Sony: Wii U Launch Lead Isn't Important

[antipunt]

It's not how long it is, it's how you use it.

Analogies people, analogies!

 

[NiPah]

Hard to say if Nintendo is getting a lead on Sony and Microsoft or just a really really late start to the last generation.

 

[Eri]

how was it a failure technologically?

I think the question you should be asking is, how was it -not- a failure?

The PS3 and 360 knocked it out of the water with regards to everything. Point out a piece of tech on the Wii, and both of the other consoles did it better. Hell, motion controls, Wii's only real "advantage", if you could even call it that, was beaten by Sony with the Move. I'm not saying the Move sold well, just that it was more accurate.

The Wii had/has literally nothing going for it in terms of tech.

 

[Beautiful End]

What I hate about it is that now that Nintendo has this stupid new console out, Sony and Microsoft just HAVE to present the next gen. console by next year. So we're talking about another year and a half of life for our PS3s and 360s, more or less. I'm just not ready to trade in my consoles.

The WiiU isn't even that innovative. I said it before and I'll say it again: it's gimmicky, not innovative, just like the 3DS.

I get you mate, hell, I'm only set to get a PS3 in a month and will get less out of it than most people, but there is nothing bad about it. We need the next gen, the PS3 has had a long, LONG run and same for the 360. It's time to move on, get some better hardware and open up a ton of possibilities for... well every platform, even the PC will benefit from it.

It's not just the graphics either (but yes, it's also time for stuff like CryEngine to become a reality and not just a ton of pretty videos). We're getting to that point where they're slowly reaching their peak and we can do more than that. More and more games are becoming more CPU reliant than graphically demanding. We need more processing power for stuff like better AI, livelier worlds and so on.

OT: I just hope one thing and that's that the new generation consoles will not try to incorporate a control system to support the currently standard MMOs. They need to start dying out and we need to move away from the hotkey system and onto better combat systems and the consoles could have a large role in that as they expand the possible market. The shooters are one thing, but a real (real, not the current piss-poor excuses for it) action combat MMO could easily be a cross-platform thing and I think the companies would see the large potential market from it (DCUO has tried it already and it's not bad... but we need to do better).

N-NO! My PS3 is still young! It cannot end like this, I won't let it happen!
I will grab my PS3 and we will go live in the woods! Then we'll be happily together where society can't reach us... *Sob*

*Sigh* From my perhaps ignorant point of view, I really don't need/want a new console yet. The only reason why I bought a (Backwards compatible) PS3 was because they kept releasing good games that I wanted. I never stopped to think "Hm, well I think I will buy this console because it makes games look sooooo much prettier! SOLD!" And that's the only thing that can be done now; to make them look more impressive.

As powerful as this generation was, it really didn't take advantage of what it had. Sure, it introduce online gaming on consoles (A feature that is irrelevant to me for the most part) but then you have a dominant amount of grey and gloomy games out there and games that last 5 hours, even with a blu-ray format. Personally, I've been attracted to games like Gotham City Impostors (That makes games fun to play in so many ways), Minecraft (A VERY simple game), Fez (Colorful and innovative) and so on. Again, that's just me and I'm the problem. I'll probably end up buying the next console mostly because of the same reason I bought my PS3. But I just don't see how they can improve these current consoles, features wise.

I just need closure.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, this is certainly a step up in modesty for Sony from the last time they commented on their competitors.

As far as future purchases go, I'm becoming less and less interested in *ANY* next-gen console as time goes on.
For One: I hear the DRM schemes being planned for all next-gen consoles suck anyway, and of the Big Three, Sony is already leading in the "Willing to fuck customers over" category.

Two: The WiiU looks only marginally less gimmicky than its predecessor. And I'll tell you that of all the consoles I've owned the Wii is easily the most useless. Seriously; I use it primarily as a functional Gamecube Emulator than for playing any games actually made for it.

But as far as market predictions go:
Historically: Nintendo got away making megabucks with the Wii primarily because of is price, and the fad-mentality that followed. It was also the quickest console of its "generation" to gutter out and crash.

Now, the tablet thing looks like it offers a good deal more practical design space than remapping the buttons of a Gamecube controller to "Waggle Left-Right, Woggle Up-Down, Shake Nunchuck" so with some luck we might actually see games that aren't CLEARLY cheaply made garbage that only exist because the developers could literally make them (at most) on a tenth of the budget for any game on the other two systems (the *actual* "current-gen consoles")

(The Wii is literally just a Gamecube with some very minor upgrades. So I consider the Wii to be a full generation behind its peers.)

But as usual, I must predict that Nintendo will be encountering the same goddamned problem they've had for most of the last 15 years: WEAK THIRD PARTY SUPPORT. FEW GOOD GAMES THAT AREN'T BY NINTENDO.

So assuming trends remain, I don't think the PS4 is going to suffer much, barring some untold catastrophe at Sony...and even THAT didn't slow them down last year.

 

[veloper]

While having a lead is advantageous, it's equally advantageous to have more cutting edge tech on your side. Sony's biggest disadvantage is that when they finally release the system it will most likely be expensive and probably sell at a loss as well. We'll see what happens though.

I take issue with the subject of this article though. Even if the idea of the WiiU being out first made him shit his pants every time the idea occurred to him, he wouldn't say it bothered him. If he woke in the night with the cold sweats and night terrors because he dreamed about the significant launch lead, he would say publicly he needs to cut back on the caffeine.

My thoughts aswell.
Sony is worried, but they cannot go on record saying that.

There's one thing Nintendo's always been good at and that's picking up hardware that gives alot of bang per buck.
We also learned this gen that the most expensive console, sold the worst: PS3.

The first console to be released has, when the competition finally arrives, the bigger game library and a price drop. Unless (and maybe even if) the wiiU horribly underperforms graphically, then games and pricing is really all the matters to win the race.

 

[Madmanonfire]

More like "The Wii sucked as an actual gaming platform, and only made their money by catering to the casuals with only token attention paid to a more core crowd, so while the Wii U will probably still make tons of money, it will more than likely continue to be the weakest console when compared to its competition."

I wouldn't be worried either if that was the Wii U was my competitor. The Wii was a financial windfall, but a failure in every other aspect. They're currently on track to do the same thing again, except, lightning doesn't usually strike twice.

Guys, it's 2012. It's not cool to irrationally hate on the Wii anymore. Either come up with justifiable reasons or just stop.

OT: I'm kinda surprised Sony thinks the lead is unimportant. When the PS3 and Wii launched almost together, it took a while in the PS3's lifespan to copy Nintendo. I'd say a launch lead would let Sony copy Nintendo sooner in the PS4's lifespan.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Well the Wii was out before the Xbox 360 and the PS3 but that didn't stop the Xbox from dominating in terms of market share and things like sales. The Wii did so well however because it appeals to the casual end of the market.

No...No the Wii was not.... The 360 was out first by a year before the other 2. The Wii sold the most because of the gimmick and it being the cheapest console on the market.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

It's not about when you can buy it what what you can do with it.

You mean run games that are on par with the 360 and PS3?

This is a "next-gen" hardcore console that's only slightly better than current gen consoles that came out several years ago. I don't see this working out well for Nintendo, because as soon as either Sony or Microsoft get to the market, the actual next gen consoles are going to blow away this thing.

Except everyone will have to spend billions on just the graphics, meaning the gameplay will mostly be quicktime events, and even with a lot of fans the costs won't be recouped, dev teams will get dissolved and the industry will collapse again.

Like gameplay wasn't quicktime events for the majority of Wii games...

Ok that was a bit harsh but gameplay for the majority of Wii games was limited compared to the PS3, 360, and PC. Too many games with 'waggle wii-mote' as a primary function. And what makes this situation even more funny is that most of Nintendo's recent first party games don't really use the motion controls that it advertised so damn well.

It's not that Sony and MS will spend billions on just graphics. There's also processing power and such. If developers spent as much money on graphics as you say they do (it's certainly not freaking billions) the PC market would've bankrupted itself a long time ago.

 

[Lunar Templar]

The WiiU isn't even that innovative. I said it before and I'll say it again: it's gimmicky, not innovative, just like the 3DS.

no, but then, nether was the 360 or the PS3, and it wont stop microsoft or sony from ripping Nintendo whole sale when the Wii makes money, like they did with the Wii

 

[NerfedFalcon]

It's not about when you can buy it what what you can do with it.

You mean run games that are on par with the 360 and PS3?

This is a "next-gen" hardcore console that's only slightly better than current gen consoles that came out several years ago. I don't see this working out well for Nintendo, because as soon as either Sony or Microsoft get to the market, the actual next gen consoles are going to blow away this thing.

Except everyone will have to spend billions on just the graphics, meaning the gameplay will mostly be quicktime events, and even with a lot of fans the costs won't be recouped, dev teams will get dissolved and the industry will collapse again.

Like gameplay wasn't quicktime events for the majority of Wii games...

Ok that was a bit harsh but gameplay for the majority of Wii games was limited compared to the PS3, 360, and PC. Too many games with 'waggle wii-mote' as a primary function. And what makes this situation even more funny is that most of Nintendo's recent first party games don't really use the motion controls that it advertised so damn well.

It's not that Sony and MS will spend billions on just graphics. There's also processing power and such. If developers spent as much money on graphics as you say they do (it's certainly not freaking billions) the PC market would've bankrupted itself a long time ago.

"The next generation of consoles should damn well be able to render Avatar in real time."
~Cliff Bleszinski

 

[Eri]

More like "The Wii sucked as an actual gaming platform, and only made their money by catering to the casuals with only token attention paid to a more core crowd, so while the Wii U will probably still make tons of money, it will more than likely continue to be the weakest console when compared to its competition."

I wouldn't be worried either if that was the Wii U was my competitor. The Wii was a financial windfall, but a failure in every other aspect. They're currently on track to do the same thing again, except, lightning doesn't usually strike twice.

Guys, it's 2012. It's not cool to irrationally hate on the Wii anymore. Either come up with justifiable reasons or just stop.

OT: I'm kinda surprised Sony thinks the lead is unimportant. When the PS3 and Wii launched almost together, it took a while in the PS3's lifespan to copy Nintendo. I'd say a launch lead would let Sony copy Nintendo sooner in the PS4's lifespan.

What part of technologically inferior in every aspect is hard to understand? That's the only justifiable reason you need.

 

[GeneralFungi]

The WiiU isn't even that innovative. I said it before and I'll say it again: it's gimmicky, not innovative, just like the 3DS.

I'd like to ask you what the difference between an innovation and a gimmick is. Because I see interesting new things marked off as a 'gimmick' so often that I must have my definition skewed.

The problem with the Wii-U as i see it is that the Wii has long since dropped from popular consciousness. Tech fashion moves fast. The Wii was a fashionable Gadget there can be no doubt but its popularity never really stretched to loyalty like with Apple products. As such its hard to determine if the same people who bought the Wii will buy the Wii-U.

I agree that there is a bit of a hurdle there, but I wouldn't call it a problem before we are certain about how powerful the Wii-U is and how it will compare to Sony's and Microsoft's new consoles.

There is also the issue of confusion; The Wii-mote wasn't exactly always used correctly to put it mildly. Now they have all but thrown it out of the window in favor of a newer, more expensive, input method. The beauty of the Wii was in local multiplayer, with only being able to use two tablets and additional tablets probably costing an absolute bomb there is an issue with consumer confusion and rage.

From what I've seen it doesn't look like many games will require a second or third game-pad. It looks as if the person using the tablet will always be in a unique role while the other 4 using the wii-remotes will be playing another. I am not positive if it's true, but it looks likely judging by what we've see so far. Since the tablet comes packaged with the system it doesn't look like it'll be a huge issue unless the device is really frail.

Another big information issue are the 'tablets'. They are merely controllers and not autonomous tablets like many would think. Nintendo has to be very careful not to falsely advertise them as an actual tablet and so get hit with a shit-storm of angry returns. The 3DS has shown that Nintendo's audience is not willing to accept anything and everything it puts out.

I would have agreed with you about the 3DS example a few months ago, but recently the device has been doing very well. I think the virtual boy would be a better example of a system that wasn't accepted; Nintendo seemed to learn it's lesson about 3D gaming since then.

If Nintendo garners the support from 3rd party titles and steps it up with their first party support, I don't see why Nintendo's installed audience wouldn't continue with the Wii-U, but that's just one view on the subject. While Nintendo might cause a bit of confusion about the tablet, but I'm pretty sure it would be completely obvious what they are actually buying when it comes time to walk to the store and buy the device. If the Wii-U box is anything like the boxes of any other consoles currently sold, it will have a picture of the console on the package.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

It's not about when you can buy it what what you can do with it.

You mean run games that are on par with the 360 and PS3?

This is a "next-gen" hardcore console that's only slightly better than current gen consoles that came out several years ago. I don't see this working out well for Nintendo, because as soon as either Sony or Microsoft get to the market, the actual next gen consoles are going to blow away this thing.

Except everyone will have to spend billions on just the graphics, meaning the gameplay will mostly be quicktime events, and even with a lot of fans the costs won't be recouped, dev teams will get dissolved and the industry will collapse again.

Like gameplay wasn't quicktime events for the majority of Wii games...

Ok that was a bit harsh but gameplay for the majority of Wii games was limited compared to the PS3, 360, and PC. Too many games with 'waggle wii-mote' as a primary function. And what makes this situation even more funny is that most of Nintendo's recent first party games don't really use the motion controls that it advertised so damn well.

It's not that Sony and MS will spend billions on just graphics. There's also processing power and such. If developers spent as much money on graphics as you say they do (it's certainly not freaking billions) the PC market would've bankrupted itself a long time ago.

"The next generation of consoles should damn well be able to render Avatar in real time."
~Cliff Bleszinski

And if you saw the Square Enix Tech Demo we can very well that now. And Square Enix isn't in the position to be spending billions on ANYTHING right now with the way things are going.

Like I said, processing power and other things like online gaming lag/latency, online security and things like storage space will be what's being upgraded alongside graphics.

And seriously a quote from Cliffy B is a straw man argument.

Nintendo's Wii U is only going to catch up with current gen tech, which is sad, especially now that they themselves have posted their fist loss ever, you`d think that they`d drop the gimmicks.

Them releasing the Wii U before the other two console will hurt it most because it will be the most expensive thing on the market for quite a bit of time. They`re pulling what Sega did with the Dreamcast, minus the tech to back it up.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Snip

An innovation is something that should make a product better at what it does. @Beautiful End is right, the 3DS didn't make playing handheld games any better with it's 3D. It was a nice glamour feature but not one that made the console any better. The same can be said about the motion controls of the Wii. Didn't make anything better. Neither will the tablet controls of the Wii U.

The 3D, the motion controls and the tablet controller are all gimmicks. They make the consoles stand out but have little use. A lot of Nintendo's own more recent first party Wii games make minimal use of the motion controls, a feature they marketed as a game changer in the console gaming world.

Nintendo posting their first loss ever recently shows that people are getting sick of the gimmicks and want to be treated seriously as consumers. Can't blame them for that seeing what we have been offered in terms of 3rd party support for the Wii and the 3DS. Even Project P-100 got the cold shoulder at E3 by Nintendo and that looks to be the most interesting game out of the library so far.

 

[GeneralFungi]

snip

I won't debate that the 3D in the 3DS isn't what you would call a gimmick, because it is. Very little games take advantage of the 3D feature in their gameplay. And I would also agree that early in the wii's life cycle, there were very little games that took advantage of the motion technology, but then wii motion + was created. Again, not very many games took advantage of it, but Skyward sword was a prime example of the potential motion controls have to shape the way we play a game and add interesting dynamics. The game was designed from the ground up with the full intention of taking advantage of the technology, and it worked. Now, this one game taking good advantage of motion control isn't going to disprove what you've said, but at least it shows the potential of the technology there.

Now the Wii-U is where I disagree with you. There is the potential that the touch screen won't be taken advantage of. The console is not out yet, so any claim that it is a positive thing for the device is unfounded because no one has their hand on it yet. But judging by the way it's been used in the games we've seen so far, I would say it is a great thing, and could potentially be what the motion control wasn't.

In Pikmin 3 they have stated that they're trying to add more multitasking. With the gamecube versions of the game they were somewhat limited; the most they could get away with was 2 characters because any more multitasking then that and it would get really hard to keep track of because of the limitations of the single screen. With the new screen, it adds a whole layer of micromanagement and makes it a lot easier to keep track of what is going on. You now control 4 different characters, and they all must work together to get things done as quickly as possible. This was probably not possible on the gamecube, and if it was it would have probably been too cumbersome for the player.

There are other examples, but I don't think I should preach any more then I already have.

 

[Beautiful End]

The WiiU isn't even that innovative. I said it before and I'll say it again: it's gimmicky, not innovative, just like the 3DS.

I'd like to ask you what the difference between an innovation and a gimmick is. Because I see interesting new things marked off as a 'gimmick' so often that I must have my definition skewed.

Certainly.

Taking videogames as an example, the Wii was innovative in the sense that it took the traditional controllers and threw them out the window. It introduced motion controllers successfully to the market. Everybody thought the idea of waving your arms like an idiot in the middle of the room was dumb. Heck, I thought so too. But I also admitted that opened up new doors. And it did; it brought in women who wanted to try those workout games, it got parents interested in it because it forced their kids to move while playing, it got families to play together with games that were fun and interactive. It was so innovative that even Sony and M$ reluctantly copied the idea. And look, the Kinect might have taken it a step further because it's selling better than the MOVE.

The WiiU is gimmicky in the sense that because they couldn't just launch a Wii2 with the same interface as the Wii but better looking. I mean, they kinda did, but they also had to introduce something new. Pretty new graphics and better games would have done it for me. It seemed to work for the SNES and 64 and so on. But no, they came up with a controller that looks like a tablet/controller hybrid. Compare it with the Wiimote, which is light and it just feels right to wave it around, like a wand. This new controller is huge and clunky. It doesn't bring anything new to the table.
Looking at the WiiU demos, it seems you can't just say "Hey, I'll just stick to my Wiimote!". No, if you're playing by yourself, you gotta play with the new controller. Look at the Rayman demo; two guys playing and having all the fun while the guy with the WiiU controller just sat there and tapped the tablet every now and then. And when the guy with the WiiU controller finally got a chance to have some fun, the other guys were just sitting back and watching.
The fact that you have to peel your eyes off the screen in order to check your inventory, all in real time, isn't a new concept. We see it in online games all the time. But at least with those games, you're still looking at the screen. The WiiU controller forces you to take your eyes off the screen. it breaks the enchantment. It doesn't make it so that you feel like you're part of the game, no. It's the opposite. The constant looking-up-and-down thing reminds me I'm just holding a clunky controller, which is something I'd never have to do with a normal controller...or heck, even a Wiimote. I still fondly remember me holding my Wiimote upward and pulling out the Master Sword in Zelda. That was a great moment.

So, the WiiU will certainly force developers to find a way to use the tablet controller. Most games won't need them as we will find out once those games are released for the PS3 or 360. And THAT is being gimmicky. The WiiU might be bringing some new things to the table: the online gaming, more third party games, better graphics, etc. For better or for worse. but the WiiU controller isn't one of them. It just seems like a step backwards compared to the Wiimote.

Don't get me wrong. I love it when developers/companies/games overall prove me wrong. But I dunno. It doesn't look good to me.