The Wii: does it do it for you? How much longer until it's passed by?
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.
---------------
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nintendo may be stuck in the casual console market
Are you really stuck if that's the biggest market?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Nintendo thrives because they make fun, engaging games. It's that simple.
And the reason that GameCube was third in market share was?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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:
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.