You really want to tell me a pager motor was more innovative than the Wii's motion controls....That is a bit of a stretch even if you grant the existence of light guns.
Is Wii the Next Atari?
- Thread starter ccesarano
- Start date
To a certain extent, I think "innovative" is more in the execution that how per se "new" it is. This is fundamentally why the Wii controller is innovative, I mean, the idea of a motion sensing controller is not that radically new, but the execution is, there's a clear commitment to making the motion sensing *mean* something. This requires, obviously, a certain amount of technical capacity (ho sensitive the motion sensing is, which the Wii succeeds at), but also a general exploitation of the thing. The PS2 is more remembered for its rumble than the N64, for the simple reason of execution.
That being said, the 360's online features are interesting, but they mainly, from a gaming perspective, direct it so it is more competitive against a PC, since complete online integration has been one of the two main strengths of the PC gaming world (that and the mouse, esp. in 1st person shooters). I do think that this is innovative for a console, but it doesn't fundmentaly create a new method or way of play, the way the Wii controller does. It just brings some of the joys of PC gaming to the 360.
That being said, the 360's online features are interesting, but they mainly, from a gaming perspective, direct it so it is more competitive against a PC, since complete online integration has been one of the two main strengths of the PC gaming world (that and the mouse, esp. in 1st person shooters). I do think that this is innovative for a console, but it doesn't fundmentaly create a new method or way of play, the way the Wii controller does. It just brings some of the joys of PC gaming to the 360.
A good note is that with all the cash Nintendo grosses, it has enough munitions to fuel their crusade to convert people to games, by flooding them with more and more ads with ladies and grannies.
I think the point is that though it looks like an outbreak or something, it may be blown out of proportions. There's clearly an evolution, but just look at the amount of cash that had to be spent in marketing to achieve this.
Feels more forced than a mere work of natural evolution.
I think the point is that though it looks like an outbreak or something, it may be blown out of proportions. There's clearly an evolution, but just look at the amount of cash that had to be spent in marketing to achieve this.
Feels more forced than a mere work of natural evolution.
well how many gamers Nin fans are there?Arbre said:
add up GC and DS fans and add half of the "hardcore gamers" add a slightly lower price and a innovative control system you'll be selling a ton of units with or without the "mainstream" getting their feet wet.
I see little difference in Sonys and MSs Ad campaigns I see more 360 and wii ads tho.
I think its a little jumping-the-gun to try and say anything definitively about the Wii and PS3 yet.
First off, MS engineered that year head start, second, they buy companies they like, so it's not as though the xbox brand name would even be on the map in the same way if it hadnt been for triple A publishers like Bungie and Team Ninja exclusivizing their badass titles.
The PS3 has the power to do massive new things--if that power can be harnessed in time by the dev's, in the same way, the wii controller could add whole new complexity to games, if put to it's full use(I'm rootin for a nunchuk-based Soul Calibur myself).
But as far as killer titles go, I dont know that any of em are up to snuff, the PS2 took its lead to churn out tons of killer titles, but the PS3, wii and Xbox have much more of a diamonds in the rough feel to them, like one halo, metroid, or assasins creed, for every 35 meh titles.
So far, however, i have to say that none of them has lived up to their hype sufficiently or been given enough time to do so.
But I dont see any of them dying anytime soon; they each have their respective aces in the hole.
It's funny, cause each of them seems to be smart in different areas.
First off, MS engineered that year head start, second, they buy companies they like, so it's not as though the xbox brand name would even be on the map in the same way if it hadnt been for triple A publishers like Bungie and Team Ninja exclusivizing their badass titles.
The PS3 has the power to do massive new things--if that power can be harnessed in time by the dev's, in the same way, the wii controller could add whole new complexity to games, if put to it's full use(I'm rootin for a nunchuk-based Soul Calibur myself).
But as far as killer titles go, I dont know that any of em are up to snuff, the PS2 took its lead to churn out tons of killer titles, but the PS3, wii and Xbox have much more of a diamonds in the rough feel to them, like one halo, metroid, or assasins creed, for every 35 meh titles.
So far, however, i have to say that none of them has lived up to their hype sufficiently or been given enough time to do so.
But I dont see any of them dying anytime soon; they each have their respective aces in the hole.
It's funny, cause each of them seems to be smart in different areas.
I agree that each of the consoles have their strengths, certainly, the technical and graphics of the playstation 3 can not be denied. I'm not sure the PS3 has "failed" yet, but I do think its in serious trouble, and it has more to do with marketing than anything else. Quite simply, the PS3 is not selling enough, early enough, and the business of console markets has demonstrated its momentum based as much as anything else. The PS2 succeeded because it sold alot of units, period, its technical merits vs. the other consoles are kind of beside the point. By selling a lot of consoles, it provided a wide "market" that game makers could produce for and make money in, you could make some mediocre or actually shoddy game and make money (and certainly, the PS2 had alot of those), whereas even a great game on the Gamecube would end up being a loss on the bottom line.
It's also useful to remember, when comparing the state of the current genration, exactly how much the PS2 dominated the previous one, and that no single console this time around is as dominant. If forced to guess the current state of play, I'd guess the 360 and Wii are somewhere tied in the lead, and the PS3 would be in third place by a non-insignificant amount.
But to return to the earlier point, what makes a console dominate a) leaps in technology with significant returns for the casual market (CD reader for the PS2), b) Price points (the lower the better. I believe the PS3 priced itself out of the mainstream market), c) ease of development and good developer relationships (the Wii has the first, MS buys the second, more or less, Sony had that for the PS2, less so for the PS3..). d) the reputation of the console and its company (here, Sony has hurt itself, and MS less so with the faults in the 360..)
While I don't expect the PS3 to be a failure on the levels of the Gamecube (they can afford to ride out the console enough to build a decent user base, and have more resources to turn it around), I do think the basic landscape of how this generation is going to result have demonstrated themselves.
It's also useful to remember, when comparing the state of the current genration, exactly how much the PS2 dominated the previous one, and that no single console this time around is as dominant. If forced to guess the current state of play, I'd guess the 360 and Wii are somewhere tied in the lead, and the PS3 would be in third place by a non-insignificant amount.
But to return to the earlier point, what makes a console dominate a) leaps in technology with significant returns for the casual market (CD reader for the PS2), b) Price points (the lower the better. I believe the PS3 priced itself out of the mainstream market), c) ease of development and good developer relationships (the Wii has the first, MS buys the second, more or less, Sony had that for the PS2, less so for the PS3..). d) the reputation of the console and its company (here, Sony has hurt itself, and MS less so with the faults in the 360..)
While I don't expect the PS3 to be a failure on the levels of the Gamecube (they can afford to ride out the console enough to build a decent user base, and have more resources to turn it around), I do think the basic landscape of how this generation is going to result have demonstrated themselves.
Wiiplay is another controller?slapme7times said:
But it has no means of input, nor when I swing it like I do mah WiiMote, NOTHING happens, absolutely nothing....
I put it in mah Wii, and I get some mini-games though.....
Didn't know the Gamecube had usable Online, or a usable harddrive for that matter, or came packaged with wireless controllers, or had downloadable content, or was two times more powerful than the Original Xbox.....
Im certain they're casual gamers, that's a form of gamer.
And that's the fucking point, to make easy money. That's what a company wants to do.
Again, read above, although I hate the iPod, it's easy money for Apple.
Certainly the Wii, if nothing else, has gained adherents and brand recognition for themselves, so I suppose its possible. In another technology generation (i.e, when the next consoles are being made..), technology on the level of the PS3 should be cheaper and easier to make into a mainstream console. However, I'm always leery of the chimera of someone winning the "entertainment appliance X" war that everyone will use, for every Ipod, after all, you have 2 Microsoft Bob's, or somesuch.
First off, very nice article weather you agree or disagree you have to admit it is thought provoking. Now on to my response!
I think that what you have touched upon is some thing that is going to be new in console wars. A non-war, or rather a multiple war.
Last year I backed up the wii 100% I followed every thing. I was so impressed it with it, before I even played it, that I wanted to buy Nintendo?s stock. I was very impressed with nintendo?s business model. I thought they were going to tap a huge untapped resource. And they did. However as a year has gone buy, I still do not have a wii. I think that for 250$+ is just to big of a price for me at this point. And for what? As other people have pointed out, Nintendo only has the first party games satisfying the ?hard core? audience. So now I am looking into a 360 or a ps3.
All this is to say this. Nintendo is selling to nongamers. But Microsoft is still making a ton of money Halo, right? So we now have two markets. They are not in competition of each other. Since Nintendo would arguably be making the same amount of money if they only sold Wii with wii sports and wii play? well obviously less but you get my point. The gaming market is no longer what it used to be. Where as in the classic wars of the SNES vs Genesis you had more or less two very similar experiences, now the market is obviously big enough for two kings; one king for the Hard core, and the other for the casual.
Another thing to note is how people are counting Sony out. With the Wii, I can not see it lasting for any thing over 6 years total. The technology will really start to show, especially once we are pushing the graphical limits of the PS3 and x360. On the other hand, the PS3 I think has huge potential later down the road. This console is a beast in power and could really last for 8-10 years. Also even as bad as the prices are for the ps3, it is really the same price as an x360 and you get a blue ray player built in. The business model for sony was risky, but it is really helping to push the blue ray format. If Sony could pull of a win the format wars they will be making ridiculous amounts of cash. That is the whole reason for ps3?s price tag, and also the reason it is not selling (that and a horrible game library till recently). Will the risk pay off? Only time will tell, but if Sony does win out with blue ray then I say the future is brighter than you think.
So what you have is that wii will need a wii 2 before ps3 and x360 need to jump to nextgen2. So we will have a system launching mid console cycle? That would be an industry first. But what is really happening is that Nintendo is just making the distinction more and more clear, it is a non-gamer console. And that it is able to stand on its own away from the hard core console wars.
So what is stopping Sony or MS from making a casual gaming console? Well beside the risk, I think that there are still huge profits to be made from making real games. It has been the industry standard, for the past 20 years. It is a proven method to make money. Nintendo is out on a limb in terms of software sales. Less face it the wii was only such a huge financial success because it makes profits on the console, it doesn?t need games. Where as PS3 and x360 need to make good games to turn a profit. The business models could not be more different, yet both are working.
On a side note could any one post the total hardware sale compared to total software sales of all 3 systems. That would show a lot about things to come.
Also if any one can find the sales of HD DVD versus Blue Ray, that would be great.
I think that what you have touched upon is some thing that is going to be new in console wars. A non-war, or rather a multiple war.
Last year I backed up the wii 100% I followed every thing. I was so impressed it with it, before I even played it, that I wanted to buy Nintendo?s stock. I was very impressed with nintendo?s business model. I thought they were going to tap a huge untapped resource. And they did. However as a year has gone buy, I still do not have a wii. I think that for 250$+ is just to big of a price for me at this point. And for what? As other people have pointed out, Nintendo only has the first party games satisfying the ?hard core? audience. So now I am looking into a 360 or a ps3.
All this is to say this. Nintendo is selling to nongamers. But Microsoft is still making a ton of money Halo, right? So we now have two markets. They are not in competition of each other. Since Nintendo would arguably be making the same amount of money if they only sold Wii with wii sports and wii play? well obviously less but you get my point. The gaming market is no longer what it used to be. Where as in the classic wars of the SNES vs Genesis you had more or less two very similar experiences, now the market is obviously big enough for two kings; one king for the Hard core, and the other for the casual.
Another thing to note is how people are counting Sony out. With the Wii, I can not see it lasting for any thing over 6 years total. The technology will really start to show, especially once we are pushing the graphical limits of the PS3 and x360. On the other hand, the PS3 I think has huge potential later down the road. This console is a beast in power and could really last for 8-10 years. Also even as bad as the prices are for the ps3, it is really the same price as an x360 and you get a blue ray player built in. The business model for sony was risky, but it is really helping to push the blue ray format. If Sony could pull of a win the format wars they will be making ridiculous amounts of cash. That is the whole reason for ps3?s price tag, and also the reason it is not selling (that and a horrible game library till recently). Will the risk pay off? Only time will tell, but if Sony does win out with blue ray then I say the future is brighter than you think.
So what you have is that wii will need a wii 2 before ps3 and x360 need to jump to nextgen2. So we will have a system launching mid console cycle? That would be an industry first. But what is really happening is that Nintendo is just making the distinction more and more clear, it is a non-gamer console. And that it is able to stand on its own away from the hard core console wars.
So what is stopping Sony or MS from making a casual gaming console? Well beside the risk, I think that there are still huge profits to be made from making real games. It has been the industry standard, for the past 20 years. It is a proven method to make money. Nintendo is out on a limb in terms of software sales. Less face it the wii was only such a huge financial success because it makes profits on the console, it doesn?t need games. Where as PS3 and x360 need to make good games to turn a profit. The business models could not be more different, yet both are working.
On a side note could any one post the total hardware sale compared to total software sales of all 3 systems. That would show a lot about things to come.
Also if any one can find the sales of HD DVD versus Blue Ray, that would be great.
About that. It could go either way. Blue Ray, as I'm sure you know, is a little piece of Sony magic, so all Sony films are coming out on Blue Rays. This includes 20th Century Fox, Lionsgate, and Disney (Disney only has a non-exclusive deal). Complicating maters, Paramount and Dreamworks are exclusive with HD-DVD, despite that blue ray had a 2-1 lead. Warner Bros and New Line have non-exclusive agreements with both formats. The only other sector exclusively backing Blue Ray is the adult film market (they chose that format for its PS3 compatability). There's all sorts of interesting sociology in that waiting for a less sleepy mind to broach it. What I'm trying to say is that if buyers are having to choose between the two technologies, one of which has a limited selection of titles and has a reputation for the being, you know "blue" (I didn't even think of that meaning until now, and I'm enjoying the possibilities way too much). It's still too far off to commit either way. I haven't forgiven Sony for the my disappointment with the PS3, so I hope the HD pulls ahead.Nidenel said:
As to the Wii's life span this site (http://www.nintendowiifanboy.com/2007/11/06/nintendo-rethinks-console-life-cycle/) reports that they don't really seem to have any impending plans. At least not the kind that are in keeping with the usually 5 year turn over rate most consoles keep. Nintendo is pretty pleased with themselves just the way they are. Like an afterschool special.
And, though it is a little off topic (but not too much), let me take a moment to defend the Wii. I've listened to a lot of friends who range from moderate to hardcore gamers complain about the Wii. Their complaints, and even some of the complaints here, seem more based in elitism than the actual Wii experience. As a Wii owner (and yes, a Wii-lover...teehee), I am first in line to complain about the lack of games. Nintendo has some great ports -- RE 4 was well-accepted and freaked me out as much as ever. And if the gorgeous and tragically underplayed Okami does indeed come out next year, I'll buy it again and enjoy again. However, as has been mentioned before, that's not really evidence of Nintendo's game developing skill, but of their negotiation skills.
So while the Wii is suffering a small catalogue, I will say that when it comes out with a "serious" game - usually from their hallmark franchises - they are quality. I don't know how anyone can complain about Zelda. It's an involving and emmersive experiece, fun, utilizes all the great best features on the Wiimote, and is challenging enough to get me going at about 8spm (swears per minute). I haven't played Metroid 3, but everyone I've spoken to loved it (though it could have been longer). I guess what I'm trying to say is that in my experiences, while Nintendo is moving at a much slower pace developing their immersive-world games, it's worth the wait. They really use the features well, in a way that doesn't feel gimmicky at all.
The real issue people seem to have with the Wii is that it isn't cool. Or, more precisely, it's cool to the wrong people. Non-gamers like it, moms like it, kids like it, rooms of giggling girls like it. It's perky: most of its titles are populated by turtles and pink balls of fluff. Okay. But there are still quality games on it, I still enjoy the Wiimote/nunchuk controllers and the unique ways in which Nintendo makes their use feel natural. In an act of willfull hopeful wishing, I think Nintendo will slowly but surely bring out more solid titles and adopt more multi-platform games as well.
And, I'll admit it, I don't won't to live in a world where I can't enjoy a little Mario Cart every once in awhile. Call me a philistine, but I'm not going to discount that the Wii is a great console just because a seven-year-old would agree with me. In fact, I'd just pat him on the back for being so damn perceptive.
I do not think any one is arguing over taste, or style. If a seven year old like a well thought out story, with interesting characters, and good play dynamics than it is just as cool for me to like it regardless. I am only saying, that while there is a lot of 3rd party support most of the games seem to be rush jobs to turn a profit on the unsuspecting casual/non gamer. Really I can only think of 2 games i am interested in on the Wii that are not first party.
Elebits
Zack and Wiki
And about blue ray vs HD DVD, why do you want hd dvd to win. A blue ray disc has 20 more gigs on it. That is a ton more room.
Elebits
Zack and Wiki
And about blue ray vs HD DVD, why do you want hd dvd to win. A blue ray disc has 20 more gigs on it. That is a ton more room.
Great post what a great read. I can't see the Wii dying because of the massive increase in # of people playing games and most of those people(I'm guessing) are casual gamers. I can't see both Sony and MS getting out of the gaming industry because when I look at the Wii I imagine a ball of fluff. I'm a hardcore gamer and I know there are less of us than casuals but the Wii is just too damn casual to please everyone. I think that's why the 360 is still selling well even with its annoying hardware issues which I have experienced twice.
P.S. The Wii2 will be called Vagina (Penny Arcade
).
P.S. The Wii2 will be called Vagina (Penny Arcade
).Yes but what you are trying to say is that, the higher end PCs beat out the ps3 already. Well you are right. But try to make a PC that matches the power of the ps3 with a blue ray player and keep it under 500 or 600$. It is impossible. The PS3 came out in 2006 with multi cored processor that was cutting edge at its time. So yes you can get better technical power than a ps3 but it is price prohibitive, and I can not think of many developers that will develop for such a high end. Why? Because not that many end users will be able to run a product any way. As far as I can see the next gen PC games like Crysis do look amazing, but nothing better than any thing on PS3 or 360.
Also keep in mind that we are not really seeing what the ps3 can produce. Unlike PC developers, ps3 developers are going to have to find new ways of squeezing out more and more power as the console life cycle continues. Look at the games in the beginning of ps2 life cycle and compare them to games like Shadow of the Colossus. I think that the ps3 has more potential to last longer than the 360 and the wii, if not 8 to 10 years.
Also keep in mind that we are not really seeing what the ps3 can produce. Unlike PC developers, ps3 developers are going to have to find new ways of squeezing out more and more power as the console life cycle continues. Look at the games in the beginning of ps2 life cycle and compare them to games like Shadow of the Colossus. I think that the ps3 has more potential to last longer than the 360 and the wii, if not 8 to 10 years.
PC gaming is so expensive. I don't know any numbers on how many people can afford the latest PC's for gaming but even the PS3 at launch is very cheap compared to keeping up with the insane price of these graphics cards. I wouldn't be surprised if the latest graphics card is over $600.
Lack of local storage will kill a Wii MMO before it starts.Kwil said:
No, the Wii has a killer app, Wii Sports. The low attach rate isn't just down to the questionable whiff coming off of a lot of the library. It's also because the system sells on it's interface, and Wii Sports uses that interface in an intuitive and non-gamey way. That's why it appeals to non gamers, because it operates in a frame of reference that they can relate to, whereas even quite a good third party title like Resi 4 Wii is still playing a game.
The success of the Wii is great for Nintendo, but it's not going to usher in a new golden age of gaming, where all across the world everyone who had never considered games before is suddenly enraptured. Non gamers will buy the titles that don't feel like games, and leave the rest of the library on the shelf. Even the most successful "proper" game for the system, Zelda, has only been bought by one in four Wii owners.