be in right now?

Are you saying that there's no money to be made catering to the mature console gamer market?

So you conceed that Nintendo has been unable to compete?

Quote:
Your "uber-console market" and "casual console market" are false dichotomies.

It is not. There is a significant class of games that will not play well on the Wii. These are the games typically rated Mature and relies on graphics.

Quote:
The Wii is selling like crazy, and not just to people who were never in the market for consoles before. If the Wii is not working in the same market as Sony and Microsoft, then how the hell do you explain the massive sales advantage the Wii has? Do you really think that Nintendo opened a big new market?

They have tapped a new market. They are also the 2nd console for traditional gamers because it doesn't cost all that much.

But that does not mean that they STILL compete with Sony and Microsoft because it cannot play the class of games that hard core gamers want to buy. Halo 3, CoH4, Assassins Creed, etc.

It is not capable of being the only console for a gamer.

Quote:
You are going to have to show that the Wii is selling to people who do not normally buy consoles to prove this absurd idea that the Wii is only successful because non-gamers are buying it.

I don't need to show the obvious that every game mag, newspaper, etc has already stated. What is absurd is insinuating that Nintendo has not publically stated their objective is to reach a different audience and that analysts have pretty much agreed that they have been successful.

Quote:
Is Nintendo any less profitable now than before the PlayStation?

Nintendo no longer dominates the game industry as it did prior to the Playstation 1.

Quote:
You just argued that they were in different markets and now you are saying that they are in the same? Pick an argument.

I cannot help your poor reading comprehension where you add a "3" to where it does not exist. When the original Playstation was launched Nintendo was certainly in the same market. 2 generations later they have conceeded that market to Sony and Microsoft and are no longer in the same market.

Quote:
They might be, but their past failure shows us something. Hell, you made the same point yourself with the GC, but the GC wasn't even a failure, it turned great profits for a long time and moved a lot of units. Talking out of both sides of your mouth yet again.

And you're being obtuse again. I never said that Nintendo couldn't EVER compete again but that it is unlikely to be able to for a generation and would have to buy back into the market. Apple has done this by investing in OSX for the iPhone and developing multi-touch hardware. It's been a long time since the Newton. It has been a long time since the Pippin and we're seeing game related patents.

The GC was a failure because it took 3rd. Given the costs of developing a next generation console and the amount of money Microsoft was willing to sink into buying market share it dropped out. Unlike Sega they didn't exit the hardware business but instead found a different niche.

They went from #1 market share in 3rd & 4th generation (NES, SNES) to #2 in the 5th generation (N64) to #3 in the 6th generation (GC).

They've taken #1 again 20 years later but in a different market segment.

Quote:
Apple has no valuable experience in the games market. They have no franchises. There is no reason to think they are any kind of threat until they show a reason.

In 1993 Sony didn't have any valuable experience in the games market either. Nor did Apple have any valuable experience in phones until recently.

It is unlikely that Jobs will make a hard push into games but if Apple did wish to enter the game market (likely handhelds first) it would be far more of a threat than Sony today. Especially in the handheld market. Apple is unlikely to go the console route.
post #32 of 165
Thread Starter 
I think it's clear that we have one or more Wii fanboys, and the rest are, at the worst, realists. I don't think that anyone here is a Wii hater, but we do all realize that the Wii is short lived. Maybe Nintendo will pull an ace out of its sleeve, but doing so will be far more difficult in 2008 than it was in 2006.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #33 of 165
Spline:

You start a thread about the soon-to-come death of the Wii using extremely weak logic (Rock Band's peripherals) and you want to pretend this is about Wii fanboys versus "realists"?

The reality is that the Wii has been outselling the others since day one and there's no evidence that will stop. There's no evidence that people will be happy to buy Wii-type controllers for their PS3 or Xbox 360 or that any developers will start making Wii-type games for the PS3 and Xbox 360. You just tried to string together a bunch of moonbat possibilities and demanded they be treated as obvious future happenings.


vinea:

Quote:
The point is you don't get the wii to play COD3 and the disagreement is whether Nintendo has the chops anymore to build a console to compete with Sony and MS in that market.

This is the most ridiculous argument of all. "Chops"? What "chops" does one need to build an uber-console?


Quote:
Are you saying that there's no money to be made catering to the mature console gamer market?

I asked a question, answer it.
Let me try again: Is that (uber-console) market a profitable one to be in right now?

Answer it. Don't just reply with another question. You want to play this "uber-console market" as if it is a separate market, show me some numbers.

Quote:
So you conceed that Nintendo has been unable to compete?

Nintendo is outselling. I'm not worried about their ability to compete.



Here are some numbers.

If July demonstrated that Sony could improve sales of the PlayStation 3 by 66% by reducing its price by $100, then August revealed that Microsoft can achieve nearly the same with $20 - $50 price-reduction. However, even now, when Microsoft Xbox 360 is only $20 more expensive compared to Nintendo Wii, the latter is still more popular on the market, which means that overwhelmingly good acceptance of Wii is not a result of its low price.

Maybe there's something about this you just don't understand.

(Also, compared PS2 sales to PS3 sales. They can't even beat their own last-gen.)

Also:
Meanwhile, the market of portable game consoles shrank again by nearly 18% in August to approximately 583.4 thousand of units across the board. Nintendo sustains its leadership in the field with 383.3 thousand of Nintendo DS sold through and 69.5 thousand of Game Boy Advance bought by gamers in the USA. Sales of Sony PlayStation Portable dropped tangibly to 130.6 thousand of devices.

Show me some numbers with regards to these separate markets.

Quote:
It is not. There is a significant class of games that will not play well on the Wii. These are the games typically rated Mature and relies on graphics.

There is a significant class of games that will not play well on the PS3 and Xbox 360. These are games typically rated "E" and rely on accessibility and ease-of-use.

("HAY GUYZ I CAN MAKE BLANKET STATEMENTS TOO!")

Quote:
They have tapped a new market. They are also the 2nd console for traditional gamers because it doesn't cost all that much.

Where are your numbers?
Let me quote the source again: However, even now, when Microsoft Xbox 360 is only $20 more expensive compared to Nintendo Wii, the latter is still more popular on the market, which means that overwhelmingly good acceptance of Wii is not a result of its low price.

I have numbers and sources. You have nothing.

Quote:
But that does not mean that they STILL compete with Sony and Microsoft because it cannot play the class of games that hard core gamers want to buy. Halo 3, CoH4, Assassins Creed, etc.

Do "hardcore gamers" not want to play Zelda and Mario and Super Smash Brothers, as well?

Not too be presumptuous, but the answer is that they do, in fact, want to play these games.

Quote:
Nintendo no longer dominates the game industry as it did prior to the Playstation 1.

Nintendo still makes an assload of money, the games industry just grew (do you want numbers on this, too?).

Quote:
And you're being obtuse again. I never said that Nintendo couldn't EVER compete again but that it is unlikely to be able to for a generation and would have to buy back into the market.

All competitors in technology markets "buy" into them. Sony and MS invested an insane amount of money in their consoles.

Quote:
Apple has done this by investing in OSX for the iPhone and developing multi-touch hardware. It's been a long time since the Newton. It has been a long time since the Pippin and we're seeing game related patents.

So we see some game-related patents and an iPhone and we're supposed to think that handheld gaming is soon to be Apple's?

Let's see some games.

Quote:
In 1993 Sony didn't have any valuable experience in the games market either.

True enough, but they made a real investment. What has Apple done?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #34 of 165
Good debate and interesting points on both sides.

Personally from my experience I think the Wii has permanently split the gaming market into two segments. One segment is the younger or beginning gamer which the Wii is greatly appealing. The other segment is the mature or hardcore gamer which is dominated by the x box 360 and PS3.

I think that both can and will survive. Kids love the Wii and hardcore gamers love their PS3 or Xbox360.

MS or Sony could introduce motion controllers for their systems and put a hurting on the Wii. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. But the Wii has some nice exclusive titles which would help them survive.
post #35 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

MS or Sony could introduce motion controllers for their systems and put a hurting on the Wii. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. But the Wii has some nice exclusive titles which would help them survive.

It's one thing to introduce controllers, and another thing entirely to make them the default. In the first case, if you don't ship the controller with the game, the average player of your game won't have it.
(The fact is not lost on me that the SixAxis has motion sensors, but by all accounts I have read they are too inaccurate for decent control.)
post #36 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

It's one thing to introduce controllers, and another thing entirely to make them the default. In the first case, if you don't ship the controller with the game, the average player of your game won't have it.
(The fact is not lost on me that the SixAxis has motion sensors, but by all accounts I have read they are too inaccurate for decent control.)

I agree but Sony or MS could give users two sets of controllers with the purchase of a system. The real challenge as you mention is making them as functional as Nintendo has with the Wii.
post #37 of 165
And the fact that every single PS3 and Xbox 360 owner already has the current default controller. Once the system is released it's too late. If they want to change the way the games are interacted with, they need to look ahead to the PS4 and the Xbox 720.

And just another key thing to notice from the actual statistics I have provided. The two best-selling consoles from December 2006 to today are the Wii and the PS2. (The worst-selling, by far, being the PS3.)

The two best-selling consoles are also the least capable with regards to sheer graphics power.

Keep talking to me about this mythical "split" market.

Quote:
Kids love the Wii and hardcore gamers love their PS3 or Xbox360.

Unless you define "hardcore gamer" as "someone who doesn't have a Wii", what evidence do you have to argue that these are distinct market segments?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #38 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

...ESRB Mature rating...

So who makes better Everyone games? Nintendo. Who makes better Mature games? Well, given that Nintendo doesn't have any M's for the Wii it sure as heck aint them.

Your argument before wasn't ESRB ratings, it was that Nintendo's market is "skewed to the kid demographics" compared to the xbox and ps3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

If you like casual games that is skewed to the kid demographics then yes, Nintendo makes some of the best in class games. If you like more mature games then no...

backtomac has made a similar statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Personally from my experience I think the Wii has permanently split the gaming market into two segments. One segment is the younger or beginning gamer which the Wii is greatly appealing. The other segment is the mature or hardcore gamer which is dominated by the x box 360 and PS3.

This view about Nintendo's target market is pretty strange considering the fact that the wii is notable for being so heavily marketed toward much older demographics than either the xbox or the ps3, going so far as to include high-profile marketing campaigns directed at seniors. And the virtual console? Nostalgia, aka, older gamers. Simply put, the wii has much broader (including older) target markets than either the ps3 or the xbox.
post #39 of 165
It was touched on earlier, but if you actually go online and play these "mature" games, you will find it infested with people who are years away from being legally able to hold a job.

Who is this mystery "hardcore gamer", anyway?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #40 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

This view about Nintendo's target market is pretty strange considering the fact that the wii is notable for being so heavily marketed toward much older demographics than either the xbox or the ps3, going so far as to include high-profile marketing campaigns directed at seniors. And the virtual console? Nostalgia, aka, older gamers. Simply put, the wii has much broader (including older) target markets than either the ps3 or the xbox.

That's not what is meant by mature here. The closer to nappies you are in either direction, the less 'mature' you tend to be. It's meant in the same way the word 'adult' is used. Why wouldn't an OAP go to see an 'adult' movie? They are adults after all.

They can of course do so but they tend to be less inclined as with children.

The thing about Nintendo even when I was at school is that they were meant for children and as soon as the playstation 1 emerged, this became immediately apparent and I never looked back. I went SNES > PSone > PS2 > PSP. Having known what titles appear for a 'mature' console, I've never had a desire to become part of the childish Nintendo market again and it hasn't changed in the past 15 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

The reality is that the Wii has been outselling the others since day one and there's no evidence that will stop.

Didn't the PS3 outsell the Wii in Japan very recently?

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

The two best-selling consoles are also the least capable with regards to sheer graphics power.

Keep talking to me about this mythical "split" market.

Add all the Wii, Gameboy, Gamecube etc customers together - this is one market.
Now add, Xbox, xbox360, PSP, PS2, PS3 customers - this is the 'mature' market.

When you talk about sales numbers you need to consider the fact that Nintendo are not really competing on the same level with anyone else.

A hardcore gamer is defined by the games and usually the level of difficulty. Inexperienced gamers may at times play similar games to hardcore gamers but not in the same way (they tend to run and button bash) and Nintendo's games clearly reflect this with more simplistic controls. It takes a certain degree of experience to be able to take full advantage of a next-gen game and if you are the type of person who picks up a controller and gets killed within 5 minutes playing Call of Duty then you are not a hardcore gamer. The same goes if you just run through the street shooting roughly in the direction of what looks like an enemy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Wii: does it do it for you? How much longer until it's passed by?