Wii U Not a Threat to PS3, Says Sony Boss

[BrotherRool]

It's interesting how they think they know. No-one has been told the specs yet, although I guess some people in the industry must know.

But saying that, Sony seem to be right, certainly Nintendo haven't promised or fake demoed or tech demoed anything even slightly better than what the 360 and PS3 could do 2 years ago. The PS3 still had a disc format with 40GB more storage than Nintendo's unreleased console and has better processing power than the 360, which itself doesn't seem to be too threatened by the Wii U.

I don't want to call anything yet, but if the Wii U can't match the 720 or PS4 in power, it will be released against better consoles, consoles that have easy local multiplayer, with controllers far better at the sort of games available (it's still better to play games like Mario Kart, of Smash Bros with a wheel or classic controller), with far greater libraries, established bases, experienced internet provides and with a much better track record at 3rd part support.

And yet, almost every multiplatform launch looks better on the technically "inferior" 360. Because it's much easier to develop for.

Do you know who also makes easy-to-develop-for consoles?

(Rhymes with "Shmintendo.")

You're right because I can name well ... one... third-party developer who managed to make a Wii game that looked anything like the games developed in-house. That's really reaching out and making it easy for developers. Heck the reason the PS1 had sequels is because Nintendo did such a crud job listening to anyone who isn't making a mario game.

Even if you were right, the PS3 being hard to develop for is really really out of date news now and they've reached the point, like with the PS2, where games are just getting better and better. I can't remember the last time someone complained about the PS3 being hard to develop for. Heck the last guy was Gabe Newell, and that lasted long right?

In the end, Nintendo would have to break some impressive boundaries if it were easy to learn an entire console than work with one, you've already being making AAA games for, for 5 frickin' years.

 

[PeePantz]

The thing about boasting that the PS3 could fend off the WiiU is that it requires we all forget that right now, even if mainstream gamers don't like the thing as much, the PS3 has yet to even beat the first Wii's market share. The price point and all that are an advantage, yes, but when you take into account Sony's shaky relationship with the customer and the fact that a lot of the biggest problems with the Wii (lack of HD and lack of serious third party support) are being addressed, Sony's got a problem.

I'm not saying the WiiU will be as much of a success as the original (and, yes, regardless of personal opinion of the thing, if you can sell that many consoles and turn a profit the whole time, you've just built a cash generator). But the WiiU doesn't have to do as well as the original to be a threat to Sony. Even if it takes dead last place in the sales charts it would still eat into PS3's market share at a time when they're just starting to build up steam.

It's kind of like in politics, even if the third party candidate is an absolute loser, at some point they'll spoil the chances of one of the main two just by being on the ballot. The same is true here. With the price of consoles and the recession still in full bloom, every WiiU sold to someone who doesn't already own a PS3 is potentially another PS3 that isn't sold. To be dismissive of it is to show that Sony still doesn't really understand the industry and have just been very lucky to manage the level of success they had in the previous generations. (Even if the PSPgo kind of did that already)

I'm not saying that they should be panicked and trying to push out a PS4 (that would be a bad idea). But now is probably the time for them to figure out how to differentiate themselves from the competition rather than focus on trying to play copycat and talk about how they aren't worried about the competition. Ditch the gimmicks and the boasting, start addressing the real issues (might want to start with security). Until they do that, even the worst competition could ruin their prospects.

Though, until I see something spectacular out of it, I'm now tempted to call the WiiU the "WiiNader"

You, sir, deserve a badge for this post. I don't know, it would probably say, "Best post on the Escapist". You, and only you, would get this badge.

 

[Hyperme]

Man, reading these comments, it's as if the number of sales for a console matters to other people than ones who own shares in or who are employed by Nintendo. Do I get a prize if a buy the console that sells the most?

Seriously. Consoles are computers that just happen to be made to play games. It doesn't matter to the end conusmer how many of units the thing sells. If you are having fun on it, you are winning. If not or it dies you are losing. THERE ARE NO OTHER FACTORS.

 

[spartan231490]

I gotta be honest, I don't see much coming from the Wii U. Everyone was looking forward to the Wii, and it turned out to be a gimmick with hardly any decent games, whilst, the PS3 has had allot of good games. I think the Wii U is going to suffer the same fate, it doesn't really seem that amazing of a concept to me.

Not surprising. No one would ever say otherwise.

Altrought there is a significant thing he didn't mentioned, which is understandable being an adversary. Wii U does 60 fps and 1080p. Ps3 hardly does that.

Also, Anoni Mus, hasn't the PS3 got the power to run at 120 fps? Can't it also go into 1080p?

Now that you mention it, I know a friend of mine loves his PS3 because of 120 fps, but i have no idea about 1080p, and i suspect anoni meant that it could do 120 fps at 1080p which maybe the PS3 cant do?

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Yes, I'm saying that Microsoft and Sony are purposely trying to delay their next gen in an attempt to catch up to the Wii's sales.

Very close to being correct, but not quite there-

MS and Sony don't care about catching up to the Wii's sales. That's a fanboy thing. MS and Sony would rather lose to Nintendo and sell 100M units in the process than beat them and only sell 90M.

MS and Sony are just trying to get the longest amount of life out of their consoles because they're at the point where they're making the most profit out of each console sold, while still selling plenty of consoles. Neither company wants to start selling a new console at a loss again, and so they're going to hold off for now. I expect to hear news in a year or so, though. The potential tech advantage of a new console is growing too large to ignore.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Now that you mention it, I know a friend of mine loves his PS3 because of 120 fps, but i have no idea about 1080p, and i suspect anoni meant that it could do 120 fps at 1080p which maybe the PS3 cant do?

See my comment above:

The PS3 can output at 120Hz and 1080p, but doesn't have the power to render COD4-level games at higher than 30FPS and 720P.

 

[funguy2121]

It's interesting how they think they know. No-one has been told the specs yet, although I guess some people in the industry must know.

But saying that, Sony seem to be right, certainly Nintendo haven't promised or fake demoed or tech demoed anything even slightly better than what the 360 and PS3 could do 2 years ago. The PS3 still had a disc format with 40GB more storage than Nintendo's unreleased console and has better processing power than the 360, which itself doesn't seem to be too threatened by the Wii U.

I don't want to call anything yet, but if the Wii U can't match the 720 or PS4 in power, it will be released against better consoles, consoles that have easy local multiplayer, with controllers far better at the sort of games available (it's still better to play games like Mario Kart, of Smash Bros with a wheel or classic controller), with far greater libraries, established bases, experienced internet provides and with a much better track record at 3rd part support.

And yet, almost every multiplatform launch looks better on the technically "inferior" 360. Because it's much easier to develop for.

Do you know who also makes easy-to-develop-for consoles?

(Rhymes with "Shmintendo.")

You're right because I can name well ... one... third-party developer who managed to make a Wii game that looked anything like the games developed in-house. That's really reaching out and making it easy for developers. Heck the reason the PS1 had sequels is because Nintendo did such a crud job listening to anyone who isn't making a mario game.

Even if you were right, the PS3 being hard to develop for is really really out of date news now and they've reached the point, like with the PS2, where games are just getting better and better. I can't remember the last time someone complained about the PS3 being hard to develop for. Heck the last guy was Gabe Newell, and that lasted long right?

In the end, Nintendo would have to break some impressive boundaries if it were easy to learn an entire console than work with one, you've already being making AAA games for, for 5 frickin' years.

This is selective debating. You're only processing the information that you want to hear. Multiplatform launches released today still look better on the 360, almost every time. Developers have finally gotten used to making games for the PS3, but it's still harder to develop for than a Nintendo or Microsoft system.

The 3rd party problems with the Wii have nothing at all to do with how easy it is to program for the system. It's simply not current gen. If the developers find the new system unwieldy and unattractive, then why did they all (Ubisoft, Sega, EA, Tecmo, Crytech, et al) lie at E3 and say they were super duper excited about it? Nintendo consoles are always easy to develop for. It's something they focus on, whereas sometimes their competitors drop the ball in this area. If what you're saying is true, then why are all the third parties jumping on board?

None of that was sarcasm, by the way. I displayed enough maturity and respect to speak to you as an adult.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Of course the Wii U doesn't have to worry about competing with the PS3; the Wii already so thoroughly stomped the PS3's ass the Wii U just has to step over the body.

 

[Treblaine]

Well depends if Sony pits her money where her mouth is and invests in PSVita as a co-controller for PS3 games.

It's got about 14 months to get it all in place before Weeeooo comes out.

 

[DoctorPhil]

"PlayStation 3 is really just hitting its stride," he said. "I wouldn't look for any discussion of a next generation PlayStation for quite some time." He said that the power that Sony had built into the PS3 meant that it had a long lifespan, and that while it had made for some difficult times during the PS3's launch period, it was paying dividends now. "Technologically," he said. "I don't think it's possible to provide any advancement beyond what we have."

This is good to hear. Even though I'm a Nintendo fan, I have to say the PS2 is the best console ever (if only because of all the third party support). I hope the PS3 will follow in 2's footsteps and be longevous as it, so when I get it I'll have all these delicious games to play wich otherwise would be on the PS4.
As far as I'm concerned, the consoles we know of now could be the last ones ever, Video Games don't need better graphics anymore, better graphics only lead to less risk taking. Here's to foolishly hoping the PS3 and WiiU will be the last consoles I'll ever have to own.

The Gamecube got crud all games and the PS2 got the bets game library in all history

The latter, yes. The former, no. The Gamecube had many awesome games too, just not as many as the PS2, but as a Nintendo hater who hasn't even touched a GC, you wouldn't know that.

 

[BrotherRool]

This is selective debating. You're only processing the information that you want to hear. Multiplatform launches released today still look better on the 360, almost every time. Developers have finally gotten used to making games for the PS3, but it's still harder to develop for than a Nintendo or Microsoft system.

The 3rd party problems with the Wii have nothing at all to do with how easy it is to program for the system. It's simply not current gen. If the developers find the new system unwieldy and unattractive, then why did they all (Ubisoft, Sega, EA, Tecmo, Crytech, et al) lie at E3 and say they were super duper excited about it? Nintendo consoles are always easy to develop for. It's something they focus on, whereas sometimes their competitors drop the ball in this area. If what you're saying is true, then why are all the third parties jumping on board?

None of that was sarcasm, by the way. I displayed enough maturity and respect to speak to you as an adult.

Thank you for that. I'm sorry for being unfair to you.

I don't agree that almost all releases launched today look better on the 360, however I have no idea how to prove it objectively because even in the first year of the debate people were magnifying pixels to tell. Do you have some sort of link?

Also do you have some sort of evidence you could provide that Nintendo makes it easy for other people to program for? Because Nintendo haven't had decent (console) third-party support since the Nintendo 64, which was a decade ago now, and 15 years since it was released. I find it hard to be believe there can be any evidence since then, because they just haven't had any third-party people take an interest in them.

Finally, Ubisoft, Sega, EA, Tecmo and Crytech will lie, because it's a press conference, it's PR and they want to sell us something. Did the PS3 get lauched to "but it's difficult to develop for?" no, it got launced to "this is the most powerful awesome thing ever". It means exactly as much as the press releases that come with every game telling you it's revolutionary.

And to cap it. Last gen, the PS2 was awfully hard to develop for, the gamecube you claim was easy to develop for. The Gamecube got crud all games and the PS2 got the bets game library in all history

 

[bomblord]

Not surprising. No one would ever say otherwise.

Altrought there is a significant thing he didn't mentioned, which is understandable being an adversary. Wii U does 60 fps and 1080p. Ps3 hardly does that.

Ever played Wipeout?

Nope, but it doesn't really matter.

The fact is most PS3 games doesn't run 60 fps and 1080p and Wii U does that easily.

It's just an argument but I really don't care much, I'm happy playing Nintendo Gams with good or bad graphics.

The WiiU is capable of 1080p and 60fps, so is xbox and ps3, just depends on what the devs do to achieve this

I tell you now, and you can quote me on this, the devs wont be arsed to get the Wii U games running at 1080p and 60fps they will just be ports of the 360/ps3 and run at 720p and 30fps

You will get the odd one yes, but you get the odd one with the other 2 consoles...

As been proved many times with games, you give the devs more power, they don't put it towards frame rate and resolution they put it towards more shit on screen and higher polygon models, and you know why? because when people are looking at the images in the magazines or on the back of the box, the person buying cant see the resolution and the frame rate, they see the pretty pictures, and most people don't go hunting every last bit of info down on a game before buying it, they see it in the shop and go "looks cool" and buy it.

If devs do a straight port the extra power will make the game run at a much higher fps without them doing jack

The wiiU will more than likely be weaker than the ps4 and x720 but it won't be Condsiderably weaker and the average consumer probably won't notice much of a difference

 

[funguy2121]

This is selective debating. You're only processing the information that you want to hear. Multiplatform launches released today still look better on the 360, almost every time. Developers have finally gotten used to making games for the PS3, but it's still harder to develop for than a Nintendo or Microsoft system.

The 3rd party problems with the Wii have nothing at all to do with how easy it is to program for the system. It's simply not current gen. If the developers find the new system unwieldy and unattractive, then why did they all (Ubisoft, Sega, EA, Tecmo, Crytech, et al) lie at E3 and say they were super duper excited about it? Nintendo consoles are always easy to develop for. It's something they focus on, whereas sometimes their competitors drop the ball in this area. If what you're saying is true, then why are all the third parties jumping on board?

None of that was sarcasm, by the way. I displayed enough maturity and respect to speak to you as an adult.

Thank you for that. I'm sorry for being unfair to you.

I don't agree that almost all releases launched today look better on the 360, however I have no idea how to prove it objectively because even in the first year of the debate people were magnifying pixels to tell. (1)Do you have some sort of link?

(2)Also do you have some sort of evidence you could provide that Nintendo makes it easy for other people to program for? Because Nintendo haven't had decent (console) third-party support since the Nintendo 64, which was a decade ago now, and 15 years since it was released. I find it hard to be believe there can be any evidence since then, because they just haven't had any third-party people take an interest in them.

(3)Finally, Ubisoft, Sega, EA, Tecmo and Crytech will lie, because it's a press conference, it's PR and they want to sell us something. Did the PS3 get lauched to "but it's difficult to develop for?" no, it got launced to "this is the most powerful awesome thing ever". It means exactly as much as the press releases that come with every game telling you it's revolutionary.

And to cap it. Last gen, the PS2 was awfully hard to develop for, the gamecube you claim was easy to develop for. The Gamecube got crud all games and the PS2 got the bets game library in all history

(1) Not currently, but it would be fun to do so. I've asked around and read quite a few reviews since I'm still on the market for either a 360 or a PS3. For a Wii owner, as long as the games still look and play great on whatever actual current-gen system I get next, I don't really care if it doesn't look quite as good. I have seen side-by-side comparisons of the same games in some instances, both pics and video. I'm starting my work week bright and early tomor-I mean today, so honestly it may be Saturday before I can get to it, but I will. If I forget feel free to PM me, as my inner nerd finds the idea of doing this research compelling. In the mean time, if memory serves, the games where it was pointed out that the 360 versions looked better enough to warrant the 360 version over the PS3 version for owners of both consoles were Black Ops and Crysis 2. I could be wrong.

(2) Again, I'll try to get to this Saturday. I disagree that they haven't had good 3rd-party support going that far back, but bear in mind that I could care less about sports games and RPGs (except for action RPGS). I enjoyed the Hell out of my Gamecube and, other than not being able to play Metal Gear Solid sequels and Team Ico games, I don't think I missed out on much. I got to play lots of great Capcom and Ubisoft games. It seemed that most 3rd parties gave a lot of support to all 3 systems during that era. But you'll get no argument from me on Wii support. When people hold up Zak and Wiki's Point-and-Click-a-thon and the ___ port (Jesus, I'm tired. Paintbrush! Wolf! Japanese art. What's that damned game called?) as "hardcore" 3rd party titles, I shudder.

(3) I was thinking about this earlier. Most of these same people weren't gushing over the Wii during the 2 E3s leading up to its launch, so this is a change for them. I do believe that they have the kits and that they are truly impressed with what they saw. But we'll have to wait to find out for sure. It truly is nerve wracking that it'll probably be the holiday season before we get firm details on launch lineup and specs. I'm not sure about 3rd parties, but I know Nintendo lies all the time - usually when they don't want to admit that they're working on something just yet. Makes it fun to watch Mr. Fils-Aime squirm during an interview later.

Thanks for being forthright with me. Have a good night/morning/whatever the Hell it is where you are

 

[funguy2121]

the only reason the original wii sold like gangbusters is the amazing amount of shovelware and it's low price point. any bottom feeding retard could pick it up and play.

the wii U is going to cost 300 bucks and lose it's entire casual market in the process...why pay full price when the PS3 and the xbox will drop to 250/199? the new wii 1.5 just doesn't justify the cost of entry

I'd just like to point out that those "bottom feeding retards" are mothers, probably not at all unlike your own. They are neurosurgeons (this isn't an assumption-though I do work more with orthopedic surgeons). And most of that shovelwear didn't sell. OK, maybe Cooking Mama and Wii Play for those myopic enough to think it would be even as good as Wii Sports.

How is a $50 price difference going to make them lose their entire casual market? It will have been six years since the Wii launched at $250. How is a $50 price increase, accounting for 6 years of inflation, going to make or break them? I'd bet it'll be at least $350, by the way, since they won't lose money on a console.

If they can truly bridge the gap between casual and hardcore, even somewhat, then it won't be the first time, even in recent history, that Nintendo pulled off something when EVERYONE said they would fail. I take that back. Everyone isn't saying now that they will fail.

Mark my words, they're going to sneak in the back door with 4/5-player local support, exploiting one of their competitors' weaknesses as Sony and Microsoft expand more and more into online support. They'll get the Wii Sports players and the Arkham City players going head to head with local multi games, and if they can stop being so hard-headed for once, they'll actually have a decent online setup as well.

But really it's all speculation at this point.

 

[Treblaine]

How is a $50 price difference going to make them lose their entire casual market? It will have been six years since the Wii launched at $250. How is a $50 price increase, accounting for 6 years of inflation, going to make or break them? I'd bet it'll be at least $350, by the way, since they won't lose money on a console.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Well by my count $250 in 2006 would be worth $289 in 2012, only by around 2013 would $250(2006) be the same value as $300.

But that is beside the point as Microsoft and Sony are ALREADY selling HD consoles at the value equivalent of $250 in 2006, which TODAY (not 18 months from now) would be $280

Playstation 3 Slim 120GB = $282 on Amazon

Xbox 360 4GB = $199 on Amazon

BTW, Wii-U will not come with a hard-drive, or blu-ray playback so barring XBL Gold subscription fee 4GB Xbox 360 is very analogous. Microsoft bundles that with Kinect for $299.

By the time late 2012 comes around Nintendo are going to be in deep trouble as both Sony and Microsoft can easily slash the retail price of their systems thanks to the economy of mass production i.e. each unit costs less to make the longer as the production goes on.

The Wii-U will be undercut in price by Xbox 360 and PS3, or Nintendo makes a loss.

The only way Nintendo's Wii will succeed is if it REALLY blows people away with it's graphical power and its new control interface.

Control interface it will struggle against Sony as anything it can do, Sony can do as well with PS Move and Vita. Microsoft has the other angle with the much more unique Kinect - if only shallow appeal. And of course, those bloody nub-sliders are so useless they'll find themselves competing as much with the iPad!

I think it will struggle to make the case with good graphics even if it is more powerful for several reasons:
-The living room is a hard place to appreciate higher resolution than 720p, you need either a giant HDTV or to sit comparatively close. Like PC-screen close.
-Xbox and PS3 have already proven themselves with great graphics, you get to the point of diminishing returns
-Those who appreciate super graphics are at odds with Wii-U's terrible controller design decisions, like Nub-sliders instead of real analogue sticks.
-Nintendo's secretive and controlling ways don't work for many third-parties and when it does work it doesn't work out too well (Mad-world)
-Drip-feed of exclusives won't do this time, Wii had good games but at such a slow rate. That can't happen now but does Nintendo have the resources to develop for 4 different platforms at once (Wii, Wii-u, NDS and 3DS)? They can't give up on Wii or NDS's huge install base when it is still so secure.

 

[Pendragon9]

I'm gonna have to side with Sony on this one.

Nintendo messed up BIG time with this new console. Even if it sells, I refuse to touch it.

You refuse to touch it before its been fully revealed and any services or games have been announced...

Slightly judgmental that methinks.

It's not judgemental in the least. I've had it with Gimmicks like the Wiimote, Kinect and Move. This massive controller is just another gimmick which they'll force on us.

Therefore, I have every right to judge them. They should know better. It's just another Wii.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I don't know how well the Wii U will do, but I remember a whole lot of laughing at the Wii before it came out. Nobody's laughing at the Wii anymore. At least, no one at Sony.

 

[Treblaine]

If the developers find the new system unwieldy and unattractive, then why did they all (Ubisoft, Sega, EA, Tecmo, Crytech, et al) lie at E3 and say they were super duper excited about it?

Same way they managed to get so many developers to gush over 3DS 12 months ago at E3 2010, only how much of that has materialised? A lot of talk, not a lot of results. It wasn't a "lie" it was just skilled PR men encouraging to speak candidly and loftily about new hardware without being realistic. In the end what we got was a series of ports; SF4, MGS3, Ocarina, Rayman, RE4 (Mercenaries).

For example Ken Levine gave the most poignant praise to Wii-U, yet when questioned afterwards he said he had no plans for his development studio to do anything on the Wii-U. Instead he turned up In Person(!) as the Sony conference to announce a NEW and Exclusive Bioshock game for PS Vita and then went on about how great Bioshock Infinite can reach a wider audience with Move controls. Which was kind of pushing in on Nintendo's motion game?

Ultimately it is way too soon to see how well Wii-U will be supported by third party, too much time, too many variable and not enough significant commitment. Yeah they got Ubisoft, they had Ubisoft with Wii, remember Red Steel?

 

[funguy2121]

snip

My insomnia rewards you! Or something.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/117/1177107p1.html

Here's Sega expressing how easy the Wii U (que the siren jokes) is to develop for. There is a qualified statement about porting from the 360 and PS3 that can be read multiple ways.