I really don't understand the ambivalence or outright distaste for the WiiU. Worst case scenario - you have a reasonably powerful system that you can port a ton of games to, and even simplify various complex button commands by mapping them to touch icons. This isn't a game changer designed to leave anyone out in the cold. I couldn't imagine Nintendo taking a more accommodating approach at this point.
Yeah, you can port games to it.
For a year or two, and then the real next gen machines will be out.
That presumes a massive leap in hardware for Microsoft and Sony over the WiiU.
I don't see that happening.
You don't see Sony being able to put out a machine with better than 256mb of RAM? Or Microsoft being able to put out a machine with greater storage media?
Because the iPad already does both those things at a pretty reasonable price.
The problem with Microsoft or Sony making a huge leap for the next generation is who's going to make games for it? Another big graphical leap is going to make budgets skyrocket even more.
The problem with MS/Sony NOT making huge graphical leaps is....who would fucking buy it? It's already confirmed that WiiU will not be able to run UE4 from Epic themselves. All MS/Sony have to do is hit min specs for that engIne and bam, WiiU is to PS4 as Wii is to PS3 - not even able to get downports of current AAA games.
The 'run a generation behind in terms of hardware' is fine for Nintendo (unless 'it has Mario and Zelda!' ever stops moving units for them) but let's call a spade a spade here - it's not going to be a competitive piece of hardware with tons of third part support. It's not intended to be. And if that's what you're interested in as a consumer of course you won't be overjoyed with the system.
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
That presumes a massive leap in hardware for Microsoft and Sony over the WiiU.
I don't see that happening.
Sony cannot afford another PS3 scenario and Microsoft doesn't need to eat losses like the company did with the 360 launch.
All three companies are aiming for hardware to be sold at either a slight profit or a slight loss from launch this next generation.
I think you are overestimating the hardware prowess of the Wii U. Substantially better hardware is already cheap and readily available.
Also consider the places that next gen systems can differentiate without a lot of cost: home media features (which Nintendo ignores at their peril), Blu-ray support, online gaming (which Nintendo is still horrendous at), local storage (Nintendo always fucks this up), RAM (lots more RAM = one-way street for ports), and potentially backward compatibility with the vast majority of last generation's AAA titles.
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
War Chest money is a funny subject within the context of generational improvement.
...
It's an interesting question to me because A) Nintendo is in a rare position for a company, i.e., being able to recover from failure with little damage to their financial integrity, and it might be a legitimate scenario, depending on the reception of the Wii-U by both the market and 3rd-party developers.
It's not too rare a position - the other console manufacturers just happen to have their assets tied up in other divisions of their companies, which themselves may or may not be profitable, and can thus afford to buffer losses in one with gains in another.
Again, this generation MS and Sony individually have both lost over three times as much money on gaming during a single year as Nintendo stands to lose this year, and for Sony at least, they still haven't been able to make their losses back. These losses were noted and occasionally commented on by those paying attention but nobody really seriously thought that MS and Sony would pull out of the console gaming business. For one, at least MS had already tempered expectations for this generation by saying that they were going to spend money on opening the console gaming market up for themselves until they didn't have to. Secondly, it's easier for some parts of your company that aren't doing well to fly under the radar when other divisions make up the majority of your business.
Nintendo has banked much of its profit because it is a conservatively run company financially, and because it only does one thing - if it can't do that one thing, it needs that money to give it the ability to assess what is going on and change accordingly. This singularity of market is what actually makes Nintendo unique among the console manufacturers.
When you look at the finances and goals of each of the major players, it becomes easier to see that all of them are going to shift gears for the next generation. Sony and MS aren't likely to shove their change in focus in your face, but I am almost willing to guarantee the next generational increase in power will be more incremental than revolutionary - think more like what we're seeing on higher-end PCs now as opposed to the advances of the consoles of yesteryear (although I should add I'm not really going out on a limb here, since current rumors suggest that their consoles are composed of largely off-the-shelf parts). There is simply no good money in pursuing the technological arms race any further, either for console producers or developers. The main focus of these coming consoles is going to be content delivery and control.
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also consider the places that next gen systems can differentiate without a lot of cost: home media features (which Nintendo ignores at their peril), Blu-ray support, online gaming (which Nintendo is still horrendous at), local storage (Nintendo always fucks this up), RAM (lots more RAM = one-way street for ports), and potentially backward compatibility with the vast majority of last generation's AAA titles.
This is a good point. Nintendo, being the scion of "cheaper & funner" gaming, should at the very least be capitalizing on low-cost expansions of utility, if not dominating outright. Instead, they're unarguably the least utilitarian console maker on the market; they make Nintendo machines to the point that using them should be made into its own verb, "Nintendoing."
It's one of the sticking points I have with the company in that it makes them appear like they're actively trying to keep people away and their success can't be explained by any other consideration other than "brand recognition + endless novelty + cheap consoles."
The problem with Microsoft or Sony making a huge leap for the next generation is who's going to make games for it? Another big graphical leap is going to make budgets skyrocket even more.
This certainly may be the case, but it's flying in the face of developers swearing up and down the only thing that's holding them back are the comparable limitations of the Microsoft and Sony's seven and six year old consoles respectively, and that they're forced to make the decision between reasonable consistency and framerates and the steady progression of engine power.
Also consider the places that next gen systems can differentiate without a lot of cost: home media features (which Nintendo ignores at their peril), Blu-ray support, online gaming (which Nintendo is still horrendous at), local storage (Nintendo always fucks this up), RAM (lots more RAM = one-way street for ports), and potentially backward compatibility with the vast majority of last generation's AAA titles.
This is a good point. Nintendo, being the scion of "cheaper & funner" gaming, should at the very least be capitalizing on low-cost expansions of utility, if not dominating outright. Instead, they're unarguably the least utilitarian console maker on the market; they make Nintendo machines to the point that using them should be made into its own verb, "Nintendoing."
It's one of the sticking points I have with the company in that it makes them appear like they're actively trying to keep people away and their success can't be explained by any other consideration other than "brand recognition + endless novelty + cheap consoles."
Except nintendo has had netflix for a while (and i think is the most widely used console of the three for the service), and now has hulu plus for streaming video? Their native online browsing service isn't mindblowing or anything, but you can buy a usb keyboard and feasibly surf the web on your tv. What other things does it need to do besides play games? Movies? Yes that's been a lack of multimedia functionality since the gamecube days, but with the growing ubiquity of streaming subscription services (see netflix and hulu) I think that's going to become less of a sticking point.
Is my wii supposed to wash my dishes and fold my clothes too or something? It's a gaming appliance.
The problem with MS/Sony NOT making huge graphical leaps is....who would fucking buy it? It's already confirmed that WiiU will not be able to run UE4 from Epic themselves.
I thought Epic's big goal is to get the UE4 running entirely in Flash or its equivalent.
Surely getting it going on the WiiU should be more approachable?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also consider the places that next gen systems can differentiate without a lot of cost: home media features (which Nintendo ignores at their peril), Blu-ray support, online gaming (which Nintendo is still horrendous at), local storage (Nintendo always fucks this up), RAM (lots more RAM = one-way street for ports), and potentially backward compatibility with the vast majority of last generation's AAA titles.
This is a good point. Nintendo, being the scion of "cheaper & funner" gaming, should at the very least be capitalizing on low-cost expansions of utility, if not dominating outright. Instead, they're unarguably the least utilitarian console maker on the market; they make Nintendo machines to the point that using them should be made into its own verb, "Nintendoing."
It's one of the sticking points I have with the company in that it makes them appear like they're actively trying to keep people away and their success can't be explained by any other consideration other than "brand recognition + endless novelty + cheap consoles."
Except nintendo has had netflix for a while (and i think is the most widely used console of the three for the service), and now has hulu plus for streaming video? Their native online browsing service isn't mindblowing or anything, but you can buy a usb keyboard and feasibly surf the web on your tv. What other things does it need to do besides play games? Movies? Yes that's been a lack of multimedia functionality since the gamecube days, but with the growing ubiquity of streaming subscription services (see netflix and hulu) I think that's going to become less of a sticking point.
Is my wii supposed to wash my dishes and fold my clothes too or something? It's a gaming appliance.
Too bad the $3 extra I spend each month for HD content on Netflix would be wasted if I only had a Wii. Their Opera browser is a joke (but in fairness, not substantially moreso than the competition), it plays no optical media, and their online gaming capabilities are practically nil. Not to mention, their interface isn't exactly what you'd call intuitive.
It's pretty low on the utility scale. Especially comparatively.
The problem with MS/Sony NOT making huge graphical leaps is....who would fucking buy it? It's already confirmed that WiiU will not be able to run UE4 from Epic themselves.
I thought Epic's big goal is to get the UE4 running entirely in Flash or its equivalent.
Surely getting it going on the WiiU should be more approachable?
Actually, Epic are now big fans of the Wii U:
Epic vice president Mark Rein has high hopes for the Wii U.
Speaking at last week's Game Developers Conference, Rein told Eurogamer that he believes Nintendo's new console will do quite well.
"I like the Wii U. I think E3 will be a big eye-opener for people," Rein said. "It's a great brand that a lot of parents really trust and they're probably ready to buy their kids an HD Wii that does that much more than just being an HD Wii. I'd love it if they'd done it last year, but I'm excited for them to do it this year. I'd be shocked if it doesn't do well."
Rein also discussed the role of his company's Unreal Engine 3 technology, which will play a big part in some of the Wii U's first titles. Specifically, Rein says that his company's engine could even outperform the Zelda HD demo seen at E3 2011.
"Do you remember the Zelda demo they had on it? Would you not buy a Wii U just to play that? Of course you would," Rein said. "That's what Nintendo is all about. Their hardware is the software delivery service for their great content. That Zelda demo was gorgeous and we can do even more than that with Unreal Engine 3. I think it will do great."
Rein also noted that he's had a chance to see Unreal Engine games in action on the Wii U. "I played Batman: Arkham City on the Wii U and they are doing some really cool stuff with the controller," he said.
Even the Wii U tech demos have impressed Rein. "Did you play that Battle Mii game? Two players would play with a Wii Remote and Nunchuk and one would play with the Wii U controller?" he asked. "I would buy a Wii U to play that game in a heartbeat. And I hope people make those kind of games with our technology. I think we've yet to really see what the Wii U can do and I think at E3 this year they're going to shock us."
When asked about new IPs, Rein concluded by noting that "If I had ten development teams I'd make a game for every single platform and make that the special game for that platform. If you're the special game on that platform you do really, really well. Gears was one of the special ones on Xbox 360. Infinity Blade is a special game on the iPhone and iPad. Shadow Complex was a special game on Xbox Live Arcade. But we don't have 10 development teams so it's just a matter of picking and choosing what we do and doing the best thing we can for the idea that we have."
That presumes a massive leap in hardware for Microsoft and Sony over the WiiU.
I don't see that happening.
Sony cannot afford another PS3 scenario and Microsoft doesn't need to eat losses like the company did with the 360 launch.
All three companies are aiming for hardware to be sold at either a slight profit or a slight loss from launch this next generation.
I think you are overestimating the hardware prowess of the Wii U. Substantially better hardware is already cheap and readily available.
...when were the specs of Wii U announced?
This. We have reason enough to know the thing will have the guts to do some fairly nice high definition glitz, though we can only speculate beyond that. Also, I think it's misleading to think about the gulf between the WiiU and the next gen competitors in the same terms that we think about the Wii and the current crop.
I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that whatever defines the next round of next generation hardware probably isn't going to be hardware alone, but even if it were, I have a difficult time believing that most consumers are going to have an easy time scrutinizing between the visual capabilities of the WiiU and those of its competitors - we're going to be increasingly splitting hairs over the advances in visual fidelity in an era where most people are just happy enough to know that they're getting a "true HD" image.
I think the point about game budgets is spot on, too. We're already reaching a point where graphics are rapidly catching up to our expectations for halfway-decent CG, in this generation. I can only speak anecdotally, but again, I get the sense that the majority of consumers are really very satisfied with what they're looking at. What then is the investment opportunity for a company to dump a lot of cash into hiring more staff to get the bump-mapping to shine on Level 2's houseplants?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
"Do you remember the Zelda demo they had on it? Would you not buy a Wii U just to play that? Of course you would," Rein said. "That's what Nintendo is all about. Their hardware is the software delivery service for their great content. That Zelda demo was gorgeous and we can do even more than that with Unreal Engine 3. I think it will do great."
I get the disturbing feeling that all of this was said like it was supposed to be a good thing.
"Do you remember the Zelda demo they had on it? Would you not buy a Wii U just to play that? Of course you would," Rein said. "That's what Nintendo is all about. Their hardware is the software delivery service for their great content. That Zelda demo was gorgeous and we can do even more than that with Unreal Engine 3. I think it will do great."
I get the disturbing feeling that all of this was said like it was supposed to be a good thing.
...have you seen the Zelda demo? It's indeed gorgeous.
Actually I'm having a hard time reading anything bad into that, then again I don't have the patented Atomic Ross Pessimism Sense. :P
That presumes a massive leap in hardware for Microsoft and Sony over the WiiU.
I don't see that happening.
Sony cannot afford another PS3 scenario and Microsoft doesn't need to eat losses like the company did with the 360 launch.
All three companies are aiming for hardware to be sold at either a slight profit or a slight loss from launch this next generation.
Right now the 360 doesn't play much if anything at 1080p. Hell, it doesn't play most games at 720p. A modest bump in hardware could take it from being able to barely play the vast majority of it's more graphically intense games to playing the tip top of PC games at 1080p. Now, this wouldn't have to be as big of a bump to developers as most people seem to think. Just because the 720 or PS4 or even WiiU are capable of doing ridiculously crazy graphics wise doesn't mean they have to. A bump to 1080p graphics and rock solid 60fps on most games would show a huge difference. Plus, some of the other things they'd be able to add, such as full 3D support out of the box (instead of a game having to be programmed for 3D, the console would have all of that included in it's SDK), better and more functional Kinect or Move out of the box (Kinect's crazy limitations, like not being able to use a controller or sit down, are mostly because it's after the fact, they can't assume everyone has it, and they want those who do to think of it as it's own unique thing), larger storage mediums (not necessary for the PS3, but the 360 could use a larger disc based medium at this point), and just more raw processing power so that those who are already programming to the metal have more room to mess around with.
Most of these things are already in place on these consoles, but they're not easy. They're not built in. The new consoles could have all of this very easily. And I'm doubting the WiiU is looking to not only be better than the 360 or PS3, but better than their successors. The last console that i remember that launched this much before their competition was the Dreamcast. And while I in no way feel that the WiiU will fall the same fate of the Dreamcast, I do remember how awful it felt buying this amazing machine just to have games dry up for it as soon as the PS2 came out. And I'm not willing to do that again.
Also consider the places that next gen systems can differentiate without a lot of cost: home media features (which Nintendo ignores at their peril), Blu-ray support, online gaming (which Nintendo is still horrendous at), local storage (Nintendo always fucks this up), RAM (lots more RAM = one-way street for ports), and potentially backward compatibility with the vast majority of last generation's AAA titles.
This is a good point. Nintendo, being the scion of "cheaper & funner" gaming, should at the very least be capitalizing on low-cost expansions of utility, if not dominating outright. Instead, they're unarguably the least utilitarian console maker on the market; they make Nintendo machines to the point that using them should be made into its own verb, "Nintendoing."
It's one of the sticking points I have with the company in that it makes them appear like they're actively trying to keep people away and their success can't be explained by any other consideration other than "brand recognition + endless novelty + cheap consoles."
Except nintendo has had netflix for a while (and i think is the most widely used console of the three for the service), and now has hulu plus for streaming video? Their native online browsing service isn't mindblowing or anything, but you can buy a usb keyboard and feasibly surf the web on your tv. What other things does it need to do besides play games? Movies? Yes that's been a lack of multimedia functionality since the gamecube days, but with the growing ubiquity of streaming subscription services (see netflix and hulu) I think that's going to become less of a sticking point.
Is my wii supposed to wash my dishes and fold my clothes too or something? It's a gaming appliance.
Too bad the $3 extra I spend each month for HD content on Netflix would be wasted if I only had a Wii. Their Opera browser is a joke (but in fairness, not substantially moreso than the competition), it plays no optical media, and their online gaming capabilities are practically nil. Not to mention, their interface isn't exactly what you'd call intuitive.
It's pretty low on the utility scale. Especially comparatively.
So aside from a fair point about not being able to play your HD netflix content, we're in agreement about the uninspiring web browsing (which regardless of the quality is still something you can do on it), optical media again hasn't been something that nintendo ever latched onto and likely will become a moot point in the future unless you want to play physical media you've created, and they aren't the competitive option for online gaming which only matters if you have friends/family that also play games online or are sadistic enough to subject yourself to cussing pre-teens (personally i give a rat's ass about online multiplayer and DLC and I don't think this demographic is insignificant). Oh and you think the interface is unintuitive - I haven't really had any major hangups about it.
Again how is the wii failing these magic utilitarian expectations when it wasn't even developed/marketed as either an HD console or multimedia online beast? It's bought first and foremost with the expectation to play games on it (and play games without the PC esque hassles the other two consoles have been doing more of), while surfing the web, and streaming movies are bonuses. Again lack of online multiplayer is a valid point towards nintendo (if you're looking for that), but I really have my doubts about the industry big leagues trying to push it as something that should be on every game ever. I imagine the wiiU will have these things and, assuming they're revamping their online presence, will be improved upon. Complaining that nintendo's game consoles aren't utilitarian is like saying a toaster isn't utilitarian because you can't also use it as a stove top and grill.
Online multiplayer features are actually a pretty big deal to developers and publishers, since it provides another way to monetize parts of the game experience as well as discourage used game sales.
See Mass Effect 3 for an example of this.
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The problem with Microsoft or Sony making a huge leap for the next generation is who's going to make games for it? Another big graphical leap is going to make budgets skyrocket even more.
This certainly may be the case, but it's flying in the face of developers swearing up and down the only thing that's holding them back are the comparable limitations of the Microsoft and Sony's seven and six year old consoles respectively, and that they're forced to make the decision between reasonable consistency and framerates and the steady progression of engine power.
They could all be liars, of course.
A more important question is "who's going to buy it?". I don't think many people are ready yet to buy another console that is just more powerful.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Complaining that nintendo's game consoles aren't utilitarian is like saying a toaster isn't utilitarian because you can't also use it as a stove top and grill.
I'm complaining because the Wii is basically a toaster, to borrow your analogy, when at the very least it could be toaster oven.
My whole point was lamenting its lack of utility in the context that much of that potential for added utility doesn't cost a whole hell of a lot. What would it cost to make their disc drive capable of reading DVDs? What would it cost to at least offer a suitable online component? What would it cost for just a component-out line for 720p?
The console wasn't designed for utility, as you've said. I don't think an intentional lack of exploited potential is justifiable just because it was, indeed, intentional.
Online multiplayer features are actually a pretty big deal to developers and publishers, since it provides another way to monetize parts of the game experience as well as discourage used game sales.
See Mass Effect 3 for an example of this.
EA's flat-out said that every single game they release from now on will have multiplayer in it. Again, Mass Effect 3. Nintendo definitely whiffed that issue with the Wii, though we'll have to see how far the Nintendo Network goes to fix it. They're ditching friend codes at least.
And I think @julius is right, simply beefing up the visuals isn't going to get customers excited anymore, considering the rate of apparent improvement has slowed down significantly.
Online multiplayer features are actually a pretty big deal to developers and publishers, since it provides another way to monetize parts of the game experience as well as discourage used game sales.
See Mass Effect 3 for an example of this.
Oh yes I'm fully aware of why the games industry is trying to push online connectivity into everything so they can nickle-and-dime content. I just have my doubts about consumers needing that in a utilitarian sense aside from playing a (multiplayer focused) game online with friends, or downloading an expansion pack that is ideally released sometime other than day 1 launch.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Online multiplayer features are actually a pretty big deal to developers and publishers, since it provides another way to monetize parts of the game experience as well as discourage used game sales.
See Mass Effect 3 for an example of this.
Oh yes I'm fully aware of why the games industry is trying to push online connectivity into everything so they can nickle-and-dime content. I just have my doubts about consumers needing that in a utilitarian sense aside from playing a (multiplayer focused) game online with friends, or downloading an expansion pack that is ideally released sometime other than day 1 launch.
So you don't see the demand for that offering except for in the many cases in which it exists?
Complaining that nintendo's game consoles aren't utilitarian is like saying a toaster isn't utilitarian because you can't also use it as a stove top and grill.
I'm complaining because the Wii is basically a toaster, to borrow your analogy, when at the very least it could be toaster oven.
My whole point was lamenting its lack of utility in the context that much of that potential for added utility doesn't cost a whole hell of a lot. What would it cost to make their disc drive capable of reading DVDs? What would it cost to at least offer a suitable online component? What would it cost for just a component-out line for 720p?
The console wasn't designed for utility, as you've said. I don't think an intentional lack of exploited potential is justifiable just because it was, indeed, intentional.
DVD licensing is approximately $30 per unit. Nintendo gambled that, since everything can read disks these days, they could cut it out to help keep costs low.
Much as I'd like the Wii to play DVDs too, lacking that capability sure didn't hurt the console.
Though providing 720p would, essentially, require overhauling the console from the ground up since it was built for 480.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
A more important question is "who's going to buy it?". I don't think many people are ready yet to buy another console that is just more powerful.
Yeah, Wii-U sniping aside, I think the next gen is going to be a tough sell for everyone. I think the demand is there for higher-end gaming experiences, but both the PS3 and 360 did such a great job of meeting those demands that I don't think another big revolution is around the corner.
If either party comes out with another $500+ rig, you can probably bet on rough seas ahead. The only demand I can see for the future is enhanced power and gameplay, which is as simple as just adding new hardware.
A more important question is "who's going to buy it?". I don't think many people are ready yet to buy another console that is just more powerful.
Yeah, Wii-U sniping aside, I think the next gen is going to be a tough sell for everyone. I think the demand is there for higher-end gaming experiences, but both the PS3 and 360 did such a great job of meeting those demands that I don't think another big revolution is around the corner.
Not just that, but all the consoles keep patching in new features.
That's why I can't entirely dismiss the rumors that the 720 and PS4 will have tablets too.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
That presumes a massive leap in hardware for Microsoft and Sony over the WiiU.
I don't see that happening.
Sony cannot afford another PS3 scenario and Microsoft doesn't need to eat losses like the company did with the 360 launch.
All three companies are aiming for hardware to be sold at either a slight profit or a slight loss from launch this next generation.
I think you are overestimating the hardware prowess of the Wii U. Substantially better hardware is already cheap and readily available.
...when were the specs of Wii U announced?
They weren't. You don't have to believe me but my information is reliable. Nintendo is playing it safe. Almost all the hardware components are Wii-derivatives and use technology that's 2+ years old right now.
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Where does this figure come from? Inexpensive DVD players can be had from $20 - $30. Wiki says the licensing fee costs $15 - $20 per device, and another source says it's ~$14.
Complaining that nintendo's game consoles aren't utilitarian is like saying a toaster isn't utilitarian because you can't also use it as a stove top and grill.
I'm complaining because the Wii is basically a toaster, to borrow your analogy, when at the very least it could be toaster oven.
My whole point was lamenting its lack of utility in the context that much of that potential for added utility doesn't cost a whole hell of a lot. What would it cost to make their disc drive capable of reading DVDs? What would it cost to at least offer a suitable online component? What would it cost for just a component-out line for 720p?
The console wasn't designed for utility, as you've said. I don't think an intentional lack of exploited potential is justifiable just because it was, indeed, intentional.
DVD licensing is approximately $30 per unit. Nintendo gambled that, since everything can read disks these days, they could cut it out to help keep costs low.
Much as I'd like the Wii to play DVDs too, lacking that capability sure didn't hurt the console.
Though providing 720p would, essentially, require overhauling the console from the ground up since it was built for 480.
Also I was trying to point out that the wii, for all its faults someone may find with it who prefers the xbox/playstation features, is not on the brink of being a "nintendoing," box. Elementary web browsing, and access to services like netflix and hulu aren't things to sniff at for something that was indeed designed intentionally to not exploit additional features, and really I think would bring it up to "toaster oven," status to keep using the analogy. Sure I could use it to bake small things, but if you really want to get serious you use the actual oven, just like with web browsing and multimedia you would use a device better suited to those things than a games console.
Online multiplayer features are actually a pretty big deal to developers and publishers, since it provides another way to monetize parts of the game experience as well as discourage used game sales.
See Mass Effect 3 for an example of this.
Oh yes I'm fully aware of why the games industry is trying to push online connectivity into everything so they can nickle-and-dime content. I just have my doubts about consumers needing that in a utilitarian sense aside from playing a (multiplayer focused) game online with friends, or downloading an expansion pack that is ideally released sometime other than day 1 launch.
So you don't see the demand for that offering except for in the many cases in which it exists?
There is obviously no doubt demand to be able to play games online with others, and have access to additional content. Shoe-horning in day 1 DLC, extras that traditionally would have been accessible by cheat codes/unlockables in older games, and games needing to be patched I think are the product of developers/publishers openly stating "yeah we just want more of your money," and being sloppy respectively. Sure people are buying the stuff, because people will always be compelled to buy new things, but I dont think we were all huddling around thinking "I can't wait to have to pay extra for content that was traditionally included in the game at launch!" Sure it's totally within the companies' rights to do these things, but I don't think it should be qualified as a utilitarian expectation to knock against others who aren't practicing the exact same things. Not that nintendo is innocent of its own money-printing schemes.
Where does this figure come from? Inexpensive DVD players can be had from $20 - $30. Wiki says the licensing fee costs $15 - $20 per device, and another source says it's ~$14.
The figure came from my brain, which apparently mis-remembered. You're right, it's closer to $20.
I can agree that we're seeing continued diminishing returns on increased hardware investment, but let's not forget that Nintendo thought that was the case last time, and they were dead wrong - consumers absolutely did care about the difference in PS360/Wii capabilities, so much so that is split the market.
There are some hardware things the WiiU does that genuinely do interest me more than a generational graphics leap (like the console gaming on the tablet controller while he TV is playing Netflix off the console), but that's useless utility if it doesn't get 90% of the major current 3rd party titles Ce 2014. And it won't if the 720/PS4 run a more capable basic game engine.
I was just wondering if there was a "Screw you, Nintendo" fee that Sony had implemented as part of the DVD Forum.
Nah, Sony's far from a controlling voice, it's just a quirk of Nintendo. The company is typically a HUGE stickler for controlling costs, which usually serves them well on console sales. Hell, I remember reading where Miyamoto worried about putting blue paint on the Mario Kart wheels because it would add pennies to the cost.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
"Do you remember the Zelda demo they had on it? Would you not buy a Wii U just to play that? Of course you would," Rein said. "That's what Nintendo is all about. Their hardware is the software delivery service for their great content. That Zelda demo was gorgeous and we can do even more than that with Unreal Engine 3. I think it will do great."
I get the disturbing feeling that all of this was said like it was supposed to be a good thing.
I think this will be the answer to your question, Ross, of what Nintendo would do if the WiiU is not a signicant enough success.
Nintendo will find a way that you will have to buy a Nintendo to play Nintendo on your Playstation or Xbox.
Possibly a special Nintendo controller that works with an online content delivery system through the existing platform.
I was just wondering if there was a "Screw you, Nintendo" fee that Sony had implemented as part of the DVD Forum.
Nah, Sony's far from a controlling voice, it's just a quirk of Nintendo. The company is typically a HUGE stickler for controlling costs, which usually serves them well on console sales. Hell, I remember reading where Miyamoto worried about putting blue paint on the Mario Kart wheels because it would add pennies to the cost.
Cloud, was it ever disclosed how much Nintendo has to bite for each 3DS sold at the current price point? It's a pretty weird thing to imagine them having to play the long-term game on hardware profit.
I was just wondering if there was a "Screw you, Nintendo" fee that Sony had implemented as part of the DVD Forum.
Nah, Sony's far from a controlling voice, it's just a quirk of Nintendo. The company is typically a HUGE stickler for controlling costs, which usually serves them well on console sales. Hell, I remember reading where Miyamoto worried about putting blue paint on the Mario Kart wheels because it would add pennies to the cost.
Cloud, was it ever disclosed how much Nintendo has to bite for each 3DS sold at the current price point? It's a pretty weird thing to imagine them having to play the long-term game on hardware profit.
I don't think we ever got an actual figure, but considering the company's estimated the 3DS won't become profitable again until late summer-ish, and the fact that the company blames 3DS sales for a large part of their current loss it's got to be significant. My guess would be as much as $40-$50 per unit, considering Nintendo likes to make a comfortable though not Apple-sized profit from hardware sales at launch.
Of course that's a moving target as manufacturing costs gradually lessen. I doubt they're losing quite as much now as they did when they first announced the price cut.
Right now the 360 doesn't play much if anything at 1080p. Hell, it doesn't play most games at 720p.
Wait what? Since when is this?
A modest bump in hardware could take it from being able to barely play the vast majority of it's more graphically intense games to playing the tip top of PC games at 1080p. Now, this wouldn't have to be as big of a bump to developers as most people seem to think. Just because the 720 or PS4 or even WiiU are capable of doing ridiculously crazy graphics wise doesn't mean they have to. A bump to 1080p graphics and rock solid 60fps on most games would show a huge difference.
It really wouldn't. The difference between 720p and 1080p is subtle even if you know what to look for, and given the size and distance of most people's TVs, it's often literally impossible to tell the difference. 60fps versus 30fps is more significant, but depending on the game it's also not a huge deal. If you tried to sell someone a $400 console based on the appeal of just 1080p and 60fps, and then showed them the actual difference, they would laugh at you and/or punch you in the face. And while PC games look nicer than console games (and a lot of it is the increased detail apparent when your face is 12" from the screen), it's still not the kind of improvement you sell $400 gaming boxes on.
Plus, some of the other things they'd be able to add, such as full 3D support out of the box (instead of a game having to be programmed for 3D, the console would have all of that included in it's SDK), better and more functional Kinect or Move out of the box (Kinect's crazy limitations, like not being able to use a controller or sit down, are mostly because it's after the fact, they can't assume everyone has it, and they want those who do to think of it as it's own unique thing), larger storage mediums (not necessary for the PS3, but the 360 could use a larger disc based medium at this point), and just more raw processing power so that those who are already programming to the metal have more room to mess around with.
Most of these things are already in place on these consoles, but they're not easy. They're not built in. The new consoles could have all of this very easily. And I'm doubting the WiiU is looking to not only be better than the 360 or PS3, but better than their successors. The last console that i remember that launched this much before their competition was the Dreamcast. And while I in no way feel that the WiiU will fall the same fate of the Dreamcast, I do remember how awful it felt buying this amazing machine just to have games dry up for it as soon as the PS2 came out. And I'm not willing to do that again.
I am unconvinced that people are giving a significant shit about 3D. It is ugly and gimmicky and requires expensive eyewear and suboptimal seating locations under the best circumstances. And anyway, you say it yourself - all these things are already there. If you try to pitch a 720 to someone because now it does 3D and Kinect and Move! they're going to respond with "Umm. So does my PS3." They aren't going to care that now it does it all in hardware! any more than people cared that the Sega Genesis could not really scale and rotate sprites because it took a software cheat to implement.
What you're describing is ways to make the hardware nicer for developers. That would be great if there were 300,000,000 developers in America to buy all the consoles, but there aren't.
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.
Posts
Yeah, you can port games to it.
For a year or two, and then the real next gen machines will be out.
I don't see that happening.
Sony cannot afford another PS3 scenario and Microsoft doesn't need to eat losses like the company did with the 360 launch.
All three companies are aiming for hardware to be sold at either a slight profit or a slight loss from launch this next generation.
You don't see Sony being able to put out a machine with better than 256mb of RAM? Or Microsoft being able to put out a machine with greater storage media?
Because the iPad already does both those things at a pretty reasonable price.
The 'run a generation behind in terms of hardware' is fine for Nintendo (unless 'it has Mario and Zelda!' ever stops moving units for them) but let's call a spade a spade here - it's not going to be a competitive piece of hardware with tons of third part support. It's not intended to be. And if that's what you're interested in as a consumer of course you won't be overjoyed with the system.
I think you are overestimating the hardware prowess of the Wii U. Substantially better hardware is already cheap and readily available.
Also consider the places that next gen systems can differentiate without a lot of cost: home media features (which Nintendo ignores at their peril), Blu-ray support, online gaming (which Nintendo is still horrendous at), local storage (Nintendo always fucks this up), RAM (lots more RAM = one-way street for ports), and potentially backward compatibility with the vast majority of last generation's AAA titles.
It's not too rare a position - the other console manufacturers just happen to have their assets tied up in other divisions of their companies, which themselves may or may not be profitable, and can thus afford to buffer losses in one with gains in another.
Again, this generation MS and Sony individually have both lost over three times as much money on gaming during a single year as Nintendo stands to lose this year, and for Sony at least, they still haven't been able to make their losses back. These losses were noted and occasionally commented on by those paying attention but nobody really seriously thought that MS and Sony would pull out of the console gaming business. For one, at least MS had already tempered expectations for this generation by saying that they were going to spend money on opening the console gaming market up for themselves until they didn't have to. Secondly, it's easier for some parts of your company that aren't doing well to fly under the radar when other divisions make up the majority of your business.
Nintendo has banked much of its profit because it is a conservatively run company financially, and because it only does one thing - if it can't do that one thing, it needs that money to give it the ability to assess what is going on and change accordingly. This singularity of market is what actually makes Nintendo unique among the console manufacturers.
When you look at the finances and goals of each of the major players, it becomes easier to see that all of them are going to shift gears for the next generation. Sony and MS aren't likely to shove their change in focus in your face, but I am almost willing to guarantee the next generational increase in power will be more incremental than revolutionary - think more like what we're seeing on higher-end PCs now as opposed to the advances of the consoles of yesteryear (although I should add I'm not really going out on a limb here, since current rumors suggest that their consoles are composed of largely off-the-shelf parts). There is simply no good money in pursuing the technological arms race any further, either for console producers or developers. The main focus of these coming consoles is going to be content delivery and control.
This is a good point. Nintendo, being the scion of "cheaper & funner" gaming, should at the very least be capitalizing on low-cost expansions of utility, if not dominating outright. Instead, they're unarguably the least utilitarian console maker on the market; they make Nintendo machines to the point that using them should be made into its own verb, "Nintendoing."
It's one of the sticking points I have with the company in that it makes them appear like they're actively trying to keep people away and their success can't be explained by any other consideration other than "brand recognition + endless novelty + cheap consoles."
This certainly may be the case, but it's flying in the face of developers swearing up and down the only thing that's holding them back are the comparable limitations of the Microsoft and Sony's seven and six year old consoles respectively, and that they're forced to make the decision between reasonable consistency and framerates and the steady progression of engine power.
They could all be liars, of course.
Except nintendo has had netflix for a while (and i think is the most widely used console of the three for the service), and now has hulu plus for streaming video? Their native online browsing service isn't mindblowing or anything, but you can buy a usb keyboard and feasibly surf the web on your tv. What other things does it need to do besides play games? Movies? Yes that's been a lack of multimedia functionality since the gamecube days, but with the growing ubiquity of streaming subscription services (see netflix and hulu) I think that's going to become less of a sticking point.
Is my wii supposed to wash my dishes and fold my clothes too or something? It's a gaming appliance.
...when were the specs of Wii U announced?
I thought Epic's big goal is to get the UE4 running entirely in Flash or its equivalent.
Surely getting it going on the WiiU should be more approachable?
Too bad the $3 extra I spend each month for HD content on Netflix would be wasted if I only had a Wii. Their Opera browser is a joke (but in fairness, not substantially moreso than the competition), it plays no optical media, and their online gaming capabilities are practically nil. Not to mention, their interface isn't exactly what you'd call intuitive.
It's pretty low on the utility scale. Especially comparatively.
Actually, Epic are now big fans of the Wii U:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/122/1220603p1.html
This. We have reason enough to know the thing will have the guts to do some fairly nice high definition glitz, though we can only speculate beyond that. Also, I think it's misleading to think about the gulf between the WiiU and the next gen competitors in the same terms that we think about the Wii and the current crop.
I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that whatever defines the next round of next generation hardware probably isn't going to be hardware alone, but even if it were, I have a difficult time believing that most consumers are going to have an easy time scrutinizing between the visual capabilities of the WiiU and those of its competitors - we're going to be increasingly splitting hairs over the advances in visual fidelity in an era where most people are just happy enough to know that they're getting a "true HD" image.
I think the point about game budgets is spot on, too. We're already reaching a point where graphics are rapidly catching up to our expectations for halfway-decent CG, in this generation. I can only speak anecdotally, but again, I get the sense that the majority of consumers are really very satisfied with what they're looking at. What then is the investment opportunity for a company to dump a lot of cash into hiring more staff to get the bump-mapping to shine on Level 2's houseplants?
I get the disturbing feeling that all of this was said like it was supposed to be a good thing.
...have you seen the Zelda demo? It's indeed gorgeous.
Actually I'm having a hard time reading anything bad into that, then again I don't have the patented Atomic Ross Pessimism Sense. :P
Right now the 360 doesn't play much if anything at 1080p. Hell, it doesn't play most games at 720p. A modest bump in hardware could take it from being able to barely play the vast majority of it's more graphically intense games to playing the tip top of PC games at 1080p. Now, this wouldn't have to be as big of a bump to developers as most people seem to think. Just because the 720 or PS4 or even WiiU are capable of doing ridiculously crazy graphics wise doesn't mean they have to. A bump to 1080p graphics and rock solid 60fps on most games would show a huge difference. Plus, some of the other things they'd be able to add, such as full 3D support out of the box (instead of a game having to be programmed for 3D, the console would have all of that included in it's SDK), better and more functional Kinect or Move out of the box (Kinect's crazy limitations, like not being able to use a controller or sit down, are mostly because it's after the fact, they can't assume everyone has it, and they want those who do to think of it as it's own unique thing), larger storage mediums (not necessary for the PS3, but the 360 could use a larger disc based medium at this point), and just more raw processing power so that those who are already programming to the metal have more room to mess around with.
Most of these things are already in place on these consoles, but they're not easy. They're not built in. The new consoles could have all of this very easily. And I'm doubting the WiiU is looking to not only be better than the 360 or PS3, but better than their successors. The last console that i remember that launched this much before their competition was the Dreamcast. And while I in no way feel that the WiiU will fall the same fate of the Dreamcast, I do remember how awful it felt buying this amazing machine just to have games dry up for it as soon as the PS2 came out. And I'm not willing to do that again.
So aside from a fair point about not being able to play your HD netflix content, we're in agreement about the uninspiring web browsing (which regardless of the quality is still something you can do on it), optical media again hasn't been something that nintendo ever latched onto and likely will become a moot point in the future unless you want to play physical media you've created, and they aren't the competitive option for online gaming which only matters if you have friends/family that also play games online or are sadistic enough to subject yourself to cussing pre-teens (personally i give a rat's ass about online multiplayer and DLC and I don't think this demographic is insignificant). Oh and you think the interface is unintuitive - I haven't really had any major hangups about it.
Again how is the wii failing these magic utilitarian expectations when it wasn't even developed/marketed as either an HD console or multimedia online beast? It's bought first and foremost with the expectation to play games on it (and play games without the PC esque hassles the other two consoles have been doing more of), while surfing the web, and streaming movies are bonuses. Again lack of online multiplayer is a valid point towards nintendo (if you're looking for that), but I really have my doubts about the industry big leagues trying to push it as something that should be on every game ever. I imagine the wiiU will have these things and, assuming they're revamping their online presence, will be improved upon. Complaining that nintendo's game consoles aren't utilitarian is like saying a toaster isn't utilitarian because you can't also use it as a stove top and grill.
See Mass Effect 3 for an example of this.
A more important question is "who's going to buy it?". I don't think many people are ready yet to buy another console that is just more powerful.
I'm complaining because the Wii is basically a toaster, to borrow your analogy, when at the very least it could be toaster oven.
My whole point was lamenting its lack of utility in the context that much of that potential for added utility doesn't cost a whole hell of a lot. What would it cost to make their disc drive capable of reading DVDs? What would it cost to at least offer a suitable online component? What would it cost for just a component-out line for 720p?
The console wasn't designed for utility, as you've said. I don't think an intentional lack of exploited potential is justifiable just because it was, indeed, intentional.
EA's flat-out said that every single game they release from now on will have multiplayer in it. Again, Mass Effect 3. Nintendo definitely whiffed that issue with the Wii, though we'll have to see how far the Nintendo Network goes to fix it. They're ditching friend codes at least.
And I think @julius is right, simply beefing up the visuals isn't going to get customers excited anymore, considering the rate of apparent improvement has slowed down significantly.
Oh yes I'm fully aware of why the games industry is trying to push online connectivity into everything so they can nickle-and-dime content. I just have my doubts about consumers needing that in a utilitarian sense aside from playing a (multiplayer focused) game online with friends, or downloading an expansion pack that is ideally released sometime other than day 1 launch.
So you don't see the demand for that offering except for in the many cases in which it exists?
DVD licensing is approximately $30 per unit. Nintendo gambled that, since everything can read disks these days, they could cut it out to help keep costs low.
Much as I'd like the Wii to play DVDs too, lacking that capability sure didn't hurt the console.
Though providing 720p would, essentially, require overhauling the console from the ground up since it was built for 480.
Yeah, Wii-U sniping aside, I think the next gen is going to be a tough sell for everyone. I think the demand is there for higher-end gaming experiences, but both the PS3 and 360 did such a great job of meeting those demands that I don't think another big revolution is around the corner.
If either party comes out with another $500+ rig, you can probably bet on rough seas ahead. The only demand I can see for the future is enhanced power and gameplay, which is as simple as just adding new hardware.
Not just that, but all the consoles keep patching in new features.
That's why I can't entirely dismiss the rumors that the 720 and PS4 will have tablets too.
They weren't. You don't have to believe me but my information is reliable. Nintendo is playing it safe. Almost all the hardware components are Wii-derivatives and use technology that's 2+ years old right now.
Where does this figure come from? Inexpensive DVD players can be had from $20 - $30. Wiki says the licensing fee costs $15 - $20 per device, and another source says it's ~$14.
Also I was trying to point out that the wii, for all its faults someone may find with it who prefers the xbox/playstation features, is not on the brink of being a "nintendoing," box. Elementary web browsing, and access to services like netflix and hulu aren't things to sniff at for something that was indeed designed intentionally to not exploit additional features, and really I think would bring it up to "toaster oven," status to keep using the analogy. Sure I could use it to bake small things, but if you really want to get serious you use the actual oven, just like with web browsing and multimedia you would use a device better suited to those things than a games console.
There is obviously no doubt demand to be able to play games online with others, and have access to additional content. Shoe-horning in day 1 DLC, extras that traditionally would have been accessible by cheat codes/unlockables in older games, and games needing to be patched I think are the product of developers/publishers openly stating "yeah we just want more of your money," and being sloppy respectively. Sure people are buying the stuff, because people will always be compelled to buy new things, but I dont think we were all huddling around thinking "I can't wait to have to pay extra for content that was traditionally included in the game at launch!" Sure it's totally within the companies' rights to do these things, but I don't think it should be qualified as a utilitarian expectation to knock against others who aren't practicing the exact same things. Not that nintendo is innocent of its own money-printing schemes.
The figure came from my brain, which apparently mis-remembered. You're right, it's closer to $20.
There are some hardware things the WiiU does that genuinely do interest me more than a generational graphics leap (like the console gaming on the tablet controller while he TV is playing Netflix off the console), but that's useless utility if it doesn't get 90% of the major current 3rd party titles Ce 2014. And it won't if the 720/PS4 run a more capable basic game engine.
Nah, Sony's far from a controlling voice, it's just a quirk of Nintendo. The company is typically a HUGE stickler for controlling costs, which usually serves them well on console sales. Hell, I remember reading where Miyamoto worried about putting blue paint on the Mario Kart wheels because it would add pennies to the cost.
I think this will be the answer to your question, Ross, of what Nintendo would do if the WiiU is not a signicant enough success.
Nintendo will find a way that you will have to buy a Nintendo to play Nintendo on your Playstation or Xbox.
Possibly a special Nintendo controller that works with an online content delivery system through the existing platform.
Cloud, was it ever disclosed how much Nintendo has to bite for each 3DS sold at the current price point? It's a pretty weird thing to imagine them having to play the long-term game on hardware profit.
I don't think we ever got an actual figure, but considering the company's estimated the 3DS won't become profitable again until late summer-ish, and the fact that the company blames 3DS sales for a large part of their current loss it's got to be significant. My guess would be as much as $40-$50 per unit, considering Nintendo likes to make a comfortable though not Apple-sized profit from hardware sales at launch.
Of course that's a moving target as manufacturing costs gradually lessen. I doubt they're losing quite as much now as they did when they first announced the price cut.
Wait what? Since when is this?
It really wouldn't. The difference between 720p and 1080p is subtle even if you know what to look for, and given the size and distance of most people's TVs, it's often literally impossible to tell the difference. 60fps versus 30fps is more significant, but depending on the game it's also not a huge deal. If you tried to sell someone a $400 console based on the appeal of just 1080p and 60fps, and then showed them the actual difference, they would laugh at you and/or punch you in the face. And while PC games look nicer than console games (and a lot of it is the increased detail apparent when your face is 12" from the screen), it's still not the kind of improvement you sell $400 gaming boxes on.
I am unconvinced that people are giving a significant shit about 3D. It is ugly and gimmicky and requires expensive eyewear and suboptimal seating locations under the best circumstances. And anyway, you say it yourself - all these things are already there. If you try to pitch a 720 to someone because now it does 3D and Kinect and Move! they're going to respond with "Umm. So does my PS3." They aren't going to care that now it does it all in hardware! any more than people cared that the Sega Genesis could not really scale and rotate sprites because it took a software cheat to implement.
What you're describing is ways to make the hardware nicer for developers. That would be great if there were 300,000,000 developers in America to buy all the consoles, but there aren't.