Topic: How will the PS3 be able to compete against the more advanced Wii 2?

[Chozo Ghost]

Sony has said the PS3 will have a 10 year life-cycle, which is probably going to be true, but if the Wii2 comes out next year as predicted this means the PS3 will be competing directly with it. The PS3 is struggling against the technically inferior (albeit motion controlled) Wii system, so I'm wondering how in the world they will be able to compete against a Wii2 that will likely have more advanced tech specs.

See, the PS3 came out in late 2006 which will be 5 years old when the Wii2 (supposedly) comes out. This means the Wii2 will be able to take advantage of newer technology and probably trump it in processing speed, RAM, graphics, and all that goodness. The PS3 is currently the most powerful system on the market (in terms of specs), but this probably won't be the case once the next system comes out.

Odds are Microsoft will have their successor out in the near future as well. The 360 is the oldest system on the market, and it just makes perfect sense they would want the Xbox 720 to be out as quick as possible just like the 360 was first out. What this means is the PS3 with its 10 year life span will be the most technically inferior system available. So how can the PS3 survive?

Sony's 10 year lifecycle strategy would have worked very well if the PS3 enjoyed the sort of install base the PS2 had, but it doesn't. The PS3 has struggled since day one, and is in last place in the competition. So how is this going to work for Sony?

Sony could scrap their 10 year plan and push out a PS4 earlier than they planned in order to keep up with the competition, but this presents some problems in itself. Sega did that by scrapping the Saturn and rushing out the Dreamcast, but we all know how that worked out. So Sony is not in a very enviable position, imho.

How can a 5 year old PS3 compete against a more advanced Wii2 and Xbox 720? Especially when it is the last place (in market share) system. That is my question to you all.

[broodwars]

It'll compete with it in the same arena it's already kicking its ass: its gaming library.  The PS3 already has the better library, IMO, and that's just with 3 years under its belt and a very slow start.  I can only imagine the kinds of games we'll be seeing 5 years down the road once the 3rd parties are much more comfortable with the system and its quirks (much as they eventually grew accustomed to the "hard to develop on" PS2).  When Wii 2 releases, its tech will probably be on-par or a little better than the PS3's so barring any gimmicky new interface tech (which Sony could always reverse-engineer and replicate as a PS3 add-on) multi-platform development between the two shouldn't be terribly difficult.  The Wii 2 would eventually trump it, but the PS3 would put up a good fight in its waning years, assuming Sony turns out to actually be serious about the whole "10 year life-cycle" thing.  Besides, the PS4 would probably be more than on the horizon at that point, and perhaps by then the marketplace will have shifted away from Nintendo.

[ThePerm]

The wii 2 will not come out next year, maybe 2012. They are not going to pull a Sega Saturn. Nintendo wants a long lifespan for the Wii and its going to pull some punches before it pulls the plug. The next Xbox could come out next year though. Expect Colors and Price drops to keep the momentum going, plus games we have never heard of to fill in next year and the first quarter of 2012. Probably 1 big game this year(zelda), 3 big games in 2011, and one last hurrah in 2012. Hopefully, from now till november 2012 they'll make some deals with some third parties to get some heavy hitters. However, I expect there to be practically nothing (from Nintendo) coming out from summer 2012 till November. Nintendo likes to just drop consoles, but Sony likes to bleed every last cent out of them. Ps4 will come out before Ps3 is done.

[Chozo Ghost]

It'll compete with it in the same arena it's already kicking its ass: its gaming library.

But most of the PS3's quality games are multi-platform, and if the Wii 2 is more advanced than (or at least on par with) the PS3, 3rd parties will have no excuse not to bring games to the Wii 2 as well. No longer will anyone be able to say these games can't be done because the Nintendo console "can't do HD" or "can't have as many enemies on screen", or whatever. Those would become bull**** arguments instantly.

So in that case all Sony would have going for it would be 1st party Sony exclusives, and that really is no match for 1st party Nintendo exclusives.

I'm also not concerned about Sony ripping off Nintendo ideas, because even if they do Nintendo will have a few years head start with it until Sony figures out how to reverse engineer and replicate it. Plus Sony would be forced to offer it as an add-on, and as a rule add-ons seldom take off. There's no guarantee Sony's Wiimote rip-off is going to make a huge dent, for example. For one thing, it costs an extra $100. So if Nintendo comes up with another huge innovation you can't really count on Sony being able to rip it off without a hitch.

Nintendo also might be wise and have some huge innovation integrated right into the console itself, and that way Sony won't be able to just copy it with a simple add-on.

Edit: I also don't understand how Sony is able to rip-off Nintendo's innovation generation after generation. Sure, its embarassing and makes them look bad to just steal innovations like that, but from a legal stand point it shouldn't even be allowed. Whatever happened to intellectual property laws? Nintendo was stupid for not suing Sony for ripping off things like their analog stick and now the wiimote. Maybe Japanese law doesn't work like American law, but I don't get that.

[Shorty McNostril]

They will do exactly the same as they have done with the PS2.  Sony said it will have a 10 year life, they didn't say there wouldn't be a PS4 in that time.  They will launch a PS4 and give it all the limelight and glory, but continue to support the PS3 for the 10 years, (if it lasts that long).  The PS3 will be their main source of profit while they lose all their money on the 4.  But not as much as the 3 assuming they have learned anything from their arrogance.

[broodwars]

It'll compete with it in the same arena it's already kicking its ass: its gaming library.

But most of the PS3's quality games are multi-platform, and if the Wii 2 is more advanced than (or at least on par with) the PS3, 3rd parties will have no excuse not to bring games to the Wii 2 as well. No longer will anyone be able to say these games can't be done because the Nintendo console "can't do HD" or "can't have as many enemies on screen", or whatever. Those would become bull**** arguments instantly.

You're assuming that 3rd parties will even want to develop for Nintendo's next console.  I think the poor sales of Wii 3rd party software and the lack of interest by Nintendo in doing anything about that is going to have longer ramifications than is immediately obvious.  Nintendo is doing very little to maintain good relations with its fellow developers, which while not an immediate problem with Nintendo already owning this console generation easily is probably going to bite them in the ass next generation.  Sony will probably have recovered by then from its financial problems from the early years of the PS3 and will be in a strong position to retain exclusives, and let's not forget about Microsoft either.  Sony and Microsoft will have had many years to shore up their core user base, while meanwhile Nintendo will be struggling to convince its Blue Ocean crowd it needs another console.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Wii2 will strike while the iron is still hot. that will be Japan Xmas 2011 and hopefully world wide. If anyone thinks that Nintendo isn't blowing their load this year on the Wii and that they have something big planned for late 2011, and well into 2012 then we envision 2 very different futures.

Sony will not last till 2015 before releasing a new system. If when Nintendo announces Wii2 at E3 2011, Sony will be prepping the PS4 just as MS will be ready push the Xbx720. Just remember that the PS2 is currently enjoying it's 10 year strategy and that didn't stop a PS3 from happening.

[Chozo Ghost]

You're assuming that 3rd parties will even want to develop for Nintendo's next console.  I think the poor sales of Wii 3rd party software and the lack of interest by Nintendo in doing anything about that is going to have longer ramifications than is immediately obvious.  Nintendo is doing very little to maintain good relations with its fellow developers, which while not an immediate problem with Nintendo already owning this console generation easily is probably going to bite them in the ass next generation.  Sony will probably have recovered by then from its financial problems from the early years of the PS3 and will be in a strong position to retain exclusives, and let's not forget about Microsoft either.  Sony and Microsoft will have had many years to shore up their core user base, while meanwhile Nintendo will be struggling to convince its Blue Ocean crowd it needs another console.

You're making it sound like Sony and MS are going to team up and conspire to undermine Nintendo. That's actually nothing further from the truth. Sony and MS are rivals. More so than either of them are against Nintendo. Sony and MS are fighting for more than just video games here, whereas VG is all Nintendo cares about.

So let's assume you're right and Nintendo won't be able to crush the PS3 in terms of third party support. Okay, fine. But what about Microsoft? Their Xbox 720 will be out in the near future (I predict), and if the Wii 2 isn't a force to undermine the PS3, you can be sure the 720 will be.

See, that's why I'm saying the future looks bleak for Sony. Not only do they have the Wii 2 to worry about, but they also have to worry about whatever MS has up its sleeve. Unless they rush out a PS4 earlier than they claimed (which makes them look very bad) then there's no way they can compete with the more technologically advanced titans.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Just because they release a PS4 before 10 years is up doesn't mean the PS3 isn't going forward with a 10 year strategy. The PS2 is on it's 10th year right now and the PS3 existed going on 4 years ago.

I predict a Wii2 in 2011 and a Xbox720 rushed to happen 2011 too(but probably doesn't make it on time) PS4 will probably happen in 2012/13 depending on if MS gets a new system out and how powerful a Wii2 actually is.

[Chozo Ghost]

Just because they release a PS4 before 10 years is up doesn't mean the PS3 isn't going forward with a 10 year strategy. The PS2 is on it's 10th year right now and the PS3 existed going on 4 years ago.

The PS2 might be in its 10th year, but it sold far more than the PS3 has, or ever will.

If Sony releases a PS4 in the near future then they will need to throw their support behind it 100% in order to gain momentum. If they support the PS3 at all then it means they can't support the PS4 100% so that would make the PS3 like an anchor that weighs them down. It would make no sense at all. That's why Nintendo dropped the GBA pretty quick once the DS was released, because the PSP was only months away and Nintendo's success wasn't really guaranteed in those early days of the handheld wars. Good thing they did, because if Nintendo kept a "third pillar" strategy going, that third pillar would have just been an anchor holding them down.

[SixthAngel]

The entire "10 year lifespan" arguement was based off ps3 having really good graphics that will last.

It turns out graphics aren't why people buy games and it isn't why new ones are released.  New consoles are usually released when they start selling less.  By the time the next Wii is released the ps3 should be in this downward "old hat" phase too.

I think Wii 2 isn't coming out until probably fall 2012 (almost 3 years from now).  The number one reason is that Nintendo makes money off software and even if they manage to repeat the extreme success of the Wii it will be less profitable because of the higher specs.  Especially when the Wii basically broke records this christmas.

I predict that this year they "blow their load" like BnM said and then next year has a few minor (ie not Zelda) releases while riding the sales (long tails) of all the games released this year and hopefully localized rpgs.  They also throw out the vitality sensor to push the Wii as a fitness/rehab machine since I doubt it has big potential.  They announce that the next Wii will be released sometime in fall 2012 or later making Wii sales immediately dry up for the next 7 months since everybody knows the successor it coming.

That's why Nintendo dropped the GBA pretty quick once the DS was released, because the PSP was only months away and Nintendo's success wasn't really guaranteed in those early days of the handheld wars. Good thing they did, because if Nintendo kept a "third pillar" strategy going, that third pillar would have just been an anchor holding them down.

This 3rd pillar "strategy" was just Nintendo's escape route in case the DS failed.  I think I called it at the time too but they never had any intention of having a DS and Gameboy going at the same time, they just said it so if the DS flopped they could come back with the next Gameboy.

The chances of people wanting to buy the ps3 in its tenth year at the same level as the ps2 in its twilight is going to be slim to none so I doubt stores would even offer to sell new ones.

[D_Average]

It'll be able to compete because teh casuals won't be able to comprehend why a Wii 2 exists, let alone buy one. Unless Wii 2 offers some entirley new experience like virtual reality I just can't see Nintendo hitting the jackpot again. Meanwhile core gamers will be salivating over the next power house console, ready to make a day one purchase.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

There is no Wii2, only the Nintendo 128.

Wii is on the 15 year plan.  5th pillar 4life.

[Ian Sane]

See, the PS3 came out in late 2006 which will be 5 years old when the Wii2 (supposedly) comes out. This means the Wii2 will be able to take advantage of newer technology and probably trump it in processing speed, RAM, graphics, and all that goodness.

I think this is honestly a huge assumption.  I would not be surprised if the Wii2 was actually inferior to the PS3 in terms of hardware and just relied on some new gimmick to stand out.  It's probably most realistic to assume Nintendo will roughly match the other consoles but I doubt they'll top them.  These days Nintendo's attitude with hardware is to just go with what's good enough.  And we know they'll be willing to skimp on the hardware to make a bigger profit margin on console sales.  Nintendo will embrace better technology entirely because they are forced to, not because they want to gain some advantage.
 
The PS3 struggled initially because of the insanely high price.  Even when I thought they had a pretty good lineup of games I waited until the price cut.  I had to.  It was just too damn expensive.  Sony went with such powerful hardware that I don't see how they could release a new console without having that same problem where the console just costs too much.  The PS3 Slim was like a second launch.  They finally started to go somewhere.  To piss that away so soon would make no sense.  Sony has to give the PS3 ten years since they only just recently have been able to sell it at an affordable price.  And if Nintendo topped them how could Nintendo make that at a good price?  The PS3 is $300 so a superior Wii2 would probably be more than that.
 
Move is Sony's next gen.  It changes the PS3 enough to keep things going longer and puts it in competition with the Wii.  I think this is the only thing they could do.  If graphics don't matter how do you go next gen?  Adding motion control is the only way to do it.
 
The thing is the PS3 has the better lineup.  Nintendo may make the best games in the world but with their horrible third party support, they've got the weakest overall lineup.  The Wii has overachieved and the PS3 has underachieved.  We assume that on equal footing the Wii2 will have comparible third party support.  But that is still an assumption and Sony and MS have a big head start on the games.
 
One thing that I think benefits Sony is that their first party lineup is much stronger than it ever was before.  Sony has IP like Uncharted, LBP, Infamous, Killzone, Ratchet & Clank, God of War.  These are a pretty big deal.
 
Sony can't release another console at this point.  I don't like the MS can either.  These new consoles would just be too expensive and the difference in the eyes of the average consumer will be so minor.  Nintendo is the only one that truly has to upgrade since they don't even support modern TV formats.  But for Sony and MS motion control is the ideal upgrade, and since that doesn't require a new console, why piss away the userbase you already have?

[BlackNMild2k1]

Sony spent billions on creating Cell and Blu ray so that is where most of the cost of PS3 was at.

Once BRD won it's format war, all manufacturers adopted Blu ray and now the price of drives went down. also since the PS3 has sold well (despite it's high price) Cell manufacturing has come down too. Most of PS3's price was Cell, Blu ray and putting a whole other PS2 inside of the system. RSX (the graphic chip) was not the major cost contributing factor.

MS made a system almost as powerful graphically as the PS3 and it's been cheaper than a Wii for years. MS is not taking much of a loss on Arcade units if it's taking one at all. Nintendo could easily produce a Wii2 with PS360+ level graphics and keep the price affordable in 2011 (1.75yrs from now) while still making a healthy profit.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

If they don't want to piss away their userbase, why are they introducing gimmick controls?

[broodwars]

If they don't want to piss away their userbase, why are they introducing gimmick controls?

Because the new "gimmick" controls don't drive away their old fans, just give new ones an opportunity to join the party.  New traditional and experimental games will still be made with traditional controls, which is something the Wii can't claim.  You're either with the motion control idea with that system or you don't own it, whereas it's just an option on the PS3.  Now, that probably spells Doom for the Move, but I don't see it negatively impacting their current fanbase.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Oh, that's right.

C'mon, Sony.  Ice Cream All the Way.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Actually it's the opposite on the Wii.
First and foremost you get motion controls, but there could always be an option for traditional controls too if the dev decided to include them. It made CC support very rare, but the option was there.
I suppose the same could happen to Move if traditional control is still the preferred setup and motion control is not pushed.

[Chozo Ghost]

And if Nintendo topped them how could Nintendo make that at a good price?  The PS3 is $300 so a superior Wii2 would probably be more than that.

Wrong. Because technology gets cheaper as it becomes better, thanks to something called Moore's law.

My first computer cost about $2,000 and had 32mb of RAM and a 166mhz Pentium 1 processor. About 5 years later I got a computer with 256mb of RAM and had a 933mhz Pentium 3 processor. This newer computer was magnitudes of level better than the old one, so you might think it cost more, right? Wrong, it cost about half as much. My most recent computer is a monster with 3gb of RAM and a 64-bit dual core processor. It cost me less than $300.

Can you see what I'm getting at here? The PS3 was cutting edge technology when it was released in 2006, but it isn't getting any better. The console's specs are frozen at that 2006 level, and will never get any better. 2006 era technology can still hold up in our 2010 world and doesn't look too dated yet, but it will inevitably.

Meanwhile, the Wii 2 can take advantage of not 2006 technology, but 2011 or 2012 era technology, and because of Moore's law we know this will be 1) superior to the best 2006 could offer, and 2) be cheaper as well.

Of course, you're probably thinking Nintendo won't make a revolutionary cutting edge console in 2011/2012 and you're probably right, but the thing is even low end technology of that time will still be better than the best 2006 had to offer. That's just how technology works. My most recent computer is actually pretty low-end by current computer standards, but compared to my old computer from 2002 there's no comparison. The 2002 computer was actually pretty high end for its day, but now a budget computer can kick its ass handedly.

And that's basically what I'm getting at here. Nintendo doesn't need to make a high-end $500 console in order to beat the PS3 in 2011-2012. Nintendo can just use more modest components and still cobble together a system that can kick the PS3's ass, just because those components are 5-6 years more modern.

I think Sony boasted their cell processor would defeat Moore's law, but that won't be the case. Newer, better, and cheaper stuff always comes out. Before you know it the Cell processor will seem as dated as a Pentium 1, or whatever chip the Atari 2600 used.

[Guitar Smasher]

I think the real question is will the xbox720 actually be two xbox360s taped together?

[nickmitch]

I think the real question is will the xbox720 actually be two xbox360s taped together?

They'll be welded. The tape would either melt or catch fire.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Imagine the Nyko Deep Freeze(TM) refridgerator you'd have to buy for the power supply.

[Ian Sane]

If they don't want to piss away their userbase, why are they introducing gimmick controls?

How does this piss away any customers at all?  It's just an option.  Releasing a new console that only added motion control would piss away their userbase.  Sticking with the PS3 and just adding motion control to it will keep their userbase.
 

 Wrong. Because technology gets cheaper as it becomes better, thanks to something called Moore's law.

I am aware that my Dad's old IBM XT cost more than any other computer he's ever owned, despite it being vastly inferior.  But if I was releasing mass quantities of inferior hardware now wouldn't it still cost less than what's brand new.  Right now a PS3 is $300 while the Move is expected to be about $100.  So if we consider Move to be Sony's next gen we're looking at a $400 price.  But that's today.  By the time the Wii 2 is released I'm assuming it would be lower in price.  How is Nintendo going to make something the same price with state-of-the-art technology?  I would assume that as the PS3 becomes older it would become cheaper to make.
 
Yeah the Xbox 360 Arcade is the same price as a Wii right now but the Arcade is compromised since it lacks a hard drive (the Elite would be the closer comparison to a PS3) and the Wii is overpriced.  Nintendo intentionally marks it up.  Based on pure cost the technologically inferior Wii does not cost more to make than the other consoles.  It isn't about the price but the potential price.  How much more than the PS3 can Nintendo go where they can offer a comparible price point?  The Blu-Ray drive is the only thing I can see that could limit Sony and that Nintendo would not have to match.
 
Though perhaps Nintendo's goal isn't to be to match Sony in price but that they just a price in mind and they just have to be below or at it.  So Sony can have as low of a price as they want but all Nintendo cares about is that they're affordable.
 
Honestly if Nintendo gets the third party support a market leading console deserves by eliminating the hardware gap, Sony can't compete.  The only company that can beat Nintendo is themselves.  Atari beat Atari, Nintendo beat Nintendo, Sony beat Sony.  The way to get ahead in the console industry is to be as close to perfect as you can and take advantage when the other guy fucks up.  Right now that's all Sony or MS can do.  If Nintendo loses the top spot it will be because they will do something to themselves that will kill interest in the Wii 2.

[BlackNMild2k1]

The Xbox 360 Arcade is $200 and that is most likely at a small profit margin and it has no HDD
the Wii is $200 and more than likely a very generous to OMG are you kidding profit margin with no HDD

If Wii just did the minimum and matched the 360 graphically with chips from today and not 2006 with smaller manufacturing from the start(45nm or better), you could get a HD 360 level Wii at the current price of a Wii and Nintendo would still be making a profit on every system sold.
Now fast forward 1.75 years, using a state of the art chip today (late 2009/early 2010) that Nintendo spends the next 1.5 years shrinking and making cost effective, then you cold have a noticeable leap over PS360 without raising the cost to the consumer ($250) and still getting a favorable profit margin for Nintendo.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Developers will complain that after 5 years of learning Wii controls, they now have to learn expensive Nintendo graphics.

[Chozo Ghost]

I am aware that my Dad's old IBM XT cost more than any other computer he's ever owned, despite it being vastly inferior.  But if I was releasing mass quantities of inferior hardware now wouldn't it still cost less than what's brand new.  Right now a PS3 is $300 while the Move is expected to be about $100.  So if we consider Move to be Sony's next gen we're looking at a $400 price.  But that's today.  By the time the Wii 2 is released I'm assuming it would be lower in price.  How is Nintendo going to make something the same price with state-of-the-art technology?  I would assume that as the PS3 becomes older it would become cheaper to make.

I think you're missing my point. I wasn't arguing that the PS3 can't go down in price (I know it can, and will). All I was saying is that if Nintendo makes a $249.99 console in 2012 there's no reason it can't be more powerful than the $600 PS3 of 2006 while still being sold at cost or for a profit like every other Nintendo console in history.

By the time the Wii 2 is released the PS3 could be down to $99 for all we know, or at least $149 or something like that. But it would be inferior hardware, and that's the point I was getting at. Would you rather own a $149 system from 2006 or a more powerful system from 2011-2012 for $249?

[Ian Sane]

All I was saying is that if Nintendo makes a $249.99 console in 2012 there's no reason it can't be more powerful than the $600 PS3 of 2006 while still being sold at cost or for a profit like every other Nintendo console in history.

I see.  Yeah, that makes sense.
 
But they won't do it.  I just don't think they will.  It's too rational of an idea for Nintendo.

[TJ Spyke]

I think it's a little bold predicting the PS3 will last 10 years. The only way it will last that long is if Sony doesn't want to admit defeat. It is a distant third and is still losing money for Sony.

For those who think that the Wii 2 will come out in 2011, what makes you think that? It is still easily beating both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and is still $200. When sales start to slow down, they just drop the price and boost them back up. Nintendo is also actually making money on the Wii, so they could afford to keep this gen going longer than Sony cold.

[Guitar Smasher]

Even if Wii2 was computationally superior to PS3, would we even be able to notice?  Is the average consumer going to notice, or even care?

[BlackNMild2k1]

I think it's a little bold predicting the PS3 will last 10 years. The only way it will last that long is if Sony doesn't want to admit defeat. It is a distant third and is still losing money for Sony.

Actually PS3 is in a close third, Xbox360 is in a distant second.

For those who think that the Wii 2 will come out in 2011, what makes you think that? It is still easily beating both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and is still $200. When sales start to slow down, they just drop the price and boost them back up. Nintendo is also actually making money on the Wii, so they could afford to keep this gen going longer than Sony cold.

They could, but just going by historical trends Wii2 is due at the end of 2011. Nintendo has released a new system pretty much every 5 years since the beginning.
NES - 1985/86
SNES - 1991
N64 - 1996
GC - 2001
Wii - 2006

history would lead us to believe that Nintendo has always had a plan to take a step every 5 years. Why would we believe that they would change that pattern now? Wii will keep selling to the late adopters for years just like the PS2. There are many people out there waiting till the Wii hits $99 and the rest of us will be enjoying new games on the Wii2. I'm also pretty sure that MS would love to get the jump on Sony and outpower them graphically and try to force Sony's hand before they are ready, like the 360 did to the PS3. NextBox will be ready to go by the end of next year, but probably won't see release until 2012 unless Nintendo makes a move first.  You have to remember that the Xbox360 came out in 2005 and this is it's 5th year. The original Xbox came out in 2001 and only lasted 4 years, so Xbox360 has already extended the Xbox average generation span.

[Ian Sane]

For those who think that the Wii 2 will come out in 2011, what makes you think that? It is still easily beating both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and is still $200. When sales start to slow down, they just drop the price and boost them back up. Nintendo is also actually making money on the Wii, so they could afford to keep this gen going longer than Sony cold.

2011 follows the existing pattern of five year generations.  It seems like the natural time period.  Though 2012 has been rumoured as well.
 

Even if Wii2 was computationally superior to PS3, would we even be able to notice?  Is the average consumer going to notice, or even care?

The gap is narrowing.  Can you imagine much more than this gen?  Sure you could always go to photo realism but who has the money to develop games like that?  That's part of why I figure Nintendo wouldn't bother topping the PS3.  Nintendo barely pushes the Wii now.  Most of their games look like Gamecube titles and not even really pretty ones at that.  They'll eventually upgrade their hardware because the adoption of HDTVs will force them to.  But it will be third parties or devs like Retro that push it.  EAD will mostly crank out stuff that looks like a Dreamcast launch title.
 
This is all the more reason for Sony to stay put.  Where do they go from here?  How do you top the PS3 in any significant way aside from doing new stuff with the controller, which they're doing and which would not require a new console?  There is concern that game development these days is too expensive.  So how can Sony or Nintendo or anyone else take things even further?  Who will have the budget to make games that take advantage of hardware superior to the PS3?
 
This is why we hear rumours of 3D displays.  We can't think of anything else.  You can only make graphics look so good before it no longer makes business sense.  You have to go to somewhere else.  And if going somewhere else just involves extra doodads then why not just make it an accessory and keep your existing userbase?
 
Imagine if Nintendo had literally just repackaged the Cube and included the remote and called it their next console.  I don't mean this 1.5 Gamecube thing I mean if you opened up the machine you would discover that it was actually the EXACT same hardware only with a new controller and some sort of chip or something that just "unlocked" Wii games so that you couldn't just put Wii games in your Gamecube.  In other words you could actually mod a Cube to play ALL Wii games.  Would you not feel ripped off?  If new doodads are the only direction we can go in now then that's what it would be to release a new console.  It would be that kind of rip-off so they might as well make the doodad an extra.
 
I think we're reaching a point where hardware will just stay put.  At some point it will do to the law of diminishing returns.  Even if some company tries to keep pushing in new console it will become harder and harder for them to come up with something that people will feel the need to upgrade to.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Nintendo would like all their systems to follow the Game Boy life cycle.

[TJ Spyke]

I know PS3 is not far behind 360, I meant distant third compared to Wii.

I won't get into the release dates (the NES was first released as the Famicom in 1983, the SNES as the Super Famicom in 1990). I will point out though that competition basically forced them to release new systems. The NES's best year was actually 1990, but the Genesis (which had been released in 1989) was vastly superior to the NES in terms of technology (as was the TurboGrafx-16). It would have been like if Sony had expected the PS2 to be their only console in 2007 or 2008. Same thing with the SNES. The N64 and GameCube were different, they were no longer on the lead and couldn't afford to keep their last place systems going. The Wii shows no sign of being beat anytime soon, the most I can see is Nintendo announcing Wii 2 at E3 2011 and releasing it in fall 2012.

I think you know why Xbox was killed after 4 years. Microsoft had been stupid enough to build it with off the shelf parts (rather than custom made like every other console), so they had limited ability to bring down the costs of parts and ended up losing billions of dollars on the system.

[BlackNMild2k1]

You don't think a PS3 with Move (should it catch on) step on the toes of Nintendo and the Wii? That is reason enough for Nintendo not to take Sony for granted and at the very least, release a machine that can match if not exceed the PS3 graphically & in basic gaming features and to introduce the next big thing (gimmick/feature/fad/hook/etc. etc.).

If Nintendo sits by and lets Sony even think Move has the potential to be a success, then that is only gonna weaken Nintendo's position in the market. Why sit for yet another year and let Sony get a foot hold in the motion market instead of stomping out like stray embers from you fireplace on your carpet. PS3 with Move has the potential to capture those early adopting Wii buyers that are looking for some more HD content to go with their HD TV's over the next few years, and if PS3 is the only choice (since it plays like Wii and plays BRD) then that is a lost opportunity for Nintendo and possible loss of mind share in the market.

All the late adopters are sure to keep Wii selling just fine over the next 2-3 years if there is a Wii2/HD or not. They will keep the Wii alive and well just like late adopters are keeping the PS2 visible in the sales charts to this day.

[TJ Spyke]

Considering how much money Sony is planning on charging for PlayStation Move, I severely doubt it will be successful (especially if it is as laggy as the reports I am reading state it is). Nintendo won't even factor it in unless this thing shocks everyone and is actually a success. Take a look at the EyeToy and how that pretty much bombed (except in Europe for some reason).

[Ian Sane]

You don't think a PS3 with Move (should it catch on) step on the toes of Nintendo and the Wii? That is reason enough for Nintendo not to take Sony for granted and at the very least, release a machine that can match if not exceed the PS3 graphically & in basic gaming features and to introduce the next big thing (gimmick/feature/fad/hook/etc. etc.).

Agreed.  At the very least Nintendo has to have something behind the curtain to reveal if they need to.  All it would take is one Move game that creates the sort of frenzy that Wii Sports did and cannot be ported to the Wii because of the hardware difference and Nintendo is stuck with their thumb up their butts.  They can't just assume they'll be fine forever.  Staying put assumes that the neither Sony or MS will be able to catch up in any way.  That's a dangerous way to play.  They need to stay ahead of the game.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Considering how much money Sony is planning on charging for PlayStation Move, I severely doubt it will be successful (especially if it is as laggy as the reports I am reading state it is). Nintendo won't even factor it in unless this thing shocks everyone and is actually a success. Take a look at the EyeToy and how that pretty much bombed (except in Europe for some reason).

It's the software that is laggy not the hardware. And just because this thing is gonna cost less that $100 ($99.99?) doesn't mean it might not catch on. The PS3 sold pretty damn well for being $599 US DOLLARS, it's actually outpaced the 360 even at that price. So it would be unwise of Nintendo to just site back and take the wait and see approach. If Move happens to catch on, then it is too late for Nintendo to announce something since it will still take time to make it to market.

Remember that back at E3 2008 Nintendo pre-emptively announced M+ with expectations that Sony and MS were gonna announce Move & Natal even though they didn't. I expect Nintendo to take that same initiative towards making sure that the competition doesn't beat them at their own game which is videogames and Nintendo will make sure they are first to market with the next big innovation and not let Sony ape their success with an improved version of their own tech.

[TJ Spyke]

Actually, PS3 did not outsell the Xbox 360 when it was $600. In fact, the first time the PS3 beat the Xbox 360 in the US was in January 2008 (by which point the cheapest PS3 model was $400). Taking 15 months before finally getting a month where it wasn't in last place (and multiple occasions it was even embarrassingly outsold by the PS2) is not impressive. If anything, it shows that the consumers weren't happy with the $500 starting point for the system. Even after that, they have only occasionally outsold the Xbox 360 (never on a regular basis).

I am sure Nintendo is already working on something (as is Sony and Microsoft), I just don't think they are in a hurry since I doubt that Move will be a success.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I worded that wrong. I meant that the PS3 is outpacing the Xbox360 even though it was $600 for so long. World Wide sales. The 360 had a 1 year head start and the PS3 is less than 6-8million units behind.

[TJ Spyke]

I am not sure about that, I think the Xbox 360 was only about 6 or 7 million when the PS3 launched, so I think the PS3 is pretty much at the same pace as the Xbox 360 (which means it won't be passing the 360). The only region the PS3 beats 360 more than once in awhile is Japan.

As for the PS3 price point. You are forgetting that the PS3 launched at 2 price points: $500 and $600, and it dropped to $400/$500 after less than a year (this was after they had already increased the HDD sizes of both models and took out stuff like backwards compatibility and multi media card slots).

Anyways, I still think Nintendo is not worried. They are, no doubt in my mind, keeping an eye on Sony but are not worried about PlayStation Move.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I'm not saying that Nintendo is worried about Move, but they should have the Wii2 ready to go holiday 2011 if necessary. That means games that are nearing completion and everything. Don't want to get caught off guard for any reason and definitely don't want to look reactive instead of pro-active (....looks at Move & Natal)

Move will literally have 9 months (Oct. 2010 - June 2011) to make it's impact felt before Nintendo could literally deflate all hype surrounding it with the announcement of Wii2/HD+ at E3 2011 like most of us expect them to.

But that brings us back to the topic in question. How could Sony compete with that?
They don't, they just have to make sure their tech is adaptable enough to whatever Ninteindo has planned next so that they are able to send ports <--> back and forth. It would be much more in Sony's favor to make MS be the odd man out than to try share strengths with the Xbox and help MS keep it afloat (or vice versa) while Nintendo continues to strike out on their own and succeed even while failing.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Also it looks like 3D is coming to PS3 in July(according to Best Buy), so that is something else that PS3 will have to differentiate itself from the competition.

3D coming to PS3 in July 2010....?

What do I need to buy to get full HD 3D in my home?

To watch 3D Blu-ray Discs, you'll need to add a 3D-ready Blu-ray player (or update your PS3 with the appropriate firmware when it becomes available in July).

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

StarFox beat them decades ago.

[Guitar Smasher]

3D will become the new waggle - totally unnecessary and unimaginatively tacked on.

[broodwars]

Isn't "true" 3D-equipped Blu-Ray useless without a 3D-equipped TV that can properly display it?  Considering my Coraline Blu-Ray, I could already watch 3D movies with my PS3.  I just had to wear the goofy and irritating glasses that made the movie look considerably worse.  This update will be useless to me (and just about everyone else in the country) if it requires purchasing a new TV (which isn't going to happen).

[BlackNMild2k1]

To watch 3D cable or satellite channels, you'll need a 3D-ready HDTV, as well as active shutter 3D glasses designed to work with the HDTV.

Looking up 3D glasses, I found a few from different manufacturers. All costing from about $130-$150 a piece. That means for a family of 4, you would have to spend at least $520 to watch your movie in 3D, and that's just for the glasses alone. Then $55 for a infrared or blue tooth emitter (to sync your shutter to your TV).
That is assuming you have a 3D capable HDTV ($2500?) and a 3D capable Bluray player ($250?).

That is a heavy investment.

edit: And your glasses have to be made by the manufacturer of your 3D capable TV. SO take that into account when you get that 3D capable Vizio on sale or that Store Brand TV cause you will need the same brand shutter glasses.

After reading all that, I think 3D is a long ways from catching on at home.

edit2:
This is even more discouraging

Previous "3D-ready" HDTVs

For those who bought older HDTVs that had "3D-ready" listed in their specifications, as of now, none of them will work with the new 3D-ready Blu-ray players and other new sources of full HD 3D. Some of the reasons can include lack of sufficient processing power or response time, and the inability to handle a 120Hz input signal (not refresh rate).

Mitsubishi has announced they are working on an adapter box for some of their previous "3D-ready" HDTVs (although the resulting 3D picture quality is still an open question). Manufacturers of other previous "3D-ready" HDTVs have not announced plans for a similar adapter box, although it's possible they may do so in the future, or that a third-party manufacturer will step in with a solution.

So for even those that have "3D Ready" Tv's that bought them in the last couple months to a year might not even have 3D ready tv's. now that sucks. I wonder if that will lead to legal issues in the near future for false advertising.

[Chozo Ghost]

The gap is narrowing.  Can you imagine much more than this gen?  Sure you could always go to photo realism but who has the money to develop games like that?  That's part of why I figure Nintendo wouldn't bother topping the PS3.  Nintendo barely pushes the Wii now.  Most of their games look like Gamecube titles and not even really pretty ones at that.  They'll eventually upgrade their hardware because the adoption of HDTVs will force them to.  But it will be third parties or devs like Retro that push it.  EAD will mostly crank out stuff that looks like a Dreamcast launch title.

But that's just counting graphics. What about processing power? Consoles can still improve by beefing up in order for more advanced A.I., more enemies on screen, etc. There's really no limit there in how many times we can advance until we finally run into the limitations set by the theory of relativity. Processors won't be able to handle calculations faster than the speed of light, so that's a firm limit, but I guess that is still far into the future before we reach that limitation. So consoles still have much room in that regard.

Plus there is also things like optical drives and stuff that could be upgraded in order to offer more capacity for games. The Wii and 360 still use DVD media, which is okay for most games but some games hit a point where they need to be split into two or more discs. Adding blu-ray drives like the PS3 is one advance, but there are also HVD and PED on the horizon that make blu-ray look like videocassette in comparison.

I've heard the NATAL thing for the 360 sucks a lot of processing power out of it, so if companies want to add new interfaces like that on their consoles then they need to beef up their specs in order to handle it. The 360 wasn't designed to handle something like that, so that's the sort of add-on that might justify a console upgrade.

[ShyGuy]

I hope it does as well as it did against the first Wii. lololololol

[KDR_11k]

Talking about a Wii 2 is pointless because there will not be one. The system after the Wii will be radically different and no matter whether Sony has the Move or even a move-enabled PS4 by then they will be side-stepped.

[Chozo Ghost]

There will be a Wii 2, just as surely as Nintendo will make another console. Of course, it is possible Nintendo won't call it "Wii 2", but I think with the insane popularity that the Wii enjoys they would be foolish not to tie the next system to the current one somehow (meaning, it should refer to Wii in its title).

The successor to the NES was the SUPER NES, so maybe the successor to Wii will be Super Wii?

[Ian Sane]

But that's just counting graphics. What about processing power? Consoles can still improve by beefing up in order for more advanced A.I., more enemies on screen, etc. There's really no limit there in how many times we can advance until we finally run into the limitations set by the theory of relativity. Processors won't be able to handle calculations faster than the speed of light, so that's a firm limit, but I guess that is still far into the future before we reach that limitation. So consoles still have much room in that regard.

Yeah, that does make a difference.  The question is how much of a difference does it make for the consumer to feel the need to upgrade.  The financial cost is also a factor.  You can go crazy making a game that makes full use of the most state-of-the-art hardware around but will it make back the cost of development?  That's already a concern now so I think that at the very least it would be dangerous to go further right now.  Let's wait until games that make full use of the PS3 right now are easily affordable to develop.
 
AI advances interest me the most though.  They could do some cool stuff.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

The won't; they haven't.

[Rize]

I think it's a mistake to assume the Wii 2 will be more powerful than the PS3 or 360.  If it is more powerful, I don't think it will be a significant increase.  Is the Wii even more powerful than the original Xbox?

[BlackNMild2k1]

Yes the Wii is more powerful than an Xbox, but you wouldn't know it since no one bothered to push it graphically (and the Wii doesn't use shader tech).

and the 360 is using at best 2004/2005 tech and ATi/IBM have just combined the chips into one.
PS3 is using 2006 tech and we don't expect a Wii2 until end of 2011 at the earliest.
You really don't think that PS360 level graphics will be affordable with improved wiimote tech 1.75years from now when the 360 has been profitable @ $200 for atleast a year now and the most expensive parts of PS3 are Cell and the Blu ray drive?

[Stogi]

I would love to see Mario Galaxy 3 on Wii 2 with an unlimited draw distance. There are no levels, just a constantly changing terrain. Now that would be impressive!

[Chozo Ghost]

But that's just counting graphics. What about processing power? Consoles can still improve by beefing up in order for more advanced A.I., more enemies on screen, etc. There's really no limit there in how many times we can advance until we finally run into the limitations set by the theory of relativity. Processors won't be able to handle calculations faster than the speed of light, so that's a firm limit, but I guess that is still far into the future before we reach that limitation. So consoles still have much room in that regard.

Yeah, that does make a difference.  The question is how much of a difference does it make for the consumer to feel the need to upgrade.  The financial cost is also a factor.  You can go crazy making a game that makes full use of the most state-of-the-art hardware around but will it make back the cost of development?  That's already a concern now so I think that at the very least it would be dangerous to go further right now.  Let's wait until games that make full use of the PS3 right now are easily affordable to develop.
 
AI advances interest me the most though.  They could do some cool stuff.

Gunpei Yokoi pioneered the right idea which he called "lateral withering". It means you wait until a technology gets really old and dirt cheap, then you grab it and start using it for something different, such as video games. That was his thinking that led to the game & watch and the Gameboy, among other things. If you think about it, the Gameboy was pretty outdated even when it was new. It was the only handheld that lacked a full color display (unless you also count the virtual boy as a handheld, but I don't because it isn't hand held). Yes, it was the first handheld thing, but the Gamegear and Lynx weren't too far behind it and they were full colored, so it proved Nintendo didn't HAVE to make it display everything in spinach color, but that ended up making the Gameboy the cheapest console of all and also had the best battery life by far.

If you think about it, the Wii is a lot like the Gameboy because it is the market leader yet is underpowered compared to its competitors. That's no accident. Even though Gunpei Yokoi is dead and no longer with the company, his thinking helped influence Iwata among others, and that's why Nintendo still embraces the "lateral withering" principle, and its worked out well for them.

But my point is that current HD graphics and cell processors and all that are also "laterally withering". They're not cheap today, but in a couple years they probably will be. See, the PS3 launched at $600, right? That's because it embraced cutting edge technology that hadn't "laterally withered" yet. With the Slim model they were able to include components that had been manufactured for awhile so the price had come down, and that's why the PS3 is now half the price it was at launch. Wait another 2 years and it might be half of what it is now.

That would be the perfect time for Nintendo to embrace that sort of technology. Not only will those components be cheaper, but they will be much better as well. Graphically speaking, they won't offer much noticeably improvement over current HD systems, but the Wii 2.0 could still beat the PS3 in things like A.I. and so forth.

Just remember, the Wii 2.0 doesn't need to be a "super computer" like the PS3 was in 2006. It can just use budget 2011-2012 components and still have something that's better than the PS3. Gunpei Yokoi was a genius, and its reassuring to know that Iwata is taking time and waiting for technology to come down before embracing it, unlike Sony or MS who don't have the patience and just embrace it by creating a system that is expensive and doesn't sell very well. Sony is doing better now that they've brought the price of their system down, but had they used less cutting edge components from the start they would probably still be the market leader. If you start out with components that are already cheap, then you won't need to wait for costs to come down, and $600 was just too much. They're doing better now, but it doesn't justify the cost of dropping from 1st place to 3rd in a single generation.

[Chozo Ghost]

Yes the Wii is more powerful than an Xbox, but you wouldn't know it since no one bothered to push it graphically (and the Wii doesn't use shader tech).

and the 360 is using at best 2004/2005 tech and ATi/IBM have just combined the chips into one.
PS3 is using 2006 tech and we don't expect a Wii2 until end of 2011 at the earliest.
You really don't think that PS360 level graphics will be affordable with improved wiimote tech 1.75years from now when the 360 has been profitable @ $200 for atleast a year now and the most expensive parts of PS3 are Cell and the Blu ray drive?

Back in the late 90s and early 2000s there were those hyped up supercomputers like Deep Blue, which IBM and everyone made a big deal out of and how they could beat Gary Kasparov and all that. Well, Nowadays you can go into your local walmart and get a sub-$300 that's probably 10 times as powerful as those old supercomputers. That's just how technology goes. It starts out expensive, and tomorrow its some budget thing.

[TJ Spyke]

That reminds me of something I saw on NASA TV about the computer that was used to land Apollo 11 on the moon. It only had 64KB of memory and a 0.043MHz processor (meaning that the average USB stick is more powerful than the computer that put man on the moon).

[BlackNMild2k1]

That reminds me of something I saw on NASA TV about the computer that was used to land Apollo 11 on the moon. It only had 64KB of memory and a 0.043MHz processor (meaning that the average USB stick is more powerful than the computer that put man on the moon).

Yet it's too complicated and expensive to go back..... :hugerolleyes:

[ThePerm]

lol this is a stupid thread, the ps3 can't even compete with the Wii 1

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

lol this is a stupid thread, the ps3 can't even compete with the Wii 1

[KDR_11k]

That reminds me of something I saw on NASA TV about the computer that was used to land Apollo 11 on the moon. It only had 64KB of memory and a 0.043MHz processor (meaning that the average USB stick is more powerful than the computer that put man on the moon).

Really? I heard they used C64s but either way... NASA uses old technology on purpose, they bought up Atari 2600s some years ago to upgrade their computers. Old tech has been tested and is fairly large, larger tech means space radiation has less chance of corrupting the data. If you take a modern computer into space you're not going to get anything done.

[ThePerm]

unless its covered with a layer of polyethylene and aluminum, then of course added ventilation, because my radiation suit gets hot as hell.

[Stratos]

It's funny to think that my old Brick Gameboy is more powerful than what landed man on the moon.

[SixthAngel]

Why is everyone talking about the price of the system components going down?  The real increase in price is the money that must be spent on games with all the new trimmings.  That is the true cost for creating a new sytem for a first party heavy company like Nintendo and I haven't seen anything to show me the price has dropped much.

lol this is a stupid thread, the ps3 can't even compete with the Wii 1

[Ian Sane]

Why is everyone talking about the price of the system components going down?  The real increase in price is the money that must be spent on games with all the new trimmings.  That is the true cost for creating a new sytem for a first party heavy company like Nintendo and I haven't seen anything to show me the price has dropped much.

Most of Nintendo's Wii games wouldn't even be considered exceptional looking Gamecube games.  I've never seen a company of such quality that so blatantly cheaps out on the extras like Nintendo does.  So introducing new hardware won't raise Nintendo's dev costs much.  For them I think the purpose would be to introduce a further revision to the controller where they can be sure 100% of the userbase has it and to respark hardware sales as the Wii sales trail off.  Upping the specs is something they'll do to support HD because not supporting that TV standard will be seen as missing a feature the general public will at that point expect all consumer electronics to support.  Retro and third parties might push the hardware but NCL will continue making Mii games that will look indistinguishable from Wii Sports.  Actually I can imagine them making HD support optional for Wii 2 games (I believe the other consoles make it mandatory) and then never supporting it themselves.
 
But then I would not be surprised if Nintendo just added some wonky feature to the controller and released a Gamecube 1.75 that still doesn't support HD.  I don't really expect them to do that but in the back of my mind I can imagine them doing it.

[Guitar Smasher]

Why is everyone talking about the price of the system components going down?  The real increase in price is the money that must be spent on games with all the new trimmings.  That is the true cost for creating a new sytem for a first party heavy company like Nintendo and I haven't seen anything to show me the price has dropped much.

Most of Nintendo's Wii games wouldn't even be considered exceptional looking Gamecube games.  I've never seen a company of such quality that so blatantly cheaps out on the extras like Nintendo does....
 ...Retro and third parties might push the hardware but NCL will continue making Mii games that will look indistinguishable from Wii Sports.

Have you ever considered that perhaps the charm and cuteness of Mii games contributed to their success?  Do you think a super-realistic avatar will produce the same response as a funny looking Mii?  There's a reason why political satirists use caricatures in their cartoons.

And way to over-exaggerate the use of Mii-graphics.  Retro/Third parties aren't the only ones making games with at-least-as-good GC graphics.  I know you own some of these games too.

But then I would not be surprised if Nintendo just added some wonky feature to the controller and released a Gamecube 1.75 that still doesn't support HD.  I don't really expect them to do that but in the back of my mind I can imagine them doing it.

You're being a drama queen.  You're not actually imagining this, so quit trying to start a fire.

[broodwars]

Have you ever considered that perhaps the charm and cuteness of Mii games contributed to their success?  Do you think a super-realistic avatar will produce the same response as a funny looking Mii?  There's a reason why political satirists use caricatures in their cartoons.

I don't think he's arguing for "super-realistic" graphics, just ones that are actually on-par with what the Wii can accomplish.  Look at Wind Waker, a title on the GameCube that still has better production values than most of what Nintendo puts out on the Wii, and it's super-cartoony.

[Ian Sane]

I have no issue with Wii Sports graphics in that I feel it suits the game fine.  But Nintendo doesn't push the graphic envelope with virtually any of their games.  Does NSMB Wii wow you with its visuals?  So I'm noting that for Nintendo the cost of the frills of HD won't raise the development of their games because they don't bother much with frills to begin with.  Most of their games have a graphic quality I would best describe as adequate.  Nintendo will never make something like Final Fantasy XIII regardless of what hardware they have to work with.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

You're arguing about how Nintendo doesn't push their graphic envelope regarding their representation of their cartoon characters.

Think about that for a sec.  Maybe a couple hours, if need be.

EDIT:  Remind yourself that Nintendo is also responsible for my avatar, a textured, live-action respresentation of a character they made.  Checkout those graphics.

[BlackNMild2k1]

You're arguing about how Nintendo doesn't push their graphic envelope regarding their representation of their cartoon characters.

Think about that for a sec.  Maybe a couple hours, if need be.

EDIT:  Remind yourself that Nintendo is also responsible for my avatar, a textured, live-action respresentation of a character they made.  Checkout those graphics.

[ThePerm]

as for inhouse developed games Mario Galaxy has pretty spiffy graphics, if you recall in the original Mario Galaxy thread it starts off with me saying they are nothing special, and then me changing my mind when i see more screens/video. Metroid Prime 3 looks to be a step up on what Gamecube can do, but not by too much. Twilight Princess is almost in the same way as Metroid Prime 3, im pretty sure in June we'll see a Zelda game made with Wii Power in mind. 2009 was a pretty slim year as far as Wii goes, they had nothing to show at e3, but there have been several years of development for bigger projects that we'll see soon. I'm being optimistic this e3, but never get your hopes too far up. We are due for something.

[Chozo Ghost]

Most of Nintendo's Wii games wouldn't even be considered exceptional looking Gamecube games.  I've never seen a company of such quality that so blatantly cheaps out on the extras like Nintendo does.  So introducing new hardware won't raise Nintendo's dev costs much.  For them I think the purpose would be to introduce a further revision to the controller where they can be sure 100% of the userbase has it and to respark hardware sales as the Wii sales trail off.  Upping the specs is something they'll do to support HD because not supporting that TV standard will be seen as missing a feature the general public will at that point expect all consumer electronics to support.  Retro and third parties might push the hardware but NCL will continue making Mii games that will look indistinguishable from Wii Sports.  Actually I can imagine them making HD support optional for Wii 2 games (I believe the other consoles make it mandatory) and then never supporting it themselves.

That's a possibility, and I would be okay with it. Make hardware that CAN support HD, but don't force that on developers as a requirement. I think that's actually a perfect solution.
 

But then I would not be surprised if Nintendo just added some wonky feature to the controller and released a Gamecube 1.75 that still doesn't support HD.  I don't really expect them to do that but in the back of my mind I can imagine them doing it.

If you've ever looked at the leaked system specs for the Wii and compared them to the GC you should have noticed the Wii is much more powerful than GC 1.75 already. For example, the GC dolphin processor was like 233mhz or so, whereas the Wii's broadway processor is 734mhz or something. The Wii also has much more RAM and a better GPU. Nintendo said the Wii is 2.5 to 3 times more powerful than the GC, and by looking at the leaked specs that seems about right to me.

But when you say most Wii games don't make use of that capability, you are absolutely correct. Ninteno's games this generation have relied on shitty Mii graphics, and that's an insult to what the Wii is actually capable of doing. The Wii is capable of better graphics than the original xbox, but we seldom see games that come close to it. It isn't the hardware's fault. The problem is a combination of last-gen ports and non-game casual crap that's flooded the system. The Wii is capable of better graphics, but its just not being done.

With that said, I guess its just as well Nintendo released the Wii as weak as it is, since even in its weak state its still not reaching its full potential. Imagine if the Wii had HD graphics and was as powerful as the competition, but still all we got was shitty Mii games.

The irony of the Wii 2 might be that Nintendo releases a cutting edge system that has more horsepower than the PS3, but even so they bundle it with Wii Sports 2.0 which still uses the same shitty Miis as the last system. Wouldn't that be funny?

[Chozo Ghost]

One good analogy someone could use for the Wii/GC comparison is to say the GC was a boombox that could only play audio cassettes, and then the Wii is a boombox that can play both audio cassettes and CDs, but the problem is you don't own any CDs and you aren't aware it can play them. So you are only using half of what the system is capable of, and you're left thinking that you were ripped off because it isn't doing anything different than what you had before. But it is capable of more, and most people don't realize that.

Its like someone buying a computer and only using it to play solitaire. That's very much like how it is for the casual gamers who buy the Wii only for the Mii enabled games. They have a piece of hardware capable of doing a lot, but they only play solitaire so its basically wasted for the most part. Then developers compound the problem by delivering more "solitaire" games and nothing else becuase they perceive that's what the market demands. It becoems a vicious cycle.

[NWR_insanolord]

Why is everyone talking about the price of the system components going down?  The real increase in price is the money that must be spent on games with all the new trimmings.  That is the true cost for creating a new sytem for a first party heavy company like Nintendo and I haven't seen anything to show me the price has dropped much.

Most of Nintendo's Wii games wouldn't even be considered exceptional looking Gamecube games.  I've never seen a company of such quality that so blatantly cheaps out on the extras like Nintendo does.  So introducing new hardware won't raise Nintendo's dev costs much.  For them I think the purpose would be to introduce a further revision to the controller where they can be sure 100% of the userbase has it and to respark hardware sales as the Wii sales trail off.  Upping the specs is something they'll do to support HD because not supporting that TV standard will be seen as missing a feature the general public will at that point expect all consumer electronics to support.  Retro and third parties might push the hardware but NCL will continue making Mii games that will look indistinguishable from Wii Sports.  Actually I can imagine them making HD support optional for Wii 2 games (I believe the other consoles make it mandatory) and then never supporting it themselves.
 
But then I would not be surprised if Nintendo just added some wonky feature to the controller and released a Gamecube 1.75 that still doesn't support HD.  I don't really expect them to do that but in the back of my mind I can imagine them doing it.

I guarantee you that Nintendo will not force developers to support HD on their next console. They don't force Wii developers to support widescreen or even 480p, and I doubt they'll even require that much next time around.

[ThePerm]

well i mean having higher clockspeeds is fine and dandy, but because shaders ad power exponentially and the wii has limited shader use it makes it harder for companies to match the power on other systems. On the other hand if developers do work hard they can dish out some pretty content. It just takes some effort and time. Possibly there could be a whole slew of games coming out for Wii with really good graphics. Actually, if anyone knew anything about shaders it means that the lack of shaders mean that developers got to start being way more creative with bump mapping and textures. While making my Half-life 2 levels i just figured screw it, i'll just have really high resolution textures, and really there wasn't a huge dip on graphics, especially if i turned down luxel resolution.

[Rize]

I agree Nintendo will not force developers to support HD, but Nintendo will always support it on the Wii 2 and the best developers will as well.  Any games us "hardcore" gamers want to play will support it... with the possible exception of Wii-Ware stuff.

Concerning Wii vs. Xbox: you can say it is more powerful except it has a "different" (read: inferior) shader model.  That's a pretty important difference.  Obviously technology needs to be paired with good art, but developers are definitely figuring out how to make shaders look really good now.

So a big question for the Wii 2 is will Nintendo make the switch to the modern shader model?  You would think that would be a good idea now that most developers are experienced with it, but to use it properly ups the art costs dramatically.  Meanwhile, they need to worry about backward compatibility as well (I'm sure they'd love to continue selling the same Wii-Ware and Virtual Console titles).

In any case, it's practically certain that whatever the Wii 2 is, it will quickly (if not immediately) be far out-classed by the NextBox and the PS4 whenever they arrive, and whatever power it has will go largely unused.  Basically, the same situation you have with the Wii now.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

It will dominate the market.  Right.