*Next* Ninty console

the corpo

Just wondering,

Sony and Microsoft are obviously expecting a pretty long lifecycle out of their current consoles, I assume at least 5 years.

Given that Nintendo's r+d and production costs are obviously significantly lower than the competition, do you think they might be in a position to roll out a newer console in a much quicker time frame?

In 2 years time the production costs for a machine as powerful as an xbox or PS3 will be drastically cheaper than now, so I wonder is it a possible or attainable course for them, when the other companies will still be stuck trying to recoup on their current gen.

i.e, Nintendo may have only jumped a half gen this time, will they be first to jump next time?

petes

I'd say give the Wii a chance first before thinking about its successor. Long time away.

the corpo

don't get me wrong, i can't wait for me wii

just curious if nintendo have a bigger strategy

flogen

They could always release an upgraded Wii... like they did with the GBA and DS and like Sony did with the PS and PS2... although making it smaller wouldn't really be an option (or a necessity) so they might just bring one out with built in DVD support, more storage space, HD-capabilities or something else like that (something that would ensure compatibility with the original wii but have enough bells and whistles to attract enough converts and newbies).

Rhyme

Give it time for the inevitable; DVD support, the 'big' games, different colours in paraphernalia, deviations in controller design etc.

Then think about upgrades.

CiDeRmAn

Yup, reckon Flogen has it about right,
follow the model that has given Nintendo the best sucess in recent times, a slow gradual evolution of hardware, as in the Gameboy, familiarity and affordability keeping the faithful and high vis tie ins with the media to capture new markets, as in Pokemon, Nintedogs.
The Gameboy series of consoles has never held the graphical highground whatever the iteration and yet always was the biggest seller, no reason why the Wii and whatever is to come can't do the same.
Some reckon that the first readily recognised identity of gaming in the wider public psyche would have been "Playstation" but surely "Gameboy" bet them to it 7 years previously, why not the Wii, imprinting as the games party that all are invited to.
As the years roll by I guess we can expect DVD initially followed by changes in the hardware under the lid but the controller may well remain faithful to the Wii original, incremental improvements not withstanding.
Backward compatibility has become a GB trademark, GBA micro not included!, and in the Wii we could see this taken to the nth degree, having the whole library of Nintendo gaming goodness available for many years to come, even at a time that Wii Sports is a fond and distant memory, as Super Metroid is now.
Mmmm, the future, i'd settle for a trip to the 8th of Dec 06 myself!

Placebo

they could bring out a new controller and new games that correspond differently. THE glove might make a come back, oh yea !

fifth

I don't know..

Look at the GBA, it had inferior graphics than it's rivals - PSP, DS, even the N-Gage, but people still bought in their droves.

So the wii may be outdated, but it might follow the same success as the GBA and DS.

Just a thought.

mcgarnicle

So now success is based on having bad graphics? Some of the posts here seem to be implying that the reason the GB succeeded was because it had bad graphics, as opposed to the more likely explanation that it succeeded inspite of having bad graphics.

There is also the rather obvious fact that the handheld market is different to the home console market, a fact nicely illustrated by comparing the success of the PS2 with that of the PSP.

projectmayhem

flogen wrote:

They could always release an upgraded Wii... like they did with the GBA and DS and like Sony did with the PS and PS2... although making it smaller wouldn't really be an option (or a necessity) so they might just bring one out with built in DVD support, more storage space, HD-capabilities or something else like that (something that would ensure compatibility with the original wii but have enough bells and whistles to attract enough converts and newbies).

probably very likely, but they'll need to do something major (wii2 or something) because in 2-3 years time the ps3 and 360 will be blazing along, graphically and processing-wise (loads of things on screen at once, looking stunning), leaving the Wii looking a bit dated. which leaves it in the same position as the gamecube, because stick a ps3 or 360 with its flashy graphics and current IP's (metal gear, halo) next to a nintendo with "decent" graphics and Mario, then you'll find a lot of nintendo machines being left for dust.

mcgarnicle

projectmayhem wrote:

probably very likely, but they'll need to do something major (wii2 or something) because in 2-3 years time the ps3 and 360 will be blazing along, graphically and processing-wise (loads of things on screen at once, looking stunning), leaving the Wii looking a bit dated. which leaves it in the same position as the gamecube, because stick a ps3 or 360 with its flashy graphics and current IP's (metal gear, halo) next to a nintendo with "decent" graphics and Mario, then you'll find a lot of nintendo machines being left for dust.

Good point, the Wii might be able to hold its own now, but in 4 or 5 years? No chance, how many people here would honestly have been happy buying an N64 over a PS2 or XBox this time last year? Not too many I would guess, that is the sort of position the Wii will be in come the end of the generation we are entering.

BlitzKrieg

which leaves it in the same position as the gamecube,

Wasnt the Gamecube one of the more powerful machines this time around. Clearly more powerful then the PS2 (which was the weakest of the 3, yet still sold the best despite this.)

because stick a ps3 or 360 with its flashy graphics and current IP's (metal gear, halo) next to a nintendo with "decent" graphics and Mario, then you'll find a lot of nintendo machines being left for dust.

looks at resident evil 4...

I remind you with the exception of the Wii and the original Nes, Nintendo have always actually brought out the more powerful home console.

Snes was more powerful then Mega Drive (*sniff*)

N64 was more powerful then the Playstation and Saturn.

abetarrush

Its not all about the power of the machine though

Theres no point in havin a load of beautiful games if they're sjit ones

Xbox 360 always was and will be [imo] a console for hardcore, late teen to adult male gamers

PS3 will probably follow that trend too

The Wii is a family console, Wii as is We/us
So there'll be games out for people of all ages

Thats why the PS2 is so popular. Its not its power, its the variety of games it offers

ambro25

mcgarnicle wrote:

So now success is based on having bad graphics?

No, but there has never been any confirmation that success was based on graphics either. Ask 3DO, or Sega with their DC. Hell, ask MS with the Mk1 Xbox.

Success is based on software, period. The more software for 'a' console, the more likely there's something in the mix for everyone, the more likely everyone buys that console rather than another. Then you factor in price (especially this generation).

mcgarnicle wrote:

Some of the posts here seem to be implying that the reason the GB succeeded was because it had bad graphics, as opposed to the more likely explanation that it succeeded inspite of having bad graphics.

Not really, I believe the posts about the Gameboy say that GB was always preferred over do-it-better-and-prettier units (back then GameGear/Lynx/Nomad, then NGP/Wonderswan, then NGage/GP32, currently PSP). And I believe the reason for that fully correspond to my argument above (much bigger software range & cheaper hardware & software), as well as unit ruggedness, battery life and size.

Graphics have nothing to do with Tetris on GB mk.1, which in terms of portable entertainment, still reigns king amongst all (though admittedly more convenient on a GB Pocket Light )

mcgarnicle wrote:

There is also the rather obvious fact that the handheld market is different to the home console market, a fact nicely illustrated by comparing the success of the PS2 with that of the PSP.

was different, IMHO. Could be that Nintendo have copped on that emulating the portable business model (which has worked so well for them) into the lounge business model might work, since emulating the lounge business model into the portable business model evidently does not (ask Sony with PSP aka portable PS2, Sega with GG/Nomad aka portable MS/MD).

Vyse

ambro25 wrote:

Could be that Nintendo have copped on that emulating the portable business model (which has worked so well for them) into the lounge business model might work, since emulating the lounge business model into the portable business model evidently does not (ask Sony with PSP aka portable PS2, Sega with GG/Nomad aka portable MS/MD).

An approach that might not work. I hate to say it but I view the Wii as a current gen console with a fancy controller. I think it will have a very broad appeal though, people who generally wouldn't play games seem to be quite interested in it. I wonder how many games a year this type of person invests in though.

The only thing that interests me about the Wii is that you can play PC Engine games on it via the Virtual Console. That alone isn't enough to get me to fork out for it.

ambro25

Vyse wrote:

An approach that might not work. I hate to say it but I view the Wii as a current gen console with a fancy controller. I think it will have a very broad appeal though, people who generally wouldn't play games seem to be quite interested in it. I wonder how many games a year this type of person invests in though.

The only thing that interests me about the Wii is that you can play PC Engine games on it via the Virtual Console. That alone isn't enough to get me to fork out for it.

In bold, the one reason why it and Nintendo might be very successful.

Why are posters on Boards (and elsewhere) still applying a 'gamer' mindset to this whole debate, instead of the required 'business' mindset? :rolleyes: The fact alone that you know what a PCE is, speaks volume - you're obviously not Joe Sap (part of this 'broadened' audience, if you will) when it comes to games.

'Teh Win' is in the installed user base: if more Wiis are consistently sold than PS3s, any consideration of what the Wii can do technically (as compared to 360/PS3) is totally redundant. Publishers & developers will develop more games (cheaper and faster to do, same revenue) for Wii than for PS3 (which IMHO will be what kudos every other developer wants, but will be so much rarer as to be elitist in the extreme - cream of the cream and all that). It's simple (economical) numbers.

It's what is already happening with DS/PSP, and the reason why I believe Nintendo might be onto a winner with their 'reverse' business strategy.

steviec

ambro25 wrote:

In bold, the one reason why it and Nintendo might be very successful.

Why are posters on Boards (and elsewhere) still applying a 'gamer' mindset to this whole debate, instead of the required 'business' mindset? :rolleyes: The fact alone that you know what a PCE is, speaks volume - you're obviously not Joe Sap (part of this 'broadened' audience, if you will) when it comes to games.

'Teh Win' is in the installed user base: if more Wiis are consistently sold than PS3s, any consideration of what the Wii can do technically (as compared to 360/PS3) is totally redundant. Publishers & developers will develop more games (cheaper and faster to do, same revenue) for Wii than for PS3 (which IMHO will be what kudos every other developer wants, but will be so much rarer as to be elitist in the extreme - cream of the cream and all that). It's simple (economical) numbers.

It's what is already happening with DS/PSP, and the reason why I believe Nintendo might be onto a winner with their 'reverse' business strategy.

People are looking at it from a gamers mindset because this is a games board not a business board.

I don't care how much money Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft make. It does look like Nintendo are in a great position from a money making point of view but so what? Look how successful the sims continues to be and how much money it makes but you don't see people on boards like this talking about it and you don't see other games losing on sales because gamers are spending all their money on sims expansion packs.

If Wii is a success with non gamers it'll prove great for party games and that kinda thing (which is the way it's already looking), but that's growing the market not taking sales away from PS3/Xbox(which is precisely what Nintendo said was their goal). The other consoles still have a place and as a gamer the other consoles are where I see myself spending the majority of my time and money. And they'll still be the places for the big games franchises, which is already clear to be seen from third party franchises like GTA, MGS, Final Fantasy etc. committed to those consoles.

ambro25

steviec wrote:

People are looking at it from a gamers mindset because this is a games board not a business board.

I don't care how much money Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft make. It does look like Nintendo are in a great position from a money making point of view but so what?

I fully understand that this is not a business board, but when posters are expressing opinions based on a predicted market outcome (Wii will win, PS3 will win, yadda-yadda-yadda), it makes sense to at least even in passing consider the money side of the gaming market.

'You' opine that hardcore gamers or just 'gamers' will prefer a 360/PS3 and that's fine. 'You' opine that Wii has no gfx grunt compared to 360/PS3 and that's fine.

But 'you' opine that Nintendo has gone wrong with the Wii and/or that it will be vastly outclassed in 2 to 3 years'time and that's where you're supposed to drop the gamer-only head and cop a little business sense, because that's where you're supposed to look at the reasons why Nintendo have done what they've done, the numbers past and present - it's called an informed opinion, or a reasoned statement.

Because, whether you like it or not, success (or not) of the Wii will affect how much resources are devoted to making 360/PS3 AAA titles and their timescales, which is the kind of experience you steviecv are after: there's only so much development funds to go around in the videogame industry, only so many publishers and developers (insofar as mainstream platforms are concerned, fewer and fewer), and only so much business risk those with the €s are willing to take.

Personally, I'd rather have many not-so-good looking console titles (I prefer PC by a country mile ) to choose from in many genres very often, than maybe 5 or so 1080i/1080p 25GB AAA titles to long for each year over the next 2 to 3 years, and pretty much garanteed to be either racing, football or FPS. But that's just me.

Vegeta

ambro25 wrote:

Personally, I'd rather have many not-so-good looking console titles (I prefer PC by a country mile ) to choose from in many genres very often, than maybe 5 or so 1080i/1080p 25GB AAA titles to long for each year over the next 2 to 3 years, and pretty much garanteed to be either racing, football or FPS. But that's just me.

couldn't agree more. Its all about the software

Retr0gamer

The console that has won each generation usually did so because of the software it had. Which ever console builds up a strong catalogue of games with mass appeal will win out in this generation. I think mass appeal is the important term here.

After Nintendos success with the DS they know what mass appeal games to provide, simple games with simple controls that anyone can play for either hours, for a quick blast or with friends. Sony are doing the same with their Buzz and Eyetoy series. It's why I think the Wii is going to be more successful than what people think. It's really going to get a lot of attention this christmas and it is the only console that will appeal to non-gamers. Come Christmas when the relatives start visiting anyone with a Wii is going to be hard pressed to drag them away from the Wii even if they have a PS3 or 360 lying around.

The average casual gamer doesn't really care about graphics. He might spout about it to his mates in the pub but he probably wouldn't really be able to tell. The rest probably couldn't care less about graphics.

mcgarnicle

ambro25 wrote:

No, but there has never been any confirmation that success was based on graphics either. Ask 3DO, or Sega with their DC. Hell, ask MS with the Mk1 Xbox.

I never said there has, like I said the GB had bad graphics and succeeded. What people have been saying in this thread is along the lines of, console a has bad graphics and did well, therefore bad graphics make a console sell. Or console b had good graphics and failed, therefore good graphics make a console fail.

ambro25 wrote:

Success is based on software, period. The more software for 'a' console, the more likely there's something in the mix for everyone, the more likely everyone buys that console rather than another. Then you factor in price (especially this generation).

Oh right so your argument is the Wii will succeed because it has more software. That doesn't make sense though does it. It has one good game on launch and a load of mediocre fluff. What have they got coming? From what I can see only 3 more must have games coming in the next year. How many will the 360 have? I'd say even the PS3 will have more.

Might be a point that the 360 only had a few must have games in its first year, so what though? Its first year is over now, it is settled and the games are flowing. If the Wii wants to top the 360 then surely it should have more games arriving.

ambro25 wrote:

Not really, I believe the posts about the Gameboy say that GB was always preferred over do-it-better-and-prettier units (back then GameGear/Lynx/Nomad, then NGP/Wonderswan, then NGage/GP32, currently PSP). And I believe the reason for that fully correspond to my argument above (much bigger software range & cheaper hardware & software), as well as unit ruggedness, battery life and size.

Sure I will agree with you, games are what sell systems. Look at the PS and PS2. Where are the Wii games that are going to sell the system? The games that aren't just follow-ups to Nintendo staples, as these have clearly not done the trick over the years with the N64 and GC.

Nintendo are saying the Wii will appeal to non-gamers, why? What makes anyone think it will? From what I have seen of it so far it is just a normal console with a different way of playing the old sort of games. What about the Wii is going to encourage non gamers to play it? The only advantage I can see is price, but with the offers being rolled out now on 360 such as 4 top games and a 360 for €499 at xtravision the gap is closing and Nintendo have never been keen on price cuts.

ambro25 wrote:

Graphics have nothing to do with Tetris on GB mk.1, which in terms of portable entertainment, still reigns king amongst all (though admittedly more convenient on a GB Pocket Light )

Portable is totally different to home console. People want to be immersed in epic environments or realistic settings when they sit down with a game at home. That is why a lot of gamers shell out money for big tvs and sound systems. If I am sitting on the bog or on the bus I will have a go of Tetris for a couple of minutes, would I play tetris on my tv with Gears of War and Splinter Cell: DA waiting to be played? Not in a million years.

ambro25 wrote:

was different, IMHO. Could be that Nintendo have copped on that emulating the portable business model (which has worked so well for them) into the lounge business model might work, since emulating the lounge business model into the portable business model evidently does not (ask Sony with PSP aka portable PS2, Sega with GG/Nomad aka portable MS/MD).

What business model is that? You are talking about a business model but I genuinely can't see what it is, don't get me wrong I'm sure there is one. From what I can tell Nintendo are trying to convince people that graphics don't matter, they have convinced a few forum geeks but the general gamer hasn't bought it from what I can tell.

Then they are saying it is for non-gamers, how? Their ads have shown the joypad, not being used, so that nobody familiar with it will actually know what it is. Then they have shown an ad for Zelda, the least "Wii like" game of the launch line-up. How is this going to make non-gamers buy it?

ambro25

mcgarnicle wrote:

I never said there has, like I said the GB had bad graphics and succeeded. What people have been saying in this thread is along the lines of, console a has bad graphics and did well, therefore bad graphics make a console sell. Or console b had good graphics and failed, therefore good graphics make a console fail.

I must have missed those posts :rolleyes:

mcgarnicle wrote:

Oh right so your argument is the Wii will succeed because it has more software.

No. Firstly, I don't have an argument, I have an opinion. Secondly, my opinion is not that Wii will succeed because it has more software.

My opinion is that Wii will do better than 'traditional' gamers expect, that is to say stay the course, because Nintendo is doing with Wii what Sony did with the PS1 back in the day: attract a new demographic and broaden the market.

My opinion is further that, because it is reportedly cheaper and easier to produce games on Wii (facts on Gamesbiz), producers and developers are likely to develop more games and/or more often on Wii than on 360/PS3: they make the same money regardless of the platform, so it makes business sense to focus development funds on shorter projects with potentially the same return (eg: €5m to develop over 1 year, sell 2m, earn €10m and profit = €1m) than on longer 'prestige' projects (eg: €15m to develop over 3 years, sell 2m, earn €30m and profit = €3m). It dilutes risk. This of course depends entirely on installed user base, as I have kept saying - but both software catalogue and installed user base depend very narrowly on one another: historically, the more games, the faster the console installation, irrespective of specs.

So there you have it: my opinion is that Wii will do good because it is likely that it will have more software over a comparable product lifespan.

That doesn't make sense though does it. It has one good game on launch and a load of mediocre fluff. What have they got coming? From what I can see only 3 more must have games coming in the next year. How many will the 360 have? I'd say even the PS3 will have more.

Remember that the bold portion above is just your perception, as seasoned gamer. Not necessarily that of everybody else's, probably not that of casual gamers and Nintendo's "new demographic", and certainly not mine.

Might be a point that the 360 only had a few must have games in its first year, so what though? Its first year is over now, it is settled and the games are flowing. If the Wii wants to top the 360 then surely it should have more games arriving.

Again, who said the Wii has to top the 360 now? Take-up rate of 360 after a year is reported at about 6m units worldwide: how many were bought when? 4m at Xmas 05 and 2m since because of perceived paucity of software catalogue? 1m at Xmas 05 and 5m since because of AAA titles after a year? The same dynamic affects all consoles. For all you and I know, Nintento (Sony) could sell out Wii (PS3) at Xmas 06 and throughout the rest of the year and have 12m units worldwide by Xmas 07 - or not.

From what I have seen of it so far it is just a normal console with a different way of playing the old sort of games. (...) The only advantage I can see is price, but with the offers being rolled out now on 360 such as 4 top games and a 360 for €499 at xtravision the gap is closing and Nintendo have never been keen on price cuts.
(...)
Then they are saying it is for non-gamers, how? Their ads have shown the joypad, not being used, so that nobody familiar with it will actually know what it is. Then they have shown an ad for Zelda, the least "Wii like" game of the launch line-up. How is this going to make non-gamers buy it?

Again, refer above - your own perception (to which you're fully entitled, don't get me wrong ), not necessarily that of the entire market, effective and potential.

Portable is totally different to home console. (..) million years.

What business model is that? You are talking about a business model but I genuinely can't see what it is, don't get me wrong I'm sure there is one. From what I can tell Nintendo are trying to convince people that graphics don't matter, they have convinced a few forum geeks but the general gamer hasn't bought it from what I can tell.

Quoted these as you've apparently misunderstood my point about portable/lounge. No bother, I'll explain:

For years, Nintendo has made simple, rugged, technically unimpressive portable devices with lots of killer apps - killer apps on gameplay, certainly not graphics (Tetris, Zelda, Advance Wars, etc.). So far, so good.

For years, the competition has tried to take them on - Sega, Atari, NeoGeo, Bandai, lately Sony - with less simple, more fragile, technically impressive portable devices with less killer apps - either on gameplay, or graphics or both (GTA on PSP springs to mind). So far, so dismal.

For years, all lounge console manufacturers have just rolled out next-gen as a matter of course with (necessarily) ever-more technically advanced specs, the latest M$ 360 and Sony PS3, based on the Gillette marketing approach (sell razor at loss, make profit on blades).

However, in terms of R&D and production costs, 360 and PS3 (especially PS3) represent absolutely enormous amounts of investment, even compared to XB1 and PS2, and Sega's Saturn/DC and PS1 before them, which will take an awful lot of software to sell, probably more software units than ever per console unit, to even start to make a profit.

Nintendo, however, and very uncharacteristically, did not team up e.g. with IBM and SGi and devised the latest and greatest this time around. Oh no. They probably took one long hard look at their portable device division and probably thought: investing $10bn in R&D for the next gen console race to keep up with 360 and PS3? F*ck that for a game of soldiers, look how well we've done with GB, GBP, GBA, SP and DS: baby technological (but significant) steps that cost pennies to develop (relative to M$ and Sony R&D cost levels), always backward compatibility, and a few new killer apps that take advantage of what's new and there you have it = release new hardware more often, benefit from launch/'just arrived' marketing noise more often, price it just right that it doesn't bother users to change more often as well, and basically, you be riding on the back of M$ and Sony's very expensive R&D and incorporating their tech for a mere fraction of a price slitghtly later.

There is also one practical question to ask yourself, which you may not be able to answer if you're not 'at that stage of your life yet' (but which plenty of potential buyers this Xmas, perhaps the majority, will ask themselves - I garantee you): you're a parent, your 7 year old son/daughter wants a next-gen console in their bedroom for Xmas, which you gonna put in there? A €250 Wii, a €400 360 or a €600 PS3?

mcgarnicle

ambro25 wrote:

I must have missed those posts :rolleyes:

Well read back then.

ambro25 wrote:

No. Firstly, I don't have an argument, I have an opinion.

Argument = A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.

ambro25 wrote:

Secondly, my opinion is not that Wii will succeed because it has more software.

My opinion is that Wii will do better than 'traditional' gamers expect, that is to say stay the course, because Nintendo is doing with Wii what Sony did with the PS1 back in the day: attract a new demographic and broaden the market.

Eh who ever said it won't stay the course? I think it will last, it won't be a total flop. Will it do better than Gamecube? So far I see no reason to think it will.

ambro25 wrote:

My opinion is further that, because it is reportedly cheaper and easier to produce games on Wii (facts on Gamesbiz), producers and developers are likely to develop more games and/or more often on Wii than on 360/PS3: they make the same money regardless of the platform, so it makes business sense to focus development funds on shorter projects with potentially the same return (eg: €5m to develop over 1 year, sell 2m, earn €10m and profit = €1m) than on longer 'prestige' projects (eg: €15m to develop over 3 years, sell 2m, earn €30m and profit = €3m). It dilutes risk. This of course depends entirely on installed user base, as I have kept saying - but both software catalogue and installed user base depend very narrowly on one another: historically, the more games, the faster the console installation, irrespective of specs.

You are ignoring the fact that a game developed for PS3 can easily be ported to 360 and vice versa, in addition games developed for 360 can easily be ported to PC. A game developed for Wii will only be for Wii, no ports. I think this is a big mistake, a massive gamble. At the start of its life the Wii may well have some 3rd party support but what about in 3 years time if it is a distant 3rd. The cube got some 3rd party ports cos it was handy enough to just throw one together and get some money from cube users, developers aren't going to bother developing games purely for Wii if the console does not do really well in the first two years.

ambro25 wrote:

So there you have it: my opinion is that Wii will do good because it is likely that it will have more software over a comparable product lifespan.

If your assumptions about developers priorities were right then I would agree. So far Ubisoft seems to be the only developer really getting behind the Wii, even then the games getting most press are their 360 and PS3 games; Ghost Recon and Assassin's Creed. The Wii games, Red Steel and Rayman are meant to be crappy or average depending on what review you read.

ambro25 wrote:

Remember that the bold portion above is just your perception, as seasoned gamer. Not necessarily that of everybody else's, probably not that of casual gamers and Nintendo's "new demographic", and certainly not mine.

Yes it is my opinion... what is yours? What other good games are out on release and what good games are coming in the next year?

Nintendo don't have a new demographic. They can say they want one but where are the games that are going to attract them?

ambro25 wrote:

Again, who said the Wii has to top the 360 now? Take-up rate of 360 after a year is reported at about 6m units worldwide: how many were bought when? 4m at Xmas 05 and 2m since because of perceived paucity of software catalogue? 1m at Xmas 05 and 5m since because of AAA titles after a year? The same dynamic affects all consoles. For all you and I know, Nintento (Sony) could sell out Wii (PS3) at Xmas 06 and throughout the rest of the year and have 12m units worldwide by Xmas 07 - or not.

Where did you find out there have been 4 mil sold at Christmas and 2 mil since? According to MS themselves they sold 2.5 million worldwide in the first 90 days after release, taking it well past Christmas. Considering it's just ending its first year on the market I think the 360 has one of the best first years of releases that I can remember. Looking forward a year how many games will the Wii have?

ambro25 wrote:

Quoted these as you've apparently misunderstood my point about portable/lounge. No bother, I'll explain:

For years, Nintendo has made simple, rugged, technically unimpressive portable devices with lots of killer apps - killer apps on gameplay, certainly not graphics (Tetris, Zelda, Advance Wars, etc.). So far, so good.

For years, the competition has tried to take them on - Sega, Atari, NeoGeo, Bandai, lately Sony - with less simple, more fragile, technically impressive portable devices with less killer apps - either on gameplay, or graphics or both (GTA on PSP springs to mind). So far, so dismal.

For years, all lounge console manufacturers have just rolled out next-gen as a matter of course with (necessarily) ever-more technically advanced specs, the latest M$ 360 and Sony PS3, based on the Gillette marketing approach (sell razor at loss, make profit on blades).

I understand what you're saying and I agree, for the portable market Nintendo's system works. That does not mean anything for the home console market though. When Sony and the rest tried to move the home console strategy into the handheld market they failed cos people don't want that type of experience in a portable. However for home consoles this is what works, what makes you think Nindendo's plan to take handheld principles to the home console market will succeed, when others have already shown that moving one market to the other does not work.

ambro25 wrote:

However, in terms of R&D and production costs, 360 and PS3 (especially PS3) represent absolutely enormous amounts of investment, even compared to XB1 and PS2, and Sega's Saturn/DC and PS1 before them, which will take an awful lot of software to sell, probably more software units than ever per console unit, to even start to make a profit.

Actually it's been reported that as of November MS are making a $75 profit on each 360 sold. As for R&D, yes I'm sure MS and Sony's cost more but if they are starting to pull money in now then they will make it back.

ambro25 wrote:

Nintendo, however, and very uncharacteristically, did not team up e.g. with IBM and SGi and devised the latest and greatest this time around. Oh no. They probably took one long hard look at their portable device division and probably thought: investing $10bn in R&D for the next gen console race to keep up with 360 and PS3? F*ck that for a game of soldiers, look how well we've done with GB, GBP, GBA, SP and DS: baby technological (but significant) steps that cost pennies to develop (relative to M$ and Sony R&D cost levels), always backward compatibility, and a few new killer apps that take advantage of what's new and there you have it = release new hardware more often, benefit from launch/'just arrived' marketing noise more often, price it just right that it doesn't bother users to change more often as well, and basically, you be riding on the back of M$ and Sony's very expensive R&D and incorporating their tech for a mere fraction of a price slitghtly later.

Not sure I follow here. IBM do make the chips for the Wii.

So you think the Wii will only have a short lifespan and will be replaced in time to copy the 360 and PS3 hardware? Right, if that's the case Nintendo really are off their rockers. By the time they get around to doing that the PS3 and 360 will be costing about €200, who in their right minds is going to fork out for a new Nintendo for €270, knowing it will last about 2 years when the other 2 have a massive back catalogue and plenty of reputation to boot.

ambro25 wrote:

There is also one practical question to ask yourself, which you may not be able to answer if you're not 'at that stage of your life yet' (but which plenty of potential buyers this Xmas, perhaps the majority, will ask themselves - I garantee you): you're a parent, your 7 year old son/daughter wants a next-gen console in their bedroom for Xmas, which you gonna put in there? A €250 Wii, a €400 360 or a €600 PS3?

For now to buy a Wii with a game will set you back €330. A 360 with 4 games is €499. I would not be surprised if this time next year there is no difference in price.

BlitzKrieg

A game developed for Wii will only be for Wii, no ports.

just on this point:

games ported to the Wii

Splinter cell 3
Call ofDuty 3
Need for Speed Carbon

Wii games being ported to PS3 and 360

Rayman Raving Rabbits.

mcgarnicle

BlitzKrieg wrote:

just on this point:

games ported to the Wii

Splinter cell 3
Call ofDuty 3
Need for Speed Carbon

Wii games being ported to PS3 and 360

Rayman Raving Rabbits.

They aren't ports though, the first three have been made specifically for the Wii and RR is being released on all consoles but the Wii version is unique. They can't just take a wii game fiddle with it a bit and release on 360 or ps3, same goes for porting the other way too.

If they want to make a game for wii they have to make it from the ground up.

hairball

well, EA smell money anyway:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6162544.html?tag=latestnews;title;3

BlitzKrieg

the first three have been made specifically for the Wii

...Are you sure about this? Can you provide proof?

As far as I heard they used the xbox version for call of duty 3 as the basis for the Wii.

And if the games have to be made from the ground up how is it so many are being ported over so quickly, its only just launched in America and already there over ten ports hitting the Wii, most of which are those blatant economic movie tie ins (Cars, Open Season) or what not, which if it required such efforts to completely remake the game over to the Wii I doubt any of those companies would have invested in having them produced. Also the near on identical game mechanics (ignoring the Wii mote.) indicate that these are not games completely built up from the ground.

Your exagerating the difficulty in porting to the Wii, there are two difficulties, the new contol mechanic and the graphic downgrade.

As has been shown thoughout the last 3 generations graphic downgrading is not a problem, its been done between the PS1 and Saturn, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox. That leaves the control mechanic, if its a big name (like say the Maddan series [another port] in the US) its clear companies are willing a little extra development time to put the mote to its full use.

And while your exagerating one difficulty your downplaying another. The PS3 is already showing problems taking ports from the 360, go to www.gametrailers.com and take a look at the comparison between Marval Alliance on the 3 machines, the PS3 is suffering pretty bad frame rate for supposable a more powerful machine, this could mean there were difficulties in porting it to PS3. Also the structure of the two machines is very different (putting despite its graphical weakness, the Wii closer to the 360 then the PS3)

and on the wii games being ported to the other consoles, the oppurtunity hasnt arisen yet apaart from rayman raving rabbits, but we might see fine tuned versions of Red Steel or something appear on the 360, dont know. Its up to the developers mostly.

Retr0gamer

Those first 3 games are actually identical to the games on the other consoles with scaled down graphics.

mcgarnicle wrote:

Portable is totally different to home console. People want to be immersed in epic environments or realistic settings when they sit down with a game at home. That is why a lot of gamers shell out money for big tvs and sound systems. If I am sitting on the bog or on the bus I will have a go of Tetris for a couple of minutes, would I play tetris on my tv with Gears of War and Splinter Cell: DA waiting to be played? Not in a million years.

Now here is something I totally disagree with. Technophiles and some hardcore gamers will want to be immersed in epic environments. However mister casual or non-gamer couldn't give a toss as long as he is enjoying himself. The Casual and non-gamer is the market that Nintendo is going after and it is a much bigger market than pure gamers. Sit someone down with Gears of War that doesn't really play games and they will be confused and bored very easily. However a simple addictive game like Lumines or Wii Sports will have them enthralled. I think it's a very clever strategy for Nintendo and it has already paid off huge dividends for them by following the same strategy for the DS.

I also think we will see a lot of brilliant and unique games on the Wii. Due to the ease and cost of developing for the Wii most companies will have one or two teams of new recruits working specifically on Wii games while the experienced teams will be churning out the same rubbish on the other consoles. The more innovative games will come from these teams since they are low risk and will be given a lot of freedom. It's happened already with the DS developement divisions in other companies. Expect some great stuff from the likes of Capcom and Konami who place great emphasise on their young teams (usually inhouse educated) and give them a lot of freedom.

Also a lot of the really big name producers have expressed a lot of interest in developing new types of games for the Wii. With freedom that these producers have and the new way of playing games that the Wii offers I think we will be getting a fair few games from the likes of Hideo Kojima and Shinji Mikami.

The Wii has the strongest line up of games in the next 6 months that I have seen. Practically all their big selling franchises are getting new games (Metroid, Mario, Fire Emblem (:D ), etc.) and a whole heap of games that are part of Nintendos new strategy (Warioware, Raving Rabbids, Smash Bros.). It can only be a few months before we see Brain Traning and Nintendogs and a huge surge in sales. EA also seem supporting the Wii extremely well. They have set up a few new studios to concentrate specifically on Wii versions of their games.

Blub2k4

fanboy garb aside,
zelda is teh win,
gfx are a sideshow to good gaming and a staple of mediocre gaming.

projectmayhem

Blub2k4 wrote:

gfx are a sideshow to good gaming and a staple of mediocre gaming.

sure yeah, keep dreaming. videogames is as much a visual experience then it is any other type of experience. enhancing the visuals helps the experience, a lot.

right now "gears of war" is being touted as an incredible looking game... possibly one of the best looking this year. does that mean the gameplay is mediocre? because it's pretty?

half life 2, in 2004, was touted as being a visually impressive game. did that have mediocre gameplay mechanics?

you could have the gameplay mechanics of zelda on the Wii, with the same story, actions etc. etc., but stick 16-bit graphics on it and i bet you the experience wouldn't even warrant a hint of applause.

BlitzKrieg

sure yeah, keep dreaming. videogames is as much a visual experience then it is any other type of experience.

Yes visual experiance...which means the visuals you get on screen create the experiance. It does not mean that more graphical power penis makes the visuals.



Its funny you would name Gears of War and Half Life 2, because the companies behind both games are very well known for pushing hardware and software well beyond whats expected of it. Epic have made the Unreal series which has always been ahead of the game while still using the same tech and Valve created Half life on the Quake 2 engine, and the Source engine is technically (when first released) weaker then the Doom 3 engine, yet people still say Half Life 2 is the more beutiful game.


if you look at this from a filmmaking prospective (because I am finding it hard to find the words for this), the best looking films are not always the ones shot on the latest camera with the best end SFX and so on. Alot of them tend to be the best crafted films in all areas and the SFX and shine has been added where it is most effective only. Hell films that have been shot on inferior cameras and SFX have outdone the latest and greatest in the visual department because they have used the equipment to its most (see: Micheal Mann films.) The visual appeal of film comes from how its resources are used, not how much resources are there, it is the same with computer games.


Its the same with games. Good Developers make the graphics good, not the machine. I understand it can be infuriating to hear people state the 'graphics are not important' mantra, especially when it comes to Nintendo because it comes across as fanboy crap, but thats because unlike Sony and Microsoft a large part of Nintendo's best developers fall directly under the Nintendo title, while with Microsoft and Sony they fall under exclusive titles but different companies (Konami, Bungie Square etc.)


The games company ha to move away from crunching the numbers of the machine and start paying attention to who's crunching those numbers. because it can be seen from the last two generations, that even inferior machines can make *wow* visual experiances because a good team is behind it.

enhancing the visuals helps the experience, a lot

though this does not mean it has to be enhanced by hardware. There are more ways to enhance visuals.

you could have the gameplay mechanics of zelda on the Wii, with the same story, actions etc. etc., but stick 16-bit graphics on it and i bet you the experience wouldn't even warrant a hint of applause.

yet its been shown time again that it does?

Xbox live arcade is one of Xbox's biggest successess, yet a huge chunk of its games have 16 bit graphics (or less) yet recieve alot of applause (street fighter 2, Contra) Also Zelda's 16-bit outing was re-released on to the GBA with great applause and will recieve applause when it shows up on virtual console. Face it, the fact that the live arcade system is such a success proves that these games can achieve the same visual experiance without the high-end hardware.

Retr0gamer

I think you can still make great looking games on low powered hardware. It's all down to art design and direction. Some of the best looking games for me are completely 2D. Zelda: LTTP, Chrono Trigger, Metal Slug, Gunstar Heroes amoung others look infinitely better than many of the latest games that go for an ultra realistic look with shaders and light sourcing splashed everywhere. Just take a look a Zelda: Wind Waker, probably the best looking game ever made and wil more than likely stay that way due to the some great art direction. Graphics do add to the experience and some games even rely on it (Icos springs to mind). But the fact is I'd rather play Mega man 2 on the NES than Gears of War. The problem is that Mega man 2 would never sell in this day and age.

ambro25

mcgarnicle wrote:

Well read back then.

Have done. Still can't see 'em.

mcgarnicle wrote:

(...) Arguments about inter-console porting developing model (...)

With regard to inter-console porting, that's been well addressed above and there's no point in retreading this ground.

With regard to the developing model, I have been a PC/console games player for over 20 years, and owned every single console and format ever released at some stage or another (except a PCE LT and some of the very obscure and exotic Asian 'specialities', e.g. hybrid Laserdisc/karaoke variations of the megadrive), been an EDGE reader since the first issue (and have kept all the issues), regular reader of Arcade (back when), occasional reader of Games™ and a whole host of other stuff, print and online. I have been a contributing member to the IGDA for the last 5 years and am intimately familiar with the game development business (but I am not a games developer or work directly the games industry - just indirectly and no, that does not mean I work in a gameshop either).

I'm not asking you to take my word for gospel, mind. These are my credentials, is all, and what I'm drawing on to base my views.

Yes it is my opinion... what is yours? What other good games are out on release and what good games are coming in the next year?

I have not seen a 'good game' on any console platform in ages. Yes, that includes Gears of War, anything on PS3 you care to name, and it also does include Wii Sports. I went through the 'apathy' thing of middle-aged gamers first weaned on '2-bit graphics' games (arcade Night Driver, anyone?) who have been through the lot right the way up to HD (HD gaming, available on PC since 199-whenever ) and unfortunately I didn't come out of it unscathed: too many clones, always the genres, always prettier, and getting all the shallower for it. That's probably why I went totally off consoles about 2 years ago, and probably why, on aggregate, I play about 4 hours a week or so - half on PC online, half on DS online/plane/train/etc.

Where did you find out there have been 4 mil sold at Christmas and 2 mil since? According to MS themselves they sold 2.5 million worldwide in the first 90 days after release, taking it well past Christmas. Considering it's just ending its first year on the market I think the 360 has one of the best first years of releases that I can remember. Looking forward a year how many games will the Wii have?

Read my post again, if you will

I did not state that "there have been 4 mil sold at Christmas and 2 mil since?", I asked a question (rethorical, at that ).

I don't care how many games/AAA/whatever the Wii will have in a year. I'm only buying a Wii to have a laugh with my 2½ years old daughter (and because I'm just curious as to how she is going to take to the 'mote) as she's already well into touchscreen MS Paint and is quite capable of switching on the TV, DVD player, 5.1 Amp, take the DVD out of the box and put it on, or switch on her PC and touchscreen the big desktop shortcut for the bookmarked Youtube page of Pocoyo episodes Had I not been at this 'stage' of my life, I would probably have spent the money on something else.

I understand what you're saying and I agree, for the portable market Nintendo's system works. That does not mean anything for the home console market though. When Sony and the rest tried to move the home console strategy into the handheld market they failed cos people don't want that type of experience in a portable. However for home consoles this is what works, what makes you think Nindendo's plan to take handheld principles to the home console market will succeed, when others have already shown that moving one market to the other does not work.

Well, that's just my point. We don't and can't know yet if Nintendo's new strategy (i.e. the reverse of what the others have tried, i.e. portable hardware development model into the lounge, as opposed to lounge hardware development model into the pocket) will work and that's been the (my) debate. Economically, it absolutely makes perfect sense, but noone has tried it yet, so the proof will be in the pudding.

Not sure I follow here. IBM do make the chips for the Wii.

Read it again or Google the SNES and N64 hardware development for a bit of back history This time around, Nintendo didn't go to IBM and SGi and said 'make us CPU/gfx chips that will do this/that/the other', they went to IBM and ATi and said 'what have you got that's cheap and available according to his spec sheet'. (Figuratively speaking) Nintendo's R&D cost, compared to PS3 Cell and PS3/360 internals ready for HD and whatnot? Big fat zero.

So you think the Wii will only have a short lifespan and will be replaced in time to copy the 360 and PS3 hardware? Right, if that's the case Nintendo really are off their rockers. By the time they get around to doing that the PS3 and 360 will be costing about €200, who in their right minds is going to fork out for a new Nintendo for €270, knowing it will last about 2 years when the other 2 have a massive back catalogue and plenty of reputation to boot.

You're forgetting two (and a half) big things:

_by your own logic, by the time 360 and PS3 hardware come down to €200, Wii hardware will have come down to €100, hopefully with just as big a back catalogue.

_(the half-thing) why did so many people upgrade from GB to GBP to GBPC? From GBA to SP to Micro? Same games, save for the small matter of size/colour screen in one instance, and size/backlighting in the other. Would you pay the same amount a year or two down the road to get a backlit screen? Tens of millions of people have, every time. See, that's just my point about 'baby technological steps' that cost (again, figuratively speaking) nothing in R&D (because it's been developed by someone else and it's only incorporated by Nintendo once the tech is proven and cheap enough).

_why do you think Nintendo came out (first) with the emulation/online back-catalogue? Which not only includes 8-bit oldies & goodies, but extend right the way to GC, via N64? = instant back catalogue that's actually bigger than 360 and PS3 put together. Oh, 360 and PS3 back catalogues 'start' from 32-bit 3D games and Nintendo's is old stuff noone will look at? Let's be honest here: how much more likely are you to grab a session of SNES MK or PCE RType than to grab a session of PS1 Wipeout or GTurismo1?

projectmayhem

BlitzKrieg wrote:

The games company ha to move away from crunching the numbers of the machine and start paying attention to who's crunching those numbers. because it can be seen from the last two generations, that even inferior machines can make *wow* visual experiances because a good team is behind it.

this is true, the PS2 was a lesser machine to the Xbox, but a lot of its games looked, and played better. but the difference in hardware then (between ps2 and xbox) was tiny compared to the difference between ps3/360 and the Wii.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Xbox live arcade is one of Xbox's biggest successess, yet a huge chunk of its games have 16 bit graphics (or less) yet recieve alot of applause (street fighter 2, Contra) Also Zelda's 16-bit outing was re-released on to the GBA with great applause and will recieve applause when it shows up on virtual console. Face it, the fact that the live arcade system is such a success proves that these games can achieve the same visual experiance without the high-end hardware.

true, but look at the games themselves, the ones you mentioned are old re-hashed games re-released at a reduced price. if they asked you to pay €55 for them would they still get the same applause? i somehow doubt it.

live arcade is a success because it lets you revisit older titles on a new system at a reasonable price. the xbox live reports thing shows that the games do well, but are still only a side-dish to the main course (gears of war, rainbow6 etc.). and that is my point, the Wii will be a side-dish to the main course (ps3, 360) because the games, while being brilliant, just won't stand up next to killzone or halo in a straight fight with the marketers.

mcgarnicle

Forgive the following, I'm not a dick but I think I'd like to try writing this in as smug and condescending a tone as you. It might not work out to well as I'm not as experienced as you are

ambro25 wrote:

Have done. Still can't see 'em.

Then get some glasses :rolleyes:

ambro25 wrote:

With regard to inter-console porting, that's been well addressed above and there's no point in retreading this ground.

It has not been addressed at all. Some of the games may be ported from Xbox or PS2 but that is surely an indicetment in itself.

ambro25 wrote:

Ambro's "credentials"

Give me a break, everyone here knows about games or has been playing games for years, I could not give a rat's what you have owned or what you have read/played. I still disagree with you.

ambro25 wrote:

I have not seen a 'good game' on any console platform in ages. Yes, that includes Gears of War, anything on PS3 you care to name, and it also does include Wii Sports.

Then maybe you should not be playing games. If you have not found one you like in ages I think you need a new hobby. The fact is the Wii games so far are not drastically different to games that have gone before.

ambro25 wrote:

Cliched argument about same old same old games.

I think that argument is pretty tired. There are clearly plenty of new and original games about and have been for years. SoTC, ICO, Okami, Katamari... all done on a console without the need for a wiimote and all far more original than anything seen so far for Wii. Or indeed anything in the pipeline.

ambro25 wrote:

Read my post again, if you will

I did not state that "there have been 4 mil sold at Christmas and 2 mil since?", I asked a question (rethorical, at that ).

Winky winky, you asked a question of when the 360s were sold and then answered it yourself in the next, the question mark implied the reason for the sales pattern was the "paucity" of games. If you want to get the high ground required to be so condescending you might want to word your points better. :rolleyes:

ambro25 wrote:

I don't care how many games/AAA/whatever the Wii will have in a year. ......daughter

Oh so now you are shifting your point to imply you are Nintendo's new non-gaming target, sorry I don't buy it. You have already explained how you have been gaming on pc etc in recent years so you are clearly not the non-gamer they are chasing.

ambro25 wrote:

Well, that's just my point. We don't and can't know yet if Nintendo's new strategy (i.e. the reverse of what the others have tried, i.e. portable hardware development model into the lounge, as opposed to lounge hardware development model into the pocket) will work and that's been the (my) debate. Economically, it absolutely makes perfect sense, but noone has tried it yet, so the proof will be in the pudding.

No your point was that you reckon the Wii will do well because you think it will have lots of games.

The point I was getting at was that we don't know what Nintendo's strategy is, I can guarantee it's not something as purile as DS is good portable therefore DS like console will be good home system.

It only makes economic sense if it does well. It's a big risk, trying to convince people that graphics don't matter in a market where they have always mattered is a risky move. Imagine ferrari releasing a slow car with great handling and saying speed doesn't matter, you can only go as fast as the speed limit anyway. Even if the car was cheeper to make it still wouldn't make economic sense. There is a risk Nintendo's new direction could be seen the same way.

ambro25 wrote:

Read it again or Google the SNES and N64 hardware development for a bit of back history This time around, Nintendo didn't go to IBM and SGi and said 'make us CPU/gfx chips that will do this/that/the other', they went to IBM and ATi and said 'what have you got that's cheap and available according to his spec sheet'. (Figuratively speaking) Nintendo's R&D cost, compared to PS3 Cell and PS3/360 internals ready for HD and whatnot? Big fat zero.

Ok, Wii doesn't cost Nintendo much, don't think anyone is disputing that. At this point though MS are making profits on 360s sold and it won't take that long to recoupe the RandD costs.

ambro25 wrote:

You're forgetting two (and a half) big things:

_by your own logic, by the time 360 and PS3 hardware come down to €200, Wii hardware will have come down to €100, hopefully with just as big a back catalogue.

That is not by my logic at all, Nintendo have never been anxious to drop the price of their consoles. At this point in time a Wii with one game costs €330, a 360 with four costs €499. Assuming those four games are, on average, €50 that means the 360 alone is costing you €300. If I didn't already have a 360 and I had that money in my pocket there would be no chance I would be getting a Wii on friday, it would be 360 time for me. Why would MS, with buckets of money to waste if the original xbox is anything to go by, allow Nintendo to undercut their price that much when they are close enough to equal already.

ambro25 wrote:

_(the half-thing) why did so many people upgrade from GB to GBP to GBPC? From GBA to SP to Micro? Same games, save for the small matter of size/colour screen in one instance, and size/backlighting in the other. Would you pay the same amount a year or two down the road to get a backlit screen? Tens of millions of people have, every time. See, that's just my point about 'baby technological steps' that cost (again, figuratively speaking) nothing in R&D (because it's been developed by someone else and it's only incorporated by Nintendo once the tech is proven and cheap enough).

Again you are looking at the portable market and juxtaposing it onto the home console market, they are totally different. Nintendo have gotten away with it so far because there is no real competition in the handheld market. Home console market is totally different, you don't carry a wii about with you, it doesn't have to look good or be neat, it will sit on a shelf and stay there. The PStwo and PSone already tried this model, it works in as much as it might give sales a boost by attracting some more customers, but I don't know how many people with working PS2s have decided to go get a PStwo, not many I would guess.

ambro25 wrote:

_why do you think Nintendo came out (first) with the emulation/online back-catalogue? Which not only includes 8-bit oldies & goodies, but extend right the way to GC, via N64? = instant back catalogue that's actually bigger than 360 and PS3 put together. Oh, 360 and PS3 back catalogues 'start' from 32-bit 3D games and Nintendo's is old stuff noone will look at? Let's be honest here: how much more likely are you to grab a session of SNES MK or PCE RType than to grab a session of PS1 Wipeout or GTurismo1?

First? I could have swore the PS2 did it years ago. 360 has old games online already, not 32-bit. What did Nintendo do first? They might be making a bigger deal of it but they were not first to do it.

What would I honestly go for? I'd not buy either. €10 for a ten year old game? No thanks Nintendo, I will get it for free on my pc, hook it up to my tv and play it with the original pad... thanks anyway. Same goes for MS. People will say that is an invalid argument cos it's not legit but it is a valid argument since the majority of people with broadband who are interested in these old games know about roms, know they are free and know how to get and use them.

But if I didn't know about these things what would I buy... who knows. Are you seriously going to imply the general non-gamer will share your seasoned gamer preference for snes MK and r-type? Surely you are not that naive. Take a look at the games' charts to see what types of games are most popular, arcade shooters and kart games are not what people are after.

Nehpets

yay quote tennis :rolleyes:

mcgarnicle

Nehpets wrote:

yay quote tennis :rolleyes:

yay pointless reply:rolleyes:

Retr0gamer

Careful with the abuse. I don't mind a heated debate but Mcgarnicle and ambro25 are pushing it.

BlitzKrieg

but the difference in hardware then (between ps2 and xbox) was tiny compared to the difference between ps3/360 and the Wii.

Thats where I feel you are wrong. The response to the graphical jump from the last generation to this one has been mostly luke warm, which isnt surprising seeing as the only graphical element that has been clearly improved is the high definition lighting, outside of that far too many factors come into play to see true next gen (High Def TV being the main one).

The leap to this new generation has not had the same huge impact as when games like Metal Gear Solid 2 were unveiled.

Gears of War has been the first to really get the next generation rolling, and even then I would argue (as I have) that this has more to do with Epic being able to push their graphics engines further then anyone else rather then the machines themselves.

If the Wii can prove that it at least can achieve something close to the lighting effects the 360 can do, then I will state here and now that it will have no problem competing with the other two big boys. It will always known as the graphical underdog, but if the attitude I see at the moment is anything to go by, which is where far too many people have said the Wii has N64 graphics, then I expect when the momentum for this generation gets going more reviews will talk about how they were surprised they achieved so and so with the Wii rather then pointing out its graphical weakness (which is how almost every review for the PS2 goes today it seems, when they mention graphics the reviewer always says 'Surprised at how well the PS2 handles so and so...)

I dont think the leap is as big as your making it out to be. In the same way it took almost a year for something to look next gen on the 360, I say we'll have to wait a year till we see a proper representation of what the Wii can do.

true, but look at the games themselves, the ones you mentioned are old re-hashed games re-released at a reduced price. if they asked you to pay €55 for them would they still get the same applause? i somehow doubt it.

Now your being mean. For £55 euros you wont be getting 8-bit rehashes, you should be getting quality games with all the visual experiance you expect from a modern game. Seeing as at the moment we are paying £55 for games like the Godfather which still looks like an xbox game with nicer lighting then I feel your overexagerating the Wii's graphical weakness.

and that is my point, the Wii will be a side-dish to the main course (ps3, 360) because the games, while being brilliant, just won't stand up next to killzone or halo in a straight fight with the marketers.

I'll wait till that fight comes around, before you sign one of the machines off purely because its hardware isnt as good.

savemejebus

A bit OT but has it been confirmed that MS are now making money on the 360? The only thing i saw about it was the isupply analyst piece and I don't know how reliable that source is. Anyone got a link?

mcgarnicle

Retr0gamer wrote:

Careful with the abuse. I don't mind a heated debate but Mcgarnicle and ambro25 are pushing it.

Sorry, I'm not usually one to get personal or argue but after serveral patronising replies it grated a little. Won't happen again.

CiDeRmAn

I have to say, you guys are taking it all far far too seriously, the fact is that MS and Sony are following very traditional paths for there next-gen consoles and that will stand to them and they will go forward and sell machines by the bucket load, regardless of the launch day/window/year line up in 2 years they will be going at full tilt and we should be treated to games that really exploit the power of the respective machines.
As far as the Wii is concerned however, its a little different, they are taking a plan born of their handheld experience and translating to the home console with great effect, as said before they have cut the R&D costs way down insuring profits from the outset, they have made it easy to deveop for, cheap too so developers can make profits quicker and encouraging more experimentation.
Even though middleware like Renderware can permit dev groups to use assets across the PS3/360 divide the cost of the development will still be astronamical, this will unfortunately hamper any developer outside the 1st/1.5st party fold producing dedicated titles due to the risk of making a game an exclusive as it shrinks the available user base.
When we buy a new console we do it because they claim to provide we gamers with new windows onto our hobby, new ways to experience our favourites be they FPS, Beat-em-ups, 2D shooters, racing games etc.
Up to now that new way to play has always been raising the bar of graphcal fidelity, 5.1 digital surround, rumbling/pressure senstive controllers etc.
Now Nintendo have a new manner to provide new experiences, changing the way we interact with gaming worlds fundamentally, making many gamers sit up, begin to appreciate the possibilities this affords and buy into the concept.
More than that, the PS3/PS2/PS, the Snes/N64?GC, the DC and every other home console since the early 90's has increased the complexity of the control pads incremenatlly over the years, so as to give the player more and more control, making the new 3D vistas navigable in a way a Megadrive pad could never do, unfortuantely this complexity, while invisible to those of us who either came to gaming young and learned from base principles or those of us who have watched controller evolution over a very long time, makes it very hard for an adult to approach, the button combinations to get Mario to negotiate Wet/Dry land are logic free to the unexperienced newbie and this is only amplified over the years, so what do you do?
Well, you do what Nintendo did, you want your character to jump? Jerk the Wiimote up, you want you character to smack the tennis ball, swipe the Wiimote as you would a tennis racket.
Essentially Nintendo have made the controller as transparent as possible while still providing enough functions to allow developers to use as much ingenuity as they want to exploit it and the worlds the Wii can create.
Graphical fidelity can only be one part of the greater push towards gaming being a fullfilling, fun and a socially accecpted pursuit, by taking the need to learn the "grammar" of each new controller they have made it less intimidating to the non gaming public and so make them new users instead.
This belief is to be seen in the sucesses of Sonys Singstar, Eyetoy and Buzz ranges, getting rid of controller functionality completely, not focusing on graphics instead creating an inclusive party enviroment where no one need feel left out because they never picked up a PS controller before.

Of course the biggest danger of the Wii will be that developers may come to see it as a party game machine and we won't see the more traditional genres being developed for it, here's hoping that won't happen.
And as for Wii games in '07, I reckon Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy and Trauma Centre will do me just fine, at least for starters.

ambro25

First things first - I'm not aware of any abuse in my posts or mcganricle's. We're having a good debate, period - quite enjoying it at this end anyway (and if mcgarnicle feels that I've been condescending, then I apologise profusely, as that was absolutely not the intent).

I'll pointedly ignore the condescending-on-purpose bits, I like quote tennis but there are limits Suffice to say, I don't get much gaming time these days, I'd absolutely love to spend more time playing games, and what little time I have to spend playing games, I like to spend new experiences, not just improved versions of same. So PS3 is coming... Ridge Racer 7? FFS! :rolleyes:

Winky winky, you asked a question of when the 360s were sold and then answered it yourself in the next, the question mark implied the reason for the sales pattern was the "paucity" of games. If you want to get the high ground required to be so condescending you might want to word your points better. :rolleyes:

That I think does deserve a reply, because you have not read, or understood, my post correctly. Allow me (not meant in a condescending way), with my original post in bold:

Again, who said the Wii has to top the 360 now? Take-up rate of 360 after a year is reported at about 6m units worldwide: how many were bought when?
[EDIT: real question]

4m at Xmas 05 and 2m since because of perceived paucity of software catalogue?
[EDIT: rethorical question #1, based on 6m sold, the idea of which is indeed to convery that maybe there's been a problem with the catalogue since launch and therefore less & less 360s are being sold - I don't know, I'm floating a rethorical question]

1m at Xmas 05 and 5m since because of AAA titles after a year?
[EDIT: rethorical question #2, based on 6m sold, the idea of which is indeed to convery that maybe there's been a huge improvement with the catalogue since launch and therefore more & more 360s are being sold - I don't know, I'm floating a rethorical question]

Oh so now you are shifting your point to imply you are Nintendo's new non-gaming target, sorry I don't buy it. You have already explained how you have been gaming on pc etc in recent years so you are clearly not the non-gamer they are chasing.

That I think again does deserve a reply. I have not implied that I am or am not Nintendo's new non-gaming target. I have stated truthfully why I'm buying a Wii. It's also the reason why I have readily admitted that Wii Sports isn't a great game - it's a gimmick. I just want to wave motes with my daughter. I can't get motes with a 360 or a PS3, so I buy a Wii. End of, hand on heart, spit on grave and all that - that's all there is to it. You believe me... you don't... like I give two monkeys :rolleyes:

Therefore, wether that makes me Nintendo's prime marketing target for the Wii or not, I couldn't care less. I've had every piece of Nintendo videogaming hardware ever (including VirtualBoy, Gameboy Pocket Light and very obscure Asian versions of a both a portable NES and aportable SNES), so no, I'm not a non-gamer.

The point I was getting at was that we don't know what Nintendo's strategy is (etc.) Again you are looking at the portable market and juxtaposing it onto the home console market

I don't believe there's anything puerile in discussing the merits of a business strategy. For all your other points, as I have posted before, I'm in agreement with you: portable>lounge is indeed what I'm hypothesizing Nintendo have done/are following, I don't sit on Nintendo's Board and neither do you, so we don't know. Only hypothesize, me on the basis of my experience and you on the basis of your disagreement with me. Fair enough?

(portables) they are totally different. Nintendo have gotten away with it so far because there is no real competition in the handheld market. Home console market is totally different, you don't carry a wii about with you, it doesn't have to look good or be neat, it will sit on a shelf and stay there.

You should tell Sony that, they clearly thought (still do?) they were onto a winner ...and Sega and Atari and NeoGeo and Nokia and let's not forget Quickshot/Supervision, etc... well, all those would be competitors that have had a go (best hardware in each case notwithstanding of course )

(NB: again, I'm at pains to point out - this is meant as a joke, not in a condescending way)

First? I could have swore the PS2 did it years ago. What would I honestly go for? I'd not buy either. €10 for a ten year old game? No thanks Nintendo, I will get it for free on my pc, hook it up to my tv and play it with the original pad... thanks anyway. Same goes for MS. People will say that is an invalid argument cos it's not legit but it is a valid argument since the majority of people with broadband who are interested in these old games know about roms, know they are free and know how to get and use them.

Atari did it first about 20 years ago with the 7800 (accepting all 2600 carts). Nintendo did it next with the GB Pocket (accepting all GB carts) at least 10 years ago. PS2 was the first to do it with CDs, I'll grant you that.

Anyways... those savvy enough to find Roms, use ZSNES or MAME or whatever Emu and interface a PC on a TV (with sound), use a USB-to-(console brand) pad interface with the original pad (or a direct retrogaming product, e.g. a USB Nintendo NES pad, they also exist) aren't exactly non-gamers, are they?

At the end of the day, we generally agree to disagree. I've bookmarked the thread with a postmark to check in a years' time. I'll pm ya if need be

To other posters, my apologies for taking up your valuable reading time