Sure, the 360 is selling aces right now, but the Wii U has thrown the monkey wrench of uncertainty into the mix.
Not really.
Why not?
Because there's not much that's uncertain about the WiiU and there's plenty that we know well enough about Nintendo.
By that logic, the PS3 should have been the best-selling console this generation by far.
Every generation introduces uncertainty to the market. This next gen doubly so, since we have no idea how the market will react to the mutant tablet and whether the momentum of core game development for it will last. Not to mention if/when the other guys will react.
Sure, the 360 is selling aces right now, but the Wii U has thrown the monkey wrench of uncertainty into the mix.
Not really.
Why not?
Because there's not much that's uncertain about the WiiU and there's plenty that we know well enough about Nintendo.
By that logic, the PS3 should have been the best-selling console this generation by far.
If Sony hadn't purposefully botched the PS3's launch, it would have been.
Assuming that CoDFan2011 is gonna abandon Xbox Live and the next Xbox system for the WiiU, or that Nintendo's favor is gonna change, because you're willing to assume that Nintendo really, honestly, truly means it this time when they say they're gonna successfully court "core" gamers and third parties approaches fanboy levels of goosery.
It's just funny, though. This entire generation we all laughed at Pachter for assuming that Wii and 360 fans were just waiting for the right moment to jump onto the PS3. Yet, here we are, assuming that a console that will once again launch with "last generation" graphics and employ the exact same controller scheme and will still have a relatively sub par online infrastructure has a real chance of winning over the core fanbase because of it's gimmick.
Sure, the 360 is selling aces right now, but the Wii U has thrown the monkey wrench of uncertainty into the mix.
Not really.
Why not?
Because there's not much that's uncertain about the WiiU and there's plenty that we know well enough about Nintendo.
By that logic, the PS3 should have been the best-selling console this generation by far.
If Sony hadn't purposefully botched the PS3's launch, it would have been.
Assuming that CoDFan2011 is gonna abandon Xbox Live and the next Xbox system for the WiiU, or that Nintendo's favor is gonna change, because you're willing to assume that Nintendo really, honestly, truly means it this time when they say they're gonna successfully court "core" gamers and third parties approaches fanboy levels of goosery.
...or it could be based on a careful examination of what they actually did with the Wii U? Again, I'm not sure how your argument differs from simply saying "because this happened in the past, it'll always happen this way!"
Besides, we already know that core gamers are happy to change systems... for the most part, they jumped ship from the PS2 to the 360, after all.
At any rate, let's take a look at how Nintendo screwed up in past generations. With the Gamecube, its cheap price, purple color and Fischer-Price looking controller lead the gaming public to believe that the thing was a kid's toy.
The Wii had four big problems. First, its stealth launch at E3, mere months before it launched, didn't give developers time to get things ready for the launch window, and they never really took the time and effort to really catch up. Second, the controller made it impossible to use the same control schemes that they've been comfortable using the last two generations, and they didn't want to change it. Third, there was the power gulf. Fourth, the online sucked.
The Wii U is at least attempting to change things, and so far it seems to be leaving good impressions. The very, very early reveal of the Wii U is giving developers more time to develop for it. The mutant tablet has the exact same number of buttons as the other guys. And there's not a power gulf this time. Simply put, there's much less things that's actively off-putting for core development than there was with the Wii.
Now, it's not perfect. We have no idea how its power will match up with the PS4 and 720, or whether it'll be as big an impediment to ports. (I get the feeling it won't be as big a problem, but I could be wrong.) And we don't know if Nintendo's online system will actually be good for once.
But at the same time, it's different enough that it's not insta-doomed. If it fails, it will fail for entirely different reasons. Besides, and I keep saying this, there's already been more core games announced for the Wii U than there have been released for the Wii.
And honestly, it's one thing to disagree, but dismissing me outright as a fanboy goose is something Unco would do.
It's just funny, though. This entire generation we all laughed at Pachter for assuming that Wii and 360 fans were just waiting for the right moment to jump onto the PS3. Yet, here we are, assuming that a console that will once again launch with "last generation" graphics and employ the exact same controller scheme and will still have a relatively sub par online infrastructure has a real chance of winning over the core fanbase because of it's gimmick.
This is the question I've been asking. What will make casual Wii owners and current core 360/PS3 owners shell out for a new system? That's technically two different questions, but you get the idea.
The Nintendo faithful will buy it, but as the 3DS has shown, that's not enough for investors. And despite his love of the game and industry, Iwata is still a businessman.
What's the story Nintendo will tell consumers? I'm not speaking insta-doom, but the message Nintendo is looking for isn't there yet.
The Nintendo Wii was revealed in 2005, a year and half before the system launched. The controller was revealed in 2005, a year and a quarter before the system launched. They released the Classic Controller with the system, at launch, and was compatible with the run of the mill FPS' released on the system, like Call of Duty. The powergulf will once again exist, and the online will still pale in comparison to what MS and Sony have in store.
So what has the WiiU changed other than putting a touch screen inside their classic controller?
The only reason we saw a huge shift from PS2 users to 360 users was mostly because of mistakes Sony made, not because of any particular success on MS' part.
The Nintendo Wii was revealed in 2005, a year and half before the system launched.
And all we knew about it at that point was that it would be significantly weaker than the competition. The reaction to the system, from the standpoint of developers, was "feh."
The controller was revealed in 2005, a year and a quarter before the system launched.
No it wasn't. The Wiimote was revealed in 2006, scant few months before launch.
They released the Classic Controller with the system, at launch, and was compatible with the run of the mill FPS' released on the system, like Call of Duty.
Yet it wasn't standard equipment with the Wii, so developers couldn't rely on it. They'd still have to find a way to shoehorn the game's control scheme into the Wiimote in some way.
The powergulf will once again exist, and the online will still pale in comparison to what MS and Sony have in store.
Again, we don't know how big the power gulf will be this time, and we don't know what Nintendo will do to online. It might actually be up to snuff this time (though honestly I'm doubtful on that one.
So what has the WiiU changed other than putting a touch screen inside their classic controller?
Enough to get more core games announced for it at E3 more than a year before it launched than have actually been released for the Wii. Somehow you keep overlooking that part.
The only reason we saw a huge shift from PS2 users to 360 users was mostly because of mistakes Sony made, not because of any particular success on MS' part.
Possibly, but that doesn't preclude something similar happening with the Wii U.
The Nintendo Wii was revealed in 2005, a year and half before the system launched.
And all we knew about it at that point was that it would be significantly weaker than the competition. The reaction to the system, from the standpoint of developers, was "feh." A rather loud "feh," in fact.
The controller was revealed in 2005, a year and a quarter before the system launched.
No it wasn't. The Wiimote was revealed in 2006, scant few months before launch. From Wikipedia:
By 2005, the controller interface had taken form, but a public showing at that year's Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) was withdrawn. Miyamoto stated that, "[W]e had some troubleshooting to do. So we decided not to reveal the controller and instead we displayed just the console."
They released the Classic Controller with the system, at launch, and was compatible with the run of the mill FPS' released on the system, like Call of Duty.
Yet it wasn't standard equipment with the Wii, so developers couldn't rely on it. They'd still have to find a way to shoehorn the game's control scheme into the Wiimote in some way.
The powergulf will once again exist, and the online will still pale in comparison to what MS and Sony have in store.
Again, we don't know how big the power gulf will be this time, and we don't know what Nintendo will do to online. It might actually be up to snuff this time (though honestly I'm doubtful on that one.
So what has the WiiU changed other than putting a touch screen inside their classic controller?
Enough to get more core games announced for it at E3 more than a year before it launched than have actually been released for the Wii. Somehow you keep overlooking that part.
The only reason we saw a huge shift from PS2 users to 360 users was mostly because of mistakes Sony made, not because of any particular success on MS' part.
Possibly, but that doesn't preclude something similar happening with the Wii U.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
CarbonFireSee youin the countryRegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
The controller was revealed in 2005, a year and a quarter before the system launched.
No it wasn't. The Wiimote was revealed in 2006, scant few months before launch.
Nintendo sold themselves well last time and they'll do it again, and they've introduced changes that will help their third party situation. You can tell they have a shot at changing their fortunes because of other shake-ups like how the PS3 performed worse than expected this gen.
or
Nintendo had a poor third party situation this gen and they'll have the same problems again, and the market has changed so much that they won't be able to sell themselves well like they did last time. You can see that it's possible they'll be a tough sell because of other shake-ups like how the PS3 performed worse than expected this gen.
This generation echoed the last two for me, in that ultimately I ended up with a Playstation and preferred it over the other consoles. I'm old and wise enough and know myself well enough now to just wait for the PS4 to come out next go-round.
Also, money down now on Microsoft's next console having it's own version of gamerscore. I'm sure achievements and current gamerscore will carry over, but they'll be segregated into some subcategory like "Classic Achievements". No way they let people start a new profile on the 720 with 138000 gamerscore at the start. They need to reset that carrot-on-a-stick mentality. I'm calling it.
The Wii Mote was introduced at TGS 2005. I keep "overlooking" the "more core games announcement" part because it's simply not true. Someone made it up. Maybe you. The "core games" announced at E3 were all ports of PS3/360 and the footage shown was from 360 consoles. Some of these announced games were coming months, even a year, after the 360/PS3 counter parts. Darksiders II and Battlefield 3, respectively. Battlefield 3 isn't even confirmed.
What did the Wii have at launch? Couple of core games and ports of other games that had been released months beforehand.
The video montage shown at the show includes clips from Darksiders II, DiRT, Aliens Colonial Marines, Batman: Arkham City, Assassin’s Creed, Ghost Recon Online, Metro: Last Night, Tekken, and Ninja Gaiden 3
Are those good games? Absolutely.
But you don't need the WiiU to play them and 50 million 360/PS3 owners aren't going abandon those systems for for the WiiU when it launches, especially if the Xbox 3/PS4 is only 12 months away, especially if the WiiU doesn't offer a superior online service (it won't), especially if the WiiU doesn't offer significant upgrades in graphics detail (it won't).
Also, money down now on Microsoft's next console having it's own version of gamerscore. I'm sure achievements and current gamerscore will carry over, but they'll be segregated into some subcategory like "Classic Achievements". No way they let people start a new profile on the 720 with 138000 gamerscore at the start. They need to reset that carrot-on-a-stick mentality. I'm calling it.
That would make sense, but MS has already stated otherwise. Gamerscore will carry over to 720.
Sheep on
0
Options
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
I still don't get where this "last generation" graphics crap is coming from. We know very little about the hardware, yet everything we've heard suggests it's more powerful than 360/PS3. And really, how much of a technological leap are you expecting at this point? Graphics have kind of topped out for now, there isn't a huge amount of room to grow, other than perhaps performance increases.
Also, people are making assumptions on the WiiU's power because Nintendo has been very coy about the systems power and because Miyamoto himself commented that it would NOT be significantly more powerful than the 360/PS3.
Also, people are making assumptions on the WiiU's power because Nintendo has been very coy about the systems power and because Miyamoto himself commented that it would NOT be significantly more powerful than the 360/PS3.
TVs can only output as high as 1080p. I realize most games are running 720p right now, but that's not a huge increase. Furthermore, at some point you need to weigh development costs against this. The fancier the graphics get, the higher the dev costs get. I just don't expect many studios to "push the envelope" when it's such a money hole and current games look pretty damn good already.
Edit: Also, as far as the public is concerned, the graphical boost isn't going to be that noticable. At least not compared to the last two generations (PSX/N64 especially)
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
I actually understand many of the points Sheep is making. I know that I'll be getting a WiiU, but that's because I love Nintendo's stuff. Then again, I'm sure I'll upgrade to the 720 also when that comes out.
The only point I don't agree with Sheep is that of the power gap. It's all assumptive right now. For all we know, MS and maybe even Sony will make the graphical power a slight step up and instead focus on something different to make them stand out. Graphics by themselves won't do it anymore.
To be fair though i expect that from MS now more than Sony. MS has pretty much embraced the casual crowd as hard as Nintendo did at their peak.
Miyamoto said that cost considerations mean the WiiU may not be significantly more powerful. I'm not sure that the hardware is set in stone just yet, they're probably watching to see what their competitors do as much as anyone else.
For Sheep, this is not an outrageous hilariously deluded fanboy assessment, just a look at what was literally said rather than a paraphrasing.
I do wonder how much it'll give the impression of being only as powerful as the 360 despite the added overhead of running games at 1080p and with an additional 480p widescreen on the controller (potentially more than one, though unlikely).
They'll up the allowable gamerscore for '720' releases, though. That's one way to increase the perception of their value.
Playing 360 games on the 720 gives double gamerscore points when you earn them.
No no, just as Arcade games are perceived as 'lesser' games (and Indie games below that), to drive sales of new 720 games, you up the gamerscore allowance to, say, 2000 points. Suddenly they're perceived by a great many people as being worth more. I'll keep my cock off the line, but I bet this is a thing that happens.
0
Options
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
Also as an example of why just because a company went power mad previously doesn't mean they will next time, I give you the Gamecube. It was a very powerful machine compared to the competition, but they did the complete 180 in philosophy when they designed the Wii.
Who knows what MS and Sony will do, none of us do. All we can do is assume and speculate.
To more "mehs." People didn't get excited about it until E3, when Nintendo finally showed what it can do.
I keep "overlooking" the "more core games announcement" part because it's simply not true. Someone made it up. Maybe you. The "core games" announced at E3 were all ports of PS3/360 and the footage shown was from 360 consoles. Some of these announced games were coming months, even a year, after the 360/PS3 counter parts. Darksiders II and Battlefield 3, respectively. Battlefield 3 isn't even confirmed.
So the list of Wii U games is both "not true" and "full of ports." What?
The video montage shown at the show includes clips from Darksiders II, DiRT, Aliens Colonial Marines, Batman: Arkham City, Assassin’s Creed, Ghost Recon Online, Metro: Last Night, Tekken, and Ninja Gaiden 3
Are those good games? Absolutely.
But you don't need the WiiU to play them and 50 million 360/PS3 owners aren't going abandon those systems for for the WiiU when it launches, especially if the Xbox 3/PS4 is only 12 months away, especially if the WiiU doesn't offer a superior online service (it won't), especially if the WiiU doesn't offer significant upgrades in graphics detail (it won't).
Again, do we know for sure that the WiiU's online service will be significantly worse than the competition? Hell, it doesn't even have to be "better," just "serviceable." I'd argue that the 360 offers a superior online experience than the PS3, but the PS3 is doing fine.
What I'm saying is that the mere existence of those core games shows that publishers are treating the Wii U differently than the Wii, even if they are ports.
Also, graphics don't really matter to the market as a whole. See: the success of the Wii.
They'll up the allowable gamerscore for '720' releases, though. That's one way to increase the perception of their value.
Playing 360 games on the 720 gives double gamerscore points when you earn them.
No no, just as Arcade games are perceived as 'lesser' games (and Indie games below that), to drive sales of new 720 games, you up the gamerscore allowance to, say, 2000 points. Suddenly they're perceived by a great many people as being worth more. I'll keep my cock off the line, but I bet this is a thing that happens.
This is a bit like saying that making a touch pad as a controller accessory is the next step in gaming.
Also, people are making assumptions on the WiiU's power because Nintendo has been very coy about the systems power and because Miyamoto himself commented that it would NOT be significantly more powerful than the 360/PS3.
TVs can only output as high as 1080p. I realize most games are running 720p right now, but that's not a huge increase. Furthermore, at some point you need to weigh development costs against this. The fancier the graphics get, the higher the dev costs get. I just don't expect many studios to "push the envelope" when it's such a money hole and current games look pretty damn good already.
Edit: Also, as far as the public is concerned, the graphical boost isn't going to be that noticable. At least not compared to the last two generations (PSX/N64 especially)
PCs can display well above 1080p. PCs are where development takes place. I posit that many "large" studios are already pushing the envelope. Console's aren't a "graphics plateau". Games that are published for console and PC tend to look leagues better than the console version. I played Bad Company on the 360 for a year. Bought it for the PC this month. The graphical difference is not only amazing, but it's definitely a hugely noticeable boost.
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
It's not just about how fancy the graphics are or how high the resolution. New generation of consoles will (hopefully) mean that you can have more things on the screen, whether or not they're significantly prettier than the things you see in today's games.
Also, people are making assumptions on the WiiU's power because Nintendo has been very coy about the systems power and because Miyamoto himself commented that it would NOT be significantly more powerful than the 360/PS3.
TVs can only output as high as 1080p. I realize most games are running 720p right now, but that's not a huge increase. Furthermore, at some point you need to weigh development costs against this. The fancier the graphics get, the higher the dev costs get. I just don't expect many studios to "push the envelope" when it's such a money hole and current games look pretty damn good already.
What development costs do you relate to rendering at 1080p? You don't need higher quality art assets for that. Maybe better optimization, but all multiplatform games can already be run at 1080p on PC.
Out of curiosity, is Infamous 2 considered a good looking game? I saw it running on a PS3 demo station at a Gamestop earlier today and the complete lack of anti aliasing immediately jumped out at me. I guess lower resolutions can also make that more noticable.
They'll up the allowable gamerscore for '720' releases, though. That's one way to increase the perception of their value.
Playing 360 games on the 720 gives double gamerscore points when you earn them.
No no, just as Arcade games are perceived as 'lesser' games (and Indie games below that), to drive sales of new 720 games, you up the gamerscore allowance to, say, 2000 points. Suddenly they're perceived by a great many people as being worth more. I'll keep my cock off the line, but I bet this is a thing that happens.
Will they cost twice as much as well?
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
They'll up the allowable gamerscore for '720' releases, though. That's one way to increase the perception of their value.
Playing 360 games on the 720 gives double gamerscore points when you earn them.
No no, just as Arcade games are perceived as 'lesser' games (and Indie games below that), to drive sales of new 720 games, you up the gamerscore allowance to, say, 2000 points. Suddenly they're perceived by a great many people as being worth more. I'll keep my cock off the line, but I bet this is a thing that happens.
Will they cost twice as much as well?
I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation games cost 10 bucks more than current gen.
It's not just about how fancy the graphics are or how high the resolution. New generation of consoles will (hopefully) mean that you can have more things on the screen, whether or not they're significantly prettier than the things you see in today's games.
I'd be surprised if a significant number of developers even think of that. Maybe Capcom will. Both Devil May Cry 4 and Resident Evil 5 have PC exclusive modes that feature larger amounts of enemies.
So, by "Wii was introduced months before launch" you really meant that "Wii didn't get hype until months before launch"? Well I guess it's my fault for not assuming the former actually meant the latter. As far as the "not true" statement, that was pointed at your assertion that the WiiU received "more core game announcements" than the Wii. Again, not true. The WiiU didn't receive have any significant, identifiable, higher third party and "core" support compared to the Wii. The biggest third party announcement was a list of ports of games that will be months to a year old by the time the WiiU launches. Your assumption that these ports show more support for the system over the Wii doesn't make sense when the Wii received a bunch of old ports from previous gen consoles at it's launch. Their mere existence doesn't mean jack when the mere existence of Splinter Cell and Call of Duty on the original Wii didn't result in much.
Also, graphics don't really matter to the market as a whole. See: the success of the Wii.
Do graphics matter to the market as a whole? Nope. That's the one thing you've been correct about.
Do graphics matter to the market that Nintendo is trying to capture? Yes. Yes they do.
It's not just about how fancy the graphics are or how high the resolution. New generation of consoles will (hopefully) mean that you can have more things on the screen, whether or not they're significantly prettier than the things you see in today's games.
I'd be surprised if a significant number of developers even think of that. Maybe Capcom will. Both Devil May Cry 4 and Resident Evil 5 have PC exclusive modes that feature larger amounts of enemies.
That's an interesting thing. PC games tend to have much larger player slots on multiplayer games. Nintendo used the RAM Pak on the 64 to increase enemy count in Majora's Mask, not for better graphics.
One of the tech demos for the Cube was called Mario 128, and it specifically showed how well the Cube handled multiple characters, terrain changing, etc.
0
Options
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
Also, people are making assumptions on the WiiU's power because Nintendo has been very coy about the systems power and because Miyamoto himself commented that it would NOT be significantly more powerful than the 360/PS3.
TVs can only output as high as 1080p. I realize most games are running 720p right now, but that's not a huge increase. Furthermore, at some point you need to weigh development costs against this. The fancier the graphics get, the higher the dev costs get. I just don't expect many studios to "push the envelope" when it's such a money hole and current games look pretty damn good already.
What development costs do you relate to rendering at 1080p? You don't need higher quality art assets for that. Maybe better optimization, but all multiplatform games can already be run at 1080p on PC.
They are two seperate things. There isn't really extra development cost in rendering at 1080p, outside of perhaps added cost in optimizing things (memory/etc) to actually render *well* at that resolution.
I only bring up 1080p to point out there's a cap and we're pretty much at it already. So they can improve things like model poly counts and shaders and all that, but everything's still going to be running in 1080p.
Also, I don't know why you are bringing up PCs Sheep when this entire discussion is about how WiiU's hardware will compare to other consoles...
Edit: In fact, these days it seems like most PC titles are just console ports anyways. It's rare that companies specifically develop with the PC in mind as consoles are where all the money is.
Also, people are making assumptions on the WiiU's power because Nintendo has been very coy about the systems power and because Miyamoto himself commented that it would NOT be significantly more powerful than the 360/PS3.
TVs can only output as high as 1080p. I realize most games are running 720p right now, but that's not a huge increase. Furthermore, at some point you need to weigh development costs against this. The fancier the graphics get, the higher the dev costs get. I just don't expect many studios to "push the envelope" when it's such a money hole and current games look pretty damn good already.
What development costs do you relate to rendering at 1080p? You don't need higher quality art assets for that. Maybe better optimization, but all multiplatform games can already be run at 1080p on PC.
They are two seperate things. There isn't really extra development cost in rendering at 1080, outside of perhaps added cost in optimizing things (memory/etc) to actually render *well* at that resolution.
I only bring up 1080p to point out there's a cap and we're pretty much at it already. So they can improve things like model poly counts and shaders and all that, but everything's still going to be running in 1080p.
Also, I don't know why you are bringing up PCs Sheep when this entire discussion is about how WiiU's hardware will compare to other consoles...
1080p isn't a graphical quality cap. It's a resolution cap... for now.
reVerse on
0
Options
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
But resolution has an impact on graphical quality....
So, by "Wii was introduced months before launch" you really meant that "Wii didn't get hype until months before launch"? Well I guess it's my fault for not assuming the former actually meant the latter. As far as the "not true" statement, that was pointed at your assertion that the WiiU received "more core game announcements" than the Wii. Again, not true. The WiiU didn't receive have any significant, identifiable, higher third party and "core" support compared to the Wii. The biggest third party announcement was a list of ports of games that will be months to a year old by the time the WiiU launches. Your assumption that these ports show more support for the system over the Wii doesn't make sense when the Wii received a bunch of old ports from previous gen consoles at it's launch. Their mere existence doesn't mean jack when the mere existence of Splinter Cell and Call of Duty on the original Wii didn't result in much.
Well, let's see what the Wii got at launch, then. From Wikipedia:
Avatar: The Last Airbender
Barnyard
Call of Duty 3
Cars
Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2
Elebits
Excite Truck
The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy
GT Pro Series
Happy Feet
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Madden NFL 07
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance
Monster 4x4 World Circuit
Need for Speed: Carbon
Open Season
Rampage: Total Destruction
Rayman Raving Rabbids
Red Steel
SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz
Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam
Trauma Center: Second Opinion
Wii Sports[1]
Barring Nintendo's stuff, the core games in that lineup are Call of Duty 3, Dragon Ball Z, Madden, Marvel, Red Steel and Tony Hawk (I'm keeping Trauma Center off the list because it's a little too niche to be truly core).
Now compare that to what we already know about the Wii U: Darksiders II, DiRT, Aliens Colonial Marines, Batman: Arkham City, Assassin’s Creed, Ghost Recon Online, Metro: Last Night, Tekken, and Ninja Gaiden 3.
Already, it's looking like the Wii U is getting more core stuff, and that stuff was announced a year and a half (at least) before launch.
Also, graphics don't really matter to the market as a whole. See: the success of the Wii.
Do graphics matter to the market as a whole? Nope. That's the one thing you've been correct about.
Do graphics matter to the market that Nintendo is trying to capture? Yes. Yes they do.[/quote]
I'd argue we've already got to the point to where the graphical improvements will be so very slight they'll be hard to notice. Remember, we're talking "core," not "hardcore."
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
It does, but it's not some mythical cap where improvements in graphical quality stop.
Also, I don't know why you are bringing up PCs Sheep when this entire discussion is about how WiiU's hardware will compare to other consoles...
Edit: In fact, these days it seems like most PC titles are just console ports anyways. It's rare that companies specifically develop with the PC in mind as consoles are where all the money is.
Because you said that graphical quality has topped out, when it hasn't, and PC games show that. It's not a stretch to associate current high end PC graphics to next gen consoles. As a matter of fact, there's a thread at NeoGAF with Epic and Crytek saying that very thing, exactly, that we'll see DirectX 11 quality graphics on the next Xbox/PS console.
Posts
By that logic, the PS3 should have been the best-selling console this generation by far.
Every generation introduces uncertainty to the market. This next gen doubly so, since we have no idea how the market will react to the mutant tablet and whether the momentum of core game development for it will last. Not to mention if/when the other guys will react.
If Sony hadn't purposefully botched the PS3's launch, it would have been.
Assuming that CoDFan2011 is gonna abandon Xbox Live and the next Xbox system for the WiiU, or that Nintendo's favor is gonna change, because you're willing to assume that Nintendo really, honestly, truly means it this time when they say they're gonna successfully court "core" gamers and third parties approaches fanboy levels of goosery.
It's just funny, though. This entire generation we all laughed at Pachter for assuming that Wii and 360 fans were just waiting for the right moment to jump onto the PS3. Yet, here we are, assuming that a console that will once again launch with "last generation" graphics and employ the exact same controller scheme and will still have a relatively sub par online infrastructure has a real chance of winning over the core fanbase because of it's gimmick.
...or it could be based on a careful examination of what they actually did with the Wii U? Again, I'm not sure how your argument differs from simply saying "because this happened in the past, it'll always happen this way!"
Besides, we already know that core gamers are happy to change systems... for the most part, they jumped ship from the PS2 to the 360, after all.
At any rate, let's take a look at how Nintendo screwed up in past generations. With the Gamecube, its cheap price, purple color and Fischer-Price looking controller lead the gaming public to believe that the thing was a kid's toy.
The Wii had four big problems. First, its stealth launch at E3, mere months before it launched, didn't give developers time to get things ready for the launch window, and they never really took the time and effort to really catch up. Second, the controller made it impossible to use the same control schemes that they've been comfortable using the last two generations, and they didn't want to change it. Third, there was the power gulf. Fourth, the online sucked.
The Wii U is at least attempting to change things, and so far it seems to be leaving good impressions. The very, very early reveal of the Wii U is giving developers more time to develop for it. The mutant tablet has the exact same number of buttons as the other guys. And there's not a power gulf this time. Simply put, there's much less things that's actively off-putting for core development than there was with the Wii.
Now, it's not perfect. We have no idea how its power will match up with the PS4 and 720, or whether it'll be as big an impediment to ports. (I get the feeling it won't be as big a problem, but I could be wrong.) And we don't know if Nintendo's online system will actually be good for once.
But at the same time, it's different enough that it's not insta-doomed. If it fails, it will fail for entirely different reasons. Besides, and I keep saying this, there's already been more core games announced for the Wii U than there have been released for the Wii.
And honestly, it's one thing to disagree, but dismissing me outright as a fanboy goose is something Unco would do.
The Nintendo faithful will buy it, but as the 3DS has shown, that's not enough for investors. And despite his love of the game and industry, Iwata is still a businessman.
What's the story Nintendo will tell consumers? I'm not speaking insta-doom, but the message Nintendo is looking for isn't there yet.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
Well. You're just plain wrong.
The Nintendo Wii was revealed in 2005, a year and half before the system launched. The controller was revealed in 2005, a year and a quarter before the system launched. They released the Classic Controller with the system, at launch, and was compatible with the run of the mill FPS' released on the system, like Call of Duty. The powergulf will once again exist, and the online will still pale in comparison to what MS and Sony have in store.
So what has the WiiU changed other than putting a touch screen inside their classic controller?
The only reason we saw a huge shift from PS2 users to 360 users was mostly because of mistakes Sony made, not because of any particular success on MS' part.
I'd disagree, but let's take it step by step.
And all we knew about it at that point was that it would be significantly weaker than the competition. The reaction to the system, from the standpoint of developers, was "feh."
No it wasn't. The Wiimote was revealed in 2006, scant few months before launch.
Yet it wasn't standard equipment with the Wii, so developers couldn't rely on it. They'd still have to find a way to shoehorn the game's control scheme into the Wiimote in some way.
Again, we don't know how big the power gulf will be this time, and we don't know what Nintendo will do to online. It might actually be up to snuff this time (though honestly I'm doubtful on that one.
Enough to get more core games announced for it at E3 more than a year before it launched than have actually been released for the Wii. Somehow you keep overlooking that part.
Possibly, but that doesn't preclude something similar happening with the Wii U.
Ummm....
http://www.1up.com/news/revolution-controller-revealed
Sept 15, 2005
or
Also, money down now on Microsoft's next console having it's own version of gamerscore. I'm sure achievements and current gamerscore will carry over, but they'll be segregated into some subcategory like "Classic Achievements". No way they let people start a new profile on the 720 with 138000 gamerscore at the start. They need to reset that carrot-on-a-stick mentality. I'm calling it.
What did the Wii have at launch? Couple of core games and ports of other games that had been released months beforehand.
Are those good games? Absolutely.
But you don't need the WiiU to play them and 50 million 360/PS3 owners aren't going abandon those systems for for the WiiU when it launches, especially if the Xbox 3/PS4 is only 12 months away, especially if the WiiU doesn't offer a superior online service (it won't), especially if the WiiU doesn't offer significant upgrades in graphics detail (it won't).
That would make sense, but MS has already stated otherwise. Gamerscore will carry over to 720.
No they haven't.
Also, people are making assumptions on the WiiU's power because Nintendo has been very coy about the systems power and because Miyamoto himself commented that it would NOT be significantly more powerful than the 360/PS3.
Playing 360 games on the 720 gives double gamerscore points when you earn them.
TVs can only output as high as 1080p. I realize most games are running 720p right now, but that's not a huge increase. Furthermore, at some point you need to weigh development costs against this. The fancier the graphics get, the higher the dev costs get. I just don't expect many studios to "push the envelope" when it's such a money hole and current games look pretty damn good already.
Edit: Also, as far as the public is concerned, the graphical boost isn't going to be that noticable. At least not compared to the last two generations (PSX/N64 especially)
The only point I don't agree with Sheep is that of the power gap. It's all assumptive right now. For all we know, MS and maybe even Sony will make the graphical power a slight step up and instead focus on something different to make them stand out. Graphics by themselves won't do it anymore.
To be fair though i expect that from MS now more than Sony. MS has pretty much embraced the casual crowd as hard as Nintendo did at their peak.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
For Sheep, this is not an outrageous hilariously deluded fanboy assessment, just a look at what was literally said rather than a paraphrasing.
I do wonder how much it'll give the impression of being only as powerful as the 360 despite the added overhead of running games at 1080p and with an additional 480p widescreen on the controller (potentially more than one, though unlikely).
No no, just as Arcade games are perceived as 'lesser' games (and Indie games below that), to drive sales of new 720 games, you up the gamerscore allowance to, say, 2000 points. Suddenly they're perceived by a great many people as being worth more. I'll keep my cock off the line, but I bet this is a thing that happens.
Who knows what MS and Sony will do, none of us do. All we can do is assume and speculate.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
To more "mehs." People didn't get excited about it until E3, when Nintendo finally showed what it can do.
So the list of Wii U games is both "not true" and "full of ports." What?
Again, do we know for sure that the WiiU's online service will be significantly worse than the competition? Hell, it doesn't even have to be "better," just "serviceable." I'd argue that the 360 offers a superior online experience than the PS3, but the PS3 is doing fine.
What I'm saying is that the mere existence of those core games shows that publishers are treating the Wii U differently than the Wii, even if they are ports.
Also, graphics don't really matter to the market as a whole. See: the success of the Wii.
This is a bit like saying that making a touch pad as a controller accessory is the next step in gaming.
PCs can display well above 1080p. PCs are where development takes place. I posit that many "large" studios are already pushing the envelope. Console's aren't a "graphics plateau". Games that are published for console and PC tend to look leagues better than the console version. I played Bad Company on the 360 for a year. Bought it for the PC this month. The graphical difference is not only amazing, but it's definitely a hugely noticeable boost.
Out of curiosity, is Infamous 2 considered a good looking game? I saw it running on a PS3 demo station at a Gamestop earlier today and the complete lack of anti aliasing immediately jumped out at me. I guess lower resolutions can also make that more noticable.
Will they cost twice as much as well?
I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation games cost 10 bucks more than current gen.
So, by "Wii was introduced months before launch" you really meant that "Wii didn't get hype until months before launch"? Well I guess it's my fault for not assuming the former actually meant the latter. As far as the "not true" statement, that was pointed at your assertion that the WiiU received "more core game announcements" than the Wii. Again, not true. The WiiU didn't receive have any significant, identifiable, higher third party and "core" support compared to the Wii. The biggest third party announcement was a list of ports of games that will be months to a year old by the time the WiiU launches. Your assumption that these ports show more support for the system over the Wii doesn't make sense when the Wii received a bunch of old ports from previous gen consoles at it's launch. Their mere existence doesn't mean jack when the mere existence of Splinter Cell and Call of Duty on the original Wii didn't result in much.
Do graphics matter to the market as a whole? Nope. That's the one thing you've been correct about.
Do graphics matter to the market that Nintendo is trying to capture? Yes. Yes they do.
That's an interesting thing. PC games tend to have much larger player slots on multiplayer games. Nintendo used the RAM Pak on the 64 to increase enemy count in Majora's Mask, not for better graphics.
One of the tech demos for the Cube was called Mario 128, and it specifically showed how well the Cube handled multiple characters, terrain changing, etc.
They are two seperate things. There isn't really extra development cost in rendering at 1080p, outside of perhaps added cost in optimizing things (memory/etc) to actually render *well* at that resolution.
I only bring up 1080p to point out there's a cap and we're pretty much at it already. So they can improve things like model poly counts and shaders and all that, but everything's still going to be running in 1080p.
Also, I don't know why you are bringing up PCs Sheep when this entire discussion is about how WiiU's hardware will compare to other consoles...
Edit: In fact, these days it seems like most PC titles are just console ports anyways. It's rare that companies specifically develop with the PC in mind as consoles are where all the money is.
1080p isn't a graphical quality cap. It's a resolution cap... for now.
Well, let's see what the Wii got at launch, then. From Wikipedia:
Barring Nintendo's stuff, the core games in that lineup are Call of Duty 3, Dragon Ball Z, Madden, Marvel, Red Steel and Tony Hawk (I'm keeping Trauma Center off the list because it's a little too niche to be truly core).
Now compare that to what we already know about the Wii U: Darksiders II, DiRT, Aliens Colonial Marines, Batman: Arkham City, Assassin’s Creed, Ghost Recon Online, Metro: Last Night, Tekken, and Ninja Gaiden 3.
Already, it's looking like the Wii U is getting more core stuff, and that stuff was announced a year and a half (at least) before launch.
Do graphics matter to the market as a whole? Nope. That's the one thing you've been correct about.
Do graphics matter to the market that Nintendo is trying to capture? Yes. Yes they do.[/quote]
I'd argue we've already got to the point to where the graphical improvements will be so very slight they'll be hard to notice. Remember, we're talking "core," not "hardcore."
Because you said that graphical quality has topped out, when it hasn't, and PC games show that. It's not a stretch to associate current high end PC graphics to next gen consoles. As a matter of fact, there's a thread at NeoGAF with Epic and Crytek saying that very thing, exactly, that we'll see DirectX 11 quality graphics on the next Xbox/PS console.