And claiming the Wii in unsatisfactory because it doesn't deliver the same experience as a ps3 is like complaining your sedan is unsatisfactory because its not your pick up truck.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And also, why would competing directly with them be 'upping its caliber of performance'?
I'm speaking in terms of relatively equal cross-platform experience between consoles, which currently the Wii does not allow for.
And Sony isn't "driving themselves into the ground," and Nintendo has just had the two worst consecutive quarters of their fiscal history. C'mon man, I'm not here to flame war.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And claiming the Wii in unsatisfactory because it doesn't deliver the same experience as a ps3 is like complaining your sedan is unsatisfactory because its not your pick up truck.
That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about what the new console from Nintendo is going to try to accomplish.
If it wants to be the Wii 2.0, that's fine. It's just probably not for me anymore.
Atomika on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
And claiming the Wii in unsatisfactory because it doesn't deliver the same experience as a ps3 is like complaining your sedan is unsatisfactory because its not your pick up truck.
I don't think this is very accurate, unless you are using the pick up truck for the same reasons as your sedan. Which is fine, but the pickup truck isn't going to be as good at being a sedan as the sedan.
Video game consoles all strive to deliver the same thing - entertainment. While this can be a subjective topic, what is not is the fact that 3rd party games simply do not sell well on the Wii. Whether that's a failure of the 3rd party developers or Nintendo is really irrelevant. If a AAA developer/publisher wants to sell 5 million copies of something, then they make for the 360 and PS3 and possible add in a port to the PC. But even though there are more Wiis our there than either 360s or PS3s, more games are bought for the latter two than the former.
First party titles are not inherently bad. It's not even bad business for Nintendo to sell a console without only Nintendo titles on it so long as it makes money. The problem, however, comes in if they want to court those 3rd party developers. If they do then they need to compete directly with Sony and MS for the AAA titles. If they don't, then none of this matters and many of us, myself included, probably won't be getting their new console. There's more of what I want from 3rd party developers than 1st party developers.
And also, why would competing directly with them be 'upping its caliber of performance'?
I'm speaking in terms of relatively equal cross-platform experience between consoles, which currently the Wii does not allow for.
And Sony isn't "driving themselves into the ground," and Nintendo has just had the two worst consecutive quarters of their fiscal history. C'mon man, I'm not here to flame war.
What, are you kidding? Ever post you've made in this thread is Grade A flame war. You're doing nothing but insulting the Wii and every game on it, while sucking MS and Sony's cocks.
So, Ross, you just don't find that the Wii has any compelling games?
Outside a handful of first-party titles? No, I don't. But it just doesn't have the mechanical capability to give me the experiences that I generally come to expect from the PS3, and the MotionControl technology hasn't enriched any gaming experience outside of Wii Sports and Mario Cart.
It's just old technology. It's the GameCube with motion-mapping technology, at that technology has done little to make a strong case for its persistence beyond novelty value.
Yeah, I can understand that view. I just never really minded graphics of any kind, as long as a game is playable (and more importantly, fun.) I seem to be the only person in the world who thinks half life 2 is really an awful game compared to half life 1, for example.
So, Ross, you just don't find that the Wii has any compelling games?
Outside a handful of first-party titles? No, I don't. But it just doesn't have the mechanical capability to give me the experiences that I generally come to expect from the PS3, and the MotionControl technology hasn't enriched any gaming experience outside of Wii Sports and Mario Cart.
It's just old technology. It's the GameCube with motion-mapping technology, at that technology has done little to make a strong case for its persistence beyond novelty value.
Yeah, I can understand that view. I just never really minded graphics of any kind, as long as a game is playable (and more importantly, fun.) I seem to be the only person in the world who thinks half life 2 is really an awful game compared to half life 1, for example.
And also, why would competing directly with them be 'upping its caliber of performance'?
I'm speaking in terms of relatively equal cross-platform experience between consoles, which currently the Wii does not allow for.
And Sony isn't "driving themselves into the ground," and Nintendo has just had the two worst consecutive quarters of their fiscal history. C'mon man, I'm not here to flame war.
What, are you kidding? Ever post you've made in this thread is Grade A flame war. You're doing nothing but insulting the Wii and every game on it, while sucking MS and Sony's cocks.
You should go re-read your OP again.
The only one flamming here is you. Since your first post actually.
I think everyone else is trying extra hard to delicately phrase stuff to AVOID a flame war.
The thing that always drives a console is the games- if there aren't any good games to play on a system, there's no real reason to buy the system. I always ignore all the tech data- big deal. It's not about what each console has under the hood, it's about what the games do with it, in my opinion.
We all get caught up in the graphical power and everything under the hood and have arguements about what console looks stronger and has better processing power- but if there's nothing to play, well, it's just going to sit there and look pretty and maybe end up used as a $399 doorstop much like the N64, the Saturn, and the Dreamcast did.
So Nintendo would have us believe that their new machine will outperform the competition, but is that something we should believe?
Nintendo hasn't said a damned word. All we have for the moment is rumors and speculation from other parties, a lot of which is contradictory or plain doesn't make sense.
I don't understand why there are still console-exclusive games. Why can't Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo sit down and agree on one set of hardware specs and make it so games can be played on any platform. Hardware upgrade every six years. I can play the same movie on a SONY DVD player or a Samsung player or play a PC game with an Nvidia or an ATI video card, I should be able to play the newest Mario game on my Microsoft fun machine.
Why would Nintendo "compete" with Sony and MS when they are doing a great job competing with each other? Video game console sales is not a zero-sum game, that is to say that MS or Sony doing well does not mean Nintendo is failing.
Nintendo has a solid track record of developing new ways to play games that they think will be fun. I expect more of that.
Skoal Cat on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I don't understand why there are still console-exclusive games. Why can't Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo sit down and agree on one set of hardware specs and make it so games can be played on any platform. Hardware upgrade every six years. I can play the same movie on a SONY DVD player or a Samsung player or play a PC game with an Nvidia or an ATI video card, I should be able to play the newest Mario game on my Microsoft fun machine.
Not a fair comparison. DVD and Blu-Ray manufacturers do not produce their own movies. There are also a billion and 1 manufacturers. The same is true for PCs, to an extent, but you can't play those PC games on a Mac, can you?
Each manufacturer designs their own console. If they collaborated on a product, why even compete? There'd just be one console. But this would never happen because why, if right now they each have the resources to fully develop and distribute their own machine, would they even desire collaboration?
Nova_C on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
As it stands, I'm quite happy with Nintendo developing a console with exclusive focus on first-party titles. If it's what I'm looking for in a gaming experience, there's a good chance I might even buy it, granted it's not too expensive. With little exception, the Wii's best implementation of its Wiimote technology was within its first-party titles. Whether that implementation justified its mechanics is a semantic argument for another day, but at least Nintendo seemed to understand the potential for its console if no one else really did.
The problem was obviously the porting of 3rd-party titles, for both the developers and the consumers. It's this end of the spectrum that I'm most curious about in Nintendo's next venture, because it's hard to look at the 3rd-party sales and critical reception for the Wii as anything other than failure. Importantly, this is the end where Nintendo will be doing most of its "competing" with Sony and MS, and it's the area I'm most curious about their approach.
Otherwise, if Nintendo shifts its focus away from outside development, it can't really be said that it's "competing" with anyone, can it? Console sales aren't a zero sum game if the products aren't suitably similar; I'd be hard pressed to say that the Wii even remotely competes with the PS3 or 360.
I don't understand why there are still console-exclusive games. Why can't Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo sit down and agree on one set of hardware specs and make it so games can be played on any platform. Hardware upgrade every six years. I can play the same movie on a SONY DVD player or a Samsung player or play a PC game with an Nvidia or an ATI video card, I should be able to play the newest Mario game on my Microsoft fun machine.
Because the money is made from licensing fees. Sony gets a share of every game sold for the PS3. Meanwhile, they lose money on every piece of hardware they sell. So Sony selling a generic product that plays "games" is a loser. It's not like selling DVD players, where you sell it for more than it cost you to make it. (Or like Nintendo consoles, for that matter, where they sell it for more than it costs them to make it.)
So in order to get people to buy PS3s in lieu of 360s, Sony has to give them compelling reasons to do so. And "it's all sleek and black" doesn't cut it, because it's about games (except I basically bought one because it was the cheapest and best Bluray player at the time, but whatever.) Which means they need exclusive titles.
As to Nintendo? I do NOT expect them to change their business model, because it's been working incredibly well. Microsoft and Sony make super-powerful beast machines that they sell at a loss and (hopefully) leverage to make a mint on software licensing fees. Nintendo makes comparatively underpowered hardware that everyone laps up because their first-party games are almost invariably fantastic. They make a profit on every hardware unit sold. And then they also make a profit on every unit of software sold. But at the end of the day, it doesn't much matter if nobody buys a single game to go with their systems, because Nintendo has already made a profit before they ever do so.
Nintendo is going to make a system that is probably slightly nicer looking than the 360 and PS3. It will use a regular DVD drive because BD drives are more expensive. It will include some new controller innovation that Nintendo does some awesome things with and everyone else gets wrong. It will have fantastic entries in the Zelda, Mario, and Metroid franchises, and a bunch of other solid games besides. And it will have a shit-ton of shovelware. And it will sell marginally well, far less than whatever Sony's and MS's new machines sell. And they will make bank and preen about in their money hats and meanwhile a bunch of fanboys will talk about how stupid and irrelevant they are because they're riding the bloated carcasses of their stupid first-party titles when everyone knows that those games haven't been fun since just about ever and hey why aren't you listening to me put down your Wii2 controller and stop playing fucking Mario and listen to me listen toooo meeeeeee.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And claiming the Wii in unsatisfactory because it doesn't deliver the same experience as a ps3 is like complaining your sedan is unsatisfactory because its not your pick up truck.
Not inherently. The problem is that Nintendo tends to go into direct competition with their third parties, which puts them at a big disadvantage. Which is great for Nintendo...but not so much for the platform as a whole.
The main issue with the Wii is that Nintendo planned for the usual 5 year cycle, while Sony and MS instead looked at a 10 year cycle. Which means that Nintendo has to do a refresh while the other two don't need to.
I don't understand why there are still console-exclusive games. Why can't Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo sit down and agree on one set of hardware specs and make it so games can be played on any platform. Hardware upgrade every six years. I can play the same movie on a SONY DVD player or a Samsung player or play a PC game with an Nvidia or an ATI video card, I should be able to play the newest Mario game on my Microsoft fun machine.
Not a fair comparison. DVD and Blu-Ray manufacturers do not produce their own movies. There are also a billion and 1 manufacturers. The same is true for PCs, to an extent, but you can't play those PC games on a Mac, can you?
Each manufacturer designs their own console. If they collaborated on a product, why even compete? There'd just be one console. But this would never happen because why, if right now they each have the resources to fully develop and distribute their own machine, would they even desire collaboration?
Actually, the "standardized console" has been tried, a few times. It's the reason the 3DO was $600 at launch.
All I can really say is that I loved my Wii and never played it. Those 5 games in two years were really fun and fantastic experiences.
I can also say that I do not regret selling it at all to help purchase my PS3.
Without question I feel that whatever Nintendo does show us it will be a whole heck of a lot of fun. . .when you find a reason to play it. The only real question is how often people outside of the casual gaming market will find a reason to play it.
edit: but honestly i'm happy to see a Nintendo console in countless homes. they accomplished their goal and brought video gaming back into the main spheres of society so good on them.
And Sony isn't "driving themselves into the ground," and Nintendo has just had the two worst consecutive quarters of their fiscal history.
...Sony is still losing money hand over fist on the PS3's online functionality, MS lost more than a billion dollars to Red Ring of Death-related repairs, and Nintendo lost hundreds of millions of dollars in those last two quarters not because of any action or inaction on their part but because of the plummeting value of the US dollar.
But it's kind of like (to continue the metaphor) applauding the studio that made the Twilight movies for being so profitable. It's the fight between "continued customer appeal" and "novelty," and it seems that with the Wii and 3DS that Nintendo has clearly chosen "novelty" as their prime market motivator.
Which is to say that isn't the worst thing. It's profitable. But it also drops hard, so the only way to maintain revenues is to constantly provide newer, more novel experiences. Sony and Microsoft seem to feel that those experiences should be mostly software-based, whereas Nintendo seems to prefer hardware changes. My personal opinion is that software is a lot easier to take a chance on than new hardware, so I don't particularly care to be asked to go out and drop $200 on whatever new way Nintendo thinks you should hold a controller to play the same first-party titles again.
I think you're being very ungenerous in your reading of Nintendo's approach to consoles when you say the hardware is meant to be a novelty. The point of it was to provide deeper interaction with software, and to facilitate games that wouldn't be compelling with a more traditional gamepad. We've seen it's benefits with a few choice games, and the difficulties it has had with third parties shouldn't be misread as a failing of the control scheme.
I can't really get into this topic too deeply right now (kinda busy), but I think Nintendo is definitely competing with Sony and MS. There's really no reason not to.
They've had problems with getting third party software, but the reasons probably probably have to do with the market and business side of things more than anything else. I'll see if I can go into this more when I get off of work.
I'm curious how much brand loyalty really factors into console sales.
It's certainly a factor, but it's not THE factor. It can be overcome by various other factors. For instance, take a look at Sony. The original PlayStation was insanely popular, and that excitement helped make the PS2 insanely popular right from the start. Of course it helped that the PS2 didn't have any glaring flaws (at least according to the market).
Then there was the transition between the PS2 and the PS3. Again, the PS2 was insanely popular. When the PS3 was announced, there was massive hype, due in part to the PS2's popularity -- at least until the dreaded phrase "$599" was uttered. In an instant, brand momentum went from a 100-car freight train to a Ford Pinto with a bad transition, and PS3 sales were relatively weak for a long time, rising mainly when the price became less stupid.
I'd argue that brand loyalty is particularly strong for Nintendo, and in fact helped the company sell systems even when they had gigantic flaws like the N64 (expensive, limiting carts, lack of games) and the GameCube (the purple lunchpail design, Fischer-Price controller colors and the cheap price caused the market to peg it as a kiddie toy) did.
However, the sales figures don't lie, and Wii's sales are almost entirely relegated to first-party titles and peripherals.
They are?
Third parties successfully challenged the notion that only first party games sell on Nintendo platforms last year, according to fresh US sales data.
Sales tracking outfit The NPD Group has released fresh figures for last year through Gamasutra, showing the top 10 best-selling games released in 2010 on each platform.
Other, older games might have sold more over the last 12 months - and on the Wii and DS, most certainly did - but these charts are confined to titles that launched during the calendar year.
The Wii top 10 was dominated by third parties, with Just Dance 2 coming out on top. First party efforts like Metroid: Other M, Kirby's Epic Yarn and Sin & Punishment 2 were nowhere to be seen.
1. Just Dance 2 (Ubisoft)
2. Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Nintendo)
3. Donkey Kong Country Returns (Nintendo)
4. Epic Mickey (Disney Interactive)
5. Michael Jackson: The Experience (Ubisoft)
6. uDraw Studio (THQ)
7. Wipeout: The Game (Activision)
8. LEGO Harry Potter (Warner Bros.)
9. Call of Duty: Black Ops (Activision)
10. Wii Party (Nintendo)
That said, I think Nintendo does realize that the Wii hasn't gotten the third-party support that they'd like, especially when it comes to non-casual games. And if the rumors are to be believed, the steps Nintendo is taking with Project Cafe are meant to counteract that.
Specifically, I think the key things that kept most people from making cross-platform ports to the Wii are the system's power gap from the 360/PS3 and the vastly different controller. Rather than just making sure the game works on a different API and calling it a day, developers would have to take the time to downgrade everything and completely rethink the control scheme. In other words, it was just too difficult.
That, I think, is the real reason Nintendo's going for something more powerful this time around, and including controls with more buttons (supposedly).
I also think the fact that we're hearing about it so early is to correct another mistake Nintendo made with the Wii and third-parties: namely, they kept them in the dark until the last minute. Remember the lead-up to the Wii? The year before it launched, all third-parties knew about the next Nintendo system was that it would be less powerful than the others, because Nintendo kept the motion controls a secret. The response was a gigantic "meh" from third-parties. It wasn't until E3 mere months before the Wii launched that Nintendo revealed the motion controls and got people interested in it. But by then, it was too late for developers to really take the time to tinker with the new system and come up with something interesting, so most of them resorted to half-assed mini-games.
At any rate. My prediction as to what we SHOULDN'T expect from the next Nintendo system? Blu-ray movie playback, even if it uses Blu-ray disks. Nintendo likes to keep manufacturing costs as low as possible, and not having to pay the Blu-ray movie licensing fee will save them $30 or so.
When it comes to Nintendo and third party games on the Wii, the way they've handled two of the more anticipated games for the system in the past year (The Last Story and Xenoblade) isn't a good sign.
The DS has had far more success with good third party games and I'm hoping it'll stay the same with the 3DS (though I still don't get why they decided to region lock it).
And it will sell marginally well, far less than whatever Sony's and MS's new machines sell.
That would be a stark contrast to this generation, and so I view that claim as suspect.
In contrast to this generation, but in line with the past two generations.
I suspect that Nintendo themselves may have been a bit surprised by the success of the Wii. Given the drop off in interest for the Wii, and given the unlikelihood of Nintendo coming up with a new gimmick that revolutionizes gaming in the same way that waggle did (for a given value of "revolutionizes"), I'd say that Wii2 sales are less likely to be as crazy-high.
The nice thing for Nintendo is, given their business model, it doesn't much matter. Their worst-case scenario is that instead of money hats, they only get to make money bracelets.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So, Ross, you just don't find that the Wii has any compelling games?
Outside a handful of first-party titles? No, I don't. But it just doesn't have the mechanical capability to give me the experiences that I generally come to expect from the PS3, and the MotionControl technology hasn't enriched any gaming experience outside of Wii Sports and Mario Cart.
It's just old technology. It's the GameCube with motion-mapping technology, at that technology has done little to make a strong case for its persistence beyond novelty value.
!! Have you not played Rayman Raving Rabbits? Boom blox? Boxing?
STAR WARS WIISABER. Seriously, Force Unleashed on the wii was a clear step down in gfx but using the Force by waving your arms around is epic.
As far as sales of future consoles go, the thing to remember is that anything can happen. The top dog can completely collapse, and the underdog can become king. Hell, that's what happened this generation. Or the status quo can remain. There's so many factors that can go into the mix: market reputation, price, game support, what the competition does, etc. etc.
With so little information at this point, it's pretty much folly to predict how Nintendo will do this time around.
Though Jeffe is right: Nintendo is crazy efficient when it comes to hardware design, and always makes sure their systems sell for a decent profit at launch. That's why they were able to continue making money even when the Gamecube was struggling (and before the GBA launched).
As far as sales of future consoles go, the thing to remember is that anything can happen. The top dog can completely collapse, and the underdog can become king. Hell, that's what happened this generation.
I'm not sure about that, though I suppose it depends on who was "top dog" and who was "underdog".
My interpretation is that two of the three main rivals from last generation - Sony and MS - sort of metastasized into the main gaming consoles this time around. The PS3 and 360 are both doing very well (in terms of units sold, at least) and are kind of the de facto pieces of hardware one think about when they hear "video games".
Meanwhile, Nintendo pretty much dropped themselves into a parallel market that has little to do with the sort of (comparatively) niche market gaming the other guys target. The other two keep selling games to guys who have gaming as a principle hobby, while Nintendo markets consoles to old women who think fake-bowling is a hoot and also keeps the grandkids entertained when they come over (and also Mario fans). Nintendo figured out how to make gaming dollars off of non-gamers. I don't think they can be considered a direct competitor to Sony and MS at the moment.
At any rate, I really look forward to seeing an HD Nintendo console, especially if it's backwards compatible with the Wii. Pretty much every bit of media I consume any more is in HD, from TV and movies to games and Netflix streaming. Really, the only thing I have that isn't HD is my Wii, and while the games are pretty enough and still fun, it's pretty conspicuous when staring at the pixelated Vasoline smear of graphics that comprises your average Wii game that it could be so much prettier.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
!! Have you not played Rayman Raving Rabbits? Boom blox? Boxing?
STAR WARS WIISABER. Seriously, Force Unleashed on the wii was a clear step down in gfx but using the Force by waving your arms around is epic.
Yeah, there are few games who get it right, but those that do are awesome.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Rabbids was awesome, man. My biggest complaint was that the multiplayer was pretty clunky. Monkey Ball lacked the charm, but it nailed quick and easy multiplayer fun.
90% of the time I turn on my Wii, though, it's to play Mario Party.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I want Nintendo to focus less on people who identify as gamers and focus more on people who play games. All the better if the former group comes along for the ride. :rotate:
The only one flamming here is you. Since your first post actually.
I think everyone else is trying extra hard to delicately phrase stuff to AVOID a flame war.
Phrasing your insults politely doesn't make them not insults. Maybe I'm just the only one to spend a significant amount of time in G&T, and so has seen this thread 10 times already, with the same projection of bias as an impetus for Nintendo.
At any rate, WarioWare and Excitetruck alone made the Wii worth it to me. Everything else was just gravy. I hope Nintendo continues to focus on making good games and making money instead of 'Winning' the console war in the minds of hardcore gamers.
Nintendo hasn't done anything to interest me since the DS (and, honestly, I would have preferred a new single-screen handheld). I've passed on the Wii, and the only reason I'm going to get a 3DS is because Mega Man Legends 3 is being released for it (I wish it was coming out for the DS, though, because I don't care about 3D at all and will never use it). If their new system is anything like the Wii, I won't be interested.
I'm glad someone is trying to differentiate in this industry. Otherwise we'd be arguing over which system has the objectively superior online experience. That would be boring.
As far as sales of future consoles go, the thing to remember is that anything can happen. The top dog can completely collapse, and the underdog can become king. Hell, that's what happened this generation.
I'm not sure about that, though I suppose it depends on who was "top dog" and who was "underdog".
Well, think back to the PS2/Xbox/Cube era, before we had ever heard of waggle or $599. If anyone had predicted then that Nintendo would soon be on top by far and the Sony would be mired in third place, we'd have called them a delusional fanboy.
The only one flamming here is you. Since your first post actually.
I think everyone else is trying extra hard to delicately phrase stuff to AVOID a flame war.
Phrasing your insults politely doesn't make them not insults.
I agree with Ego. The only one acting hostile in this thread is you.
I own a Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Gameboy, Gameboy Pocket, Gameboy Color, Gameboy Advance, Gameboy Advance SP, and DS. For years Nintendo was synonymous with video games in my mind.
The reason I didn't get the Wii is the same reason I didn't get the Virtual Boy; it's a system with an unneccessary gimmick that doesn't lend itself well to the kind of games I want to play. Every time a Wii game comes out that looks interesting (a very rare occurrence), I wish that it would have been released on the Gamecube instead. Sure, I could probably just plug-in a Gamecube controller to play, but it would be kind of weird to buy a Wii and ignore the one thing that differentiates it from a Gamecube.
Posts
And claiming the Wii in unsatisfactory because it doesn't deliver the same experience as a ps3 is like complaining your sedan is unsatisfactory because its not your pick up truck.
I'm speaking in terms of relatively equal cross-platform experience between consoles, which currently the Wii does not allow for.
And Sony isn't "driving themselves into the ground," and Nintendo has just had the two worst consecutive quarters of their fiscal history. C'mon man, I'm not here to flame war.
That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about what the new console from Nintendo is going to try to accomplish.
If it wants to be the Wii 2.0, that's fine. It's just probably not for me anymore.
I don't think this is very accurate, unless you are using the pick up truck for the same reasons as your sedan. Which is fine, but the pickup truck isn't going to be as good at being a sedan as the sedan.
Video game consoles all strive to deliver the same thing - entertainment. While this can be a subjective topic, what is not is the fact that 3rd party games simply do not sell well on the Wii. Whether that's a failure of the 3rd party developers or Nintendo is really irrelevant. If a AAA developer/publisher wants to sell 5 million copies of something, then they make for the 360 and PS3 and possible add in a port to the PC. But even though there are more Wiis our there than either 360s or PS3s, more games are bought for the latter two than the former.
First party titles are not inherently bad. It's not even bad business for Nintendo to sell a console without only Nintendo titles on it so long as it makes money. The problem, however, comes in if they want to court those 3rd party developers. If they do then they need to compete directly with Sony and MS for the AAA titles. If they don't, then none of this matters and many of us, myself included, probably won't be getting their new console. There's more of what I want from 3rd party developers than 1st party developers.
What, are you kidding? Ever post you've made in this thread is Grade A flame war. You're doing nothing but insulting the Wii and every game on it, while sucking MS and Sony's cocks.
You should go re-read your OP again.
Yeah, I can understand that view. I just never really minded graphics of any kind, as long as a game is playable (and more importantly, fun.) I seem to be the only person in the world who thinks half life 2 is really an awful game compared to half life 1, for example.
Though in fairness, isn't it a double gamecube?
Technically there's ducttape involved.
The only one flamming here is you. Since your first post actually.
I think everyone else is trying extra hard to delicately phrase stuff to AVOID a flame war.
We all get caught up in the graphical power and everything under the hood and have arguements about what console looks stronger and has better processing power- but if there's nothing to play, well, it's just going to sit there and look pretty and maybe end up used as a $399 doorstop much like the N64, the Saturn, and the Dreamcast did.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr134/tuttigames/GAMECUBESONICDX.jpg
Nintendo has a solid track record of developing new ways to play games that they think will be fun. I expect more of that.
Not a fair comparison. DVD and Blu-Ray manufacturers do not produce their own movies. There are also a billion and 1 manufacturers. The same is true for PCs, to an extent, but you can't play those PC games on a Mac, can you?
Each manufacturer designs their own console. If they collaborated on a product, why even compete? There'd just be one console. But this would never happen because why, if right now they each have the resources to fully develop and distribute their own machine, would they even desire collaboration?
The problem was obviously the porting of 3rd-party titles, for both the developers and the consumers. It's this end of the spectrum that I'm most curious about in Nintendo's next venture, because it's hard to look at the 3rd-party sales and critical reception for the Wii as anything other than failure. Importantly, this is the end where Nintendo will be doing most of its "competing" with Sony and MS, and it's the area I'm most curious about their approach.
Otherwise, if Nintendo shifts its focus away from outside development, it can't really be said that it's "competing" with anyone, can it? Console sales aren't a zero sum game if the products aren't suitably similar; I'd be hard pressed to say that the Wii even remotely competes with the PS3 or 360.
Because the money is made from licensing fees. Sony gets a share of every game sold for the PS3. Meanwhile, they lose money on every piece of hardware they sell. So Sony selling a generic product that plays "games" is a loser. It's not like selling DVD players, where you sell it for more than it cost you to make it. (Or like Nintendo consoles, for that matter, where they sell it for more than it costs them to make it.)
So in order to get people to buy PS3s in lieu of 360s, Sony has to give them compelling reasons to do so. And "it's all sleek and black" doesn't cut it, because it's about games (except I basically bought one because it was the cheapest and best Bluray player at the time, but whatever.) Which means they need exclusive titles.
As to Nintendo? I do NOT expect them to change their business model, because it's been working incredibly well. Microsoft and Sony make super-powerful beast machines that they sell at a loss and (hopefully) leverage to make a mint on software licensing fees. Nintendo makes comparatively underpowered hardware that everyone laps up because their first-party games are almost invariably fantastic. They make a profit on every hardware unit sold. And then they also make a profit on every unit of software sold. But at the end of the day, it doesn't much matter if nobody buys a single game to go with their systems, because Nintendo has already made a profit before they ever do so.
Nintendo is going to make a system that is probably slightly nicer looking than the 360 and PS3. It will use a regular DVD drive because BD drives are more expensive. It will include some new controller innovation that Nintendo does some awesome things with and everyone else gets wrong. It will have fantastic entries in the Zelda, Mario, and Metroid franchises, and a bunch of other solid games besides. And it will have a shit-ton of shovelware. And it will sell marginally well, far less than whatever Sony's and MS's new machines sell. And they will make bank and preen about in their money hats and meanwhile a bunch of fanboys will talk about how stupid and irrelevant they are because they're riding the bloated carcasses of their stupid first-party titles when everyone knows that those games haven't been fun since just about ever and hey why aren't you listening to me put down your Wii2 controller and stop playing fucking Mario and listen to me listen toooo meeeeeee.
Not inherently. The problem is that Nintendo tends to go into direct competition with their third parties, which puts them at a big disadvantage. Which is great for Nintendo...but not so much for the platform as a whole.
The main issue with the Wii is that Nintendo planned for the usual 5 year cycle, while Sony and MS instead looked at a 10 year cycle. Which means that Nintendo has to do a refresh while the other two don't need to.
Actually, the "standardized console" has been tried, a few times. It's the reason the 3DO was $600 at launch.
I can also say that I do not regret selling it at all to help purchase my PS3.
Without question I feel that whatever Nintendo does show us it will be a whole heck of a lot of fun. . .when you find a reason to play it. The only real question is how often people outside of the casual gaming market will find a reason to play it.
edit: but honestly i'm happy to see a Nintendo console in countless homes. they accomplished their goal and brought video gaming back into the main spheres of society so good on them.
...Sony is still losing money hand over fist on the PS3's online functionality, MS lost more than a billion dollars to Red Ring of Death-related repairs, and Nintendo lost hundreds of millions of dollars in those last two quarters not because of any action or inaction on their part but because of the plummeting value of the US dollar.
I can't really get into this topic too deeply right now (kinda busy), but I think Nintendo is definitely competing with Sony and MS. There's really no reason not to.
They've had problems with getting third party software, but the reasons probably probably have to do with the market and business side of things more than anything else. I'll see if I can go into this more when I get off of work.
It's certainly a factor, but it's not THE factor. It can be overcome by various other factors. For instance, take a look at Sony. The original PlayStation was insanely popular, and that excitement helped make the PS2 insanely popular right from the start. Of course it helped that the PS2 didn't have any glaring flaws (at least according to the market).
Then there was the transition between the PS2 and the PS3. Again, the PS2 was insanely popular. When the PS3 was announced, there was massive hype, due in part to the PS2's popularity -- at least until the dreaded phrase "$599" was uttered. In an instant, brand momentum went from a 100-car freight train to a Ford Pinto with a bad transition, and PS3 sales were relatively weak for a long time, rising mainly when the price became less stupid.
I'd argue that brand loyalty is particularly strong for Nintendo, and in fact helped the company sell systems even when they had gigantic flaws like the N64 (expensive, limiting carts, lack of games) and the GameCube (the purple lunchpail design, Fischer-Price controller colors and the cheap price caused the market to peg it as a kiddie toy) did.
They are?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-07-third-parties-owned-the-wii-in-2010
That said, I think Nintendo does realize that the Wii hasn't gotten the third-party support that they'd like, especially when it comes to non-casual games. And if the rumors are to be believed, the steps Nintendo is taking with Project Cafe are meant to counteract that.
Specifically, I think the key things that kept most people from making cross-platform ports to the Wii are the system's power gap from the 360/PS3 and the vastly different controller. Rather than just making sure the game works on a different API and calling it a day, developers would have to take the time to downgrade everything and completely rethink the control scheme. In other words, it was just too difficult.
That, I think, is the real reason Nintendo's going for something more powerful this time around, and including controls with more buttons (supposedly).
I also think the fact that we're hearing about it so early is to correct another mistake Nintendo made with the Wii and third-parties: namely, they kept them in the dark until the last minute. Remember the lead-up to the Wii? The year before it launched, all third-parties knew about the next Nintendo system was that it would be less powerful than the others, because Nintendo kept the motion controls a secret. The response was a gigantic "meh" from third-parties. It wasn't until E3 mere months before the Wii launched that Nintendo revealed the motion controls and got people interested in it. But by then, it was too late for developers to really take the time to tinker with the new system and come up with something interesting, so most of them resorted to half-assed mini-games.
At any rate. My prediction as to what we SHOULDN'T expect from the next Nintendo system? Blu-ray movie playback, even if it uses Blu-ray disks. Nintendo likes to keep manufacturing costs as low as possible, and not having to pay the Blu-ray movie licensing fee will save them $30 or so.
The DS has had far more success with good third party games and I'm hoping it'll stay the same with the 3DS (though I still don't get why they decided to region lock it).
In contrast to this generation, but in line with the past two generations.
I suspect that Nintendo themselves may have been a bit surprised by the success of the Wii. Given the drop off in interest for the Wii, and given the unlikelihood of Nintendo coming up with a new gimmick that revolutionizes gaming in the same way that waggle did (for a given value of "revolutionizes"), I'd say that Wii2 sales are less likely to be as crazy-high.
The nice thing for Nintendo is, given their business model, it doesn't much matter. Their worst-case scenario is that instead of money hats, they only get to make money bracelets.
!! Have you not played Rayman Raving Rabbits? Boom blox? Boxing?
STAR WARS WIISABER. Seriously, Force Unleashed on the wii was a clear step down in gfx but using the Force by waving your arms around is epic.
With so little information at this point, it's pretty much folly to predict how Nintendo will do this time around.
Though Jeffe is right: Nintendo is crazy efficient when it comes to hardware design, and always makes sure their systems sell for a decent profit at launch. That's why they were able to continue making money even when the Gamecube was struggling (and before the GBA launched).
I'm not sure about that, though I suppose it depends on who was "top dog" and who was "underdog".
My interpretation is that two of the three main rivals from last generation - Sony and MS - sort of metastasized into the main gaming consoles this time around. The PS3 and 360 are both doing very well (in terms of units sold, at least) and are kind of the de facto pieces of hardware one think about when they hear "video games".
Meanwhile, Nintendo pretty much dropped themselves into a parallel market that has little to do with the sort of (comparatively) niche market gaming the other guys target. The other two keep selling games to guys who have gaming as a principle hobby, while Nintendo markets consoles to old women who think fake-bowling is a hoot and also keeps the grandkids entertained when they come over (and also Mario fans). Nintendo figured out how to make gaming dollars off of non-gamers. I don't think they can be considered a direct competitor to Sony and MS at the moment.
At any rate, I really look forward to seeing an HD Nintendo console, especially if it's backwards compatible with the Wii. Pretty much every bit of media I consume any more is in HD, from TV and movies to games and Netflix streaming. Really, the only thing I have that isn't HD is my Wii, and while the games are pretty enough and still fun, it's pretty conspicuous when staring at the pixelated Vasoline smear of graphics that comprises your average Wii game that it could be so much prettier.
Yeah, there are few games who get it right, but those that do are awesome.
Raving Rabbids was terrible and you're a terrible person.
I own FU for Wii.
It was an epic 3 hours of gameplay, I tell you.
90% of the time I turn on my Wii, though, it's to play Mario Party.
Phrasing your insults politely doesn't make them not insults. Maybe I'm just the only one to spend a significant amount of time in G&T, and so has seen this thread 10 times already, with the same projection of bias as an impetus for Nintendo.
At any rate, WarioWare and Excitetruck alone made the Wii worth it to me. Everything else was just gravy. I hope Nintendo continues to focus on making good games and making money instead of 'Winning' the console war in the minds of hardcore gamers.
Well, think back to the PS2/Xbox/Cube era, before we had ever heard of waggle or $599. If anyone had predicted then that Nintendo would soon be on top by far and the Sony would be mired in third place, we'd have called them a delusional fanboy.
This industry can be a crazy thing.
I agree with Ego. The only one acting hostile in this thread is you.
I own a Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Gameboy, Gameboy Pocket, Gameboy Color, Gameboy Advance, Gameboy Advance SP, and DS. For years Nintendo was synonymous with video games in my mind.
The reason I didn't get the Wii is the same reason I didn't get the Virtual Boy; it's a system with an unneccessary gimmick that doesn't lend itself well to the kind of games I want to play. Every time a Wii game comes out that looks interesting (a very rare occurrence), I wish that it would have been released on the Gamecube instead. Sure, I could probably just plug-in a Gamecube controller to play, but it would be kind of weird to buy a Wii and ignore the one thing that differentiates it from a Gamecube.