Topic: Free Radical says no to Wii

[ShyGuy]

Aha! I was right! It was Twilight Princess. I demand an apology from Vudu. And his firstborn child.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Your welcome!

Ah. You killed it with the wrong spelling of you're...

You'll have to excuse me. English is my first language.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[ruby_onix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
I love how everytime the price of the Wii is brought up, about how it doesn't match the graphical quality of the Xbox 360.

Newsflash you (internets) idiots (generally speaking), the cost is coming from the Wiimote.

I have no idea how that has
seemingly.
escaped.
every.
last.
person.
on.
the.
internets.

"It costs 200 and hardly looks better than the GC."  So f*cking what.  We're paying for the interface on the premise that it makes games better to play, and frankly I'd rather get a cheaper console that gives me that than getting an Xbox 1.5 or a PS2 1.5.

This might be because I have this crazy notion that I like how my games play, not how they look.

The accelerometers in the Wiimote are supposedly commonly available for around five bucks apiece. Two in the Wiimote. Probably another two in the nunchuck (which we might chalk up to an inadequate main remote). Infared LEDs and sensors are really cheap. Maybe an extra $20 added to the price because of the new controller functionality. Which is probably all that they saved by going with technology that's 18 months more advanced than the GameCube, when they could've made it five years more advanced (the point of diminishing returns goes both ways).

But if you like your fun games to be ugly (or MIA), then I'm sure you'll be happy with Nintendo's decision.

[Kairon]

When Microsoft loses money on each X360 sold, and is currently trying to reduce manufacturing costs such that THEY can save money, not consumers, then you have to wonder if a mass market price console with X360 level capabilities is possible.

The X360 must cost somewhere around $450 to manufacture, but a $150 loss on each unit is still quite below what analysts have guessed the situation is. And Microsoft lost $6 billion last gen, and are ready to lose another $6 billion this time around: they're only expecting their games division to profit with their third console. Sony likewise has said that when all is said and done, it will take them 5 years to break even on the PS3, much like it took them 5 years to break even on the PS2.

With hardware getting this expensive, for both manufacturer's AND consumers, it can easily be imagined that XBox 360 graphics come at too high a cost for all involved.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[GoldenPhoenix]

Ruby you are also forgetting research and development, I am willing to bet that was tremendously high. The price of the controller has more included in it than the basic parts used to create it. Regarding graphics, it is funny because the first party games I've seen don't look at ugly at all but in fact look visually appealing, whether it be Mario Galaxy, Project Hammer or Excitetruck.

[Nick DiMola]

People can talk all they want about how ugly the Wii's graphics are going to be but, the 360 graphics really aren't that spectacular in most of the games I have played. For the most part I thought the Cube's graphics were pretty nice and I'm sure the Wii's will be even better considering they are double the Cube's specs. Resident Evil 4 by no means is ugly and that's only a mere Gamecube game, if I can expect better than that, you won't hear a peep out of me about the Wii's technical prowess.

My question to everybody: At what point did not as good as Microsoft and Sony become ugly? It's funny but I think the people who love Nintendo the most are the harshest on Nintendo's decisions. I'm going to make it easy for everyone, when the Wii comes out you will all buy one(because you are Nintendo fanboys). You will love it and all of the "problems" you have with the system will disappear because you will realize that the games are fun(as they usually are with Nintendo). So please give up the arguments, the graphics are what they are. If developers want to hop on board great, if not, see ya later. Free Radical was great because they changed the pace of Console FPS's. Who knows what small developer is out there, that will be enabled by the Wii and create the next big thing in gaming. I accept what the Wii is and you should too.

[Ceric]

That being said.  As Kairon said.  What point is enough?  I mean here we are and we expect a ~$200 price point but we expect the trappings of a ~$2000 dollar computer, dramatic exageration also not home built.  That's ridiculous.  You shouldn't have to lose money on your product.  As long as we expect to pay ~$200 or less then ~$1000 dollars then we get a couple years or months old technology.  Optimized but still a few years or months old that's how it is.  I got to look at Blu-ray and HD-DVD players yesterday.  ~$1000 and ~$800.  What do they do?  They play movies.  Thats it.  A very specific task with much less variables then a console has to deal with and probably requiring less technology and people are willing to pay that much and we gripe about how are more powerful game consoles and like are trying to move out of the $200 price range.  Then just in the price range of what the Wii costs are the DVD Recorders and they go up from their.  Personally yes, I don't want to pay a whole lot for a console but I'm also willing to accept that means some trade offs.  PC's will always be better because it's more what your willing to spend more than anything else and they grow over time.  Consoles are static but they do there job well and are more reliable.  It's a trade-off.  Thats all.  We'll still see amazing things.  I am excited about the coming of the Wii.  Graphically flawed or not.

[Strell]

Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix


The accelerometers in the Wiimote are supposedly commonly available for around five bucks apiece. Two in the Wiimote. Probably another two in the nunchuck (which we might chalk up to an inadequate main remote). Infared LEDs and sensors are really cheap. Maybe an extra $20 added to the price because of the new controller functionality. Which is probably all that they saved by going with technology that's 18 months more advanced than the GameCube, when they could've made it five years more advanced (the point of diminishing returns goes both ways).

But if you like your fun games to be ugly (or MIA), then I'm sure you'll be happy with Nintendo's decision.

Except that you are horribly oversimplifying the entire process and talking nonsense.

You're throwing out research and development costs, which I'm sure is what Nintendo is charging for, not to mention that it will continue in their pursuit to developing new interfaces for gameplay.

Just because the tech costs (supposedly, I might add) "20 bucks" to you doesn't mean it actually costs that to make it and implement it, which is exactly what I was pointing out to begin with.  If it were that simple, no one would have calibration problems, there'd have been no redesign of the controller, and all the E3 demos would have performed without issue.  

Let's not forget that you're still leaving out all sorts of tech hidden in the controller that we may not even know about yet.  We still know nothing about the internal speaker beyond a little choice descriptions, and there is room for a microphone and possibly Internet calling.

So regardless of what you think and the prices you looked up on eBay or amazon.com, they don't translate that easily to your made-up cost figures.  

I'm not even going to mention that this helps Nintendo keep from having a big loss per system AND cuts down on game development, which translates to more games cheaper to me.  No, I'm not going to mention that.  ... Except that I just did.

As for "ugly games," I'm quite happy with the graphical power of the Xbox and the GC.  Hell, the PS2 even pushes incredible graphics still.  So by no means do I expect Wii games to be ugly at all.  You're just attaching a stupid personal stigma/bias to it and calling it bone hard fact, when it's just your preference talking like a gradeschooler.  Hell, I'm happy with the Dreamcast to a certain degree.  I don't need to have a bumpmapped guy running around on my screen wearing a lot of armor when he looks like a plastic doll and is firmly in the trenches of the Uncanny Valley.  Nor do I want to have repetitive crap tech demo games shoveled down year after year because every last stupid developer just HAD to write their own 3D engine, and not only does it render one cloud, it renders two, which clearly makes all those hours spent developing it - just so it could do the same thing everyone else's engine does - like, totally worth it.

Beyond even that, if the game is fun, then yes, that is all I need.  Do you not play old games at all?  Do you get headahces from playing Chrono Trigger?  Or Earthbound?  Or Pokemon?  Or anything on the GBA?  Anything that will be on the virtual console?

I don't think so.

And if you do, you have serious problems, and I'll suggest a $600 cure from Sony is in order.
   

[Mario]

Quote
Hell, the PS2 even pushes incredible graphics still.

Honestly, Grand Prix Challenge from 2002 graphically looks exactly the same as Formula One PS3. It's also a locked 60 FPS which F1 PS3 does not look like it will achieve.

[getter77]

It amazes me how some people can get tunnel vision on this entire situation so quickly.  Let's review:

NES: Simple 2-D
SNES: Moderate 2-D
N64: Simple-Moderate 3-D
GC: Advanced 3-D
Wii: (VR is all that is left after Advanced 3-D)

So then, exactly HOW is Nintendo being unreasonable with being the only console following the natural progression of gaming...as opposed to trying to linger in the GC Era of gaming for another....hmmm...DECADE(at least) like Sony wants?

The Wii follows in line exactly with their previous system jumps.  No crazy exponential jumps.  Before the 360 and PS3, the console jumps were reasonable....NES>>>>SNES and such.   Not SMS>>>>Dreamcast somehow during the time when the Genesis would've come out.

Because Nintendo chose NOT to bloat their hardware, which only serves at this point to cut more time off the clock to work with until the gaming industry hits the old VR wall, that means the Wii is "weaksauce trash"?  Because they are changing the interface that we've all been using since the N64 to the next LOGICAL step...that merits them getting egg on their face?

Folk are either crazy, short-sighted, or simply not thinking this whole situation through.  Let's see how long it takes, if ever, for devs to max out the potential for gaming quality on the PS3 and 360 vs the low learning curve + cheap dev + better gamign interface Wii?  If the PS3 actually lasts a full decade...they might...but who actually expects them to do so?  Nintendo puts Sisyphus and his "gaming/graphic boulder" on a freaking escalator going up compared to the competion

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: getter77
Nintendo puts Sisyphus and his "gaming/graphic boulder" on a freaking escalator going up compared to the competion

Oooh. Greek Mythology. Let's see the NSider forums match that!

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Requiem]

I say BOO! to this topic!



BOOO!

[Strell]

Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
I say BOO! to this topic!



BOOO!

.....

Hooray beer!

[Kairon]

LOL

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[getter77]

LOL indeed!

[The Omen]

Quote
Really, what makes you think they won't end up playing with the Wii and decide to make an original game for it exclusively?

Their association with EA?

Most clueless response quite possibly ....ever.  EA has supported the GC more than any other 3rd party(even though, by the numbers, the GC surely didn't deserve it), and are at the forefront of actually integrating the Wii controls into their flagship titles.  

I'm slightly pissed off about missing out on Free Radical, but I think they'll be on board with other games.  

[BlackNMild2k1]

Quote
Originally posted by: getter77
It amazes me how some people can get tunnel vision on this entire situation so quickly.  Let's review:

NES: Simple 2-D
SNES: Moderate 2-D
N64: Simple-Moderate 3-D
GC: Advanced 3-D
Wii: (VR is all that is left after Advanced 3-D)

how I compare your chart:

Addition/Subtraction: Simple 2d Math
Multiply/Divide: Moderate 2d Math
Decimals/Fractions: Simple-Moderate 3d Math
Algebra: Advanced 3d Math
Calculus: Complex 3d Math

thats what Wii will fall under is Complex 3-D
3-D visuals combined with 3-D movement
after that you create 360 degree visuals with your 3-D movement and you have VR

Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
I'm slightly pissed off about missing out on Free Radical, but I think they'll be on board with other games.

Well, all they(FR) said was that their original vision of HAZE was to work on an engine that may be too powerful for the Wii to run, not that they would never release a game on Wii and absolutley hate the hardware. I understand that some people might want to play HAZE, but who knows, maybe if the Wii really takes off like everone thinks it might, maybe they will port it down to a lesser engine that the Wii can support and then we can all watch as Nintendo fans don't buy the game anyway, since it a late port, but thats what they get for missing the bus that Wii is driving.

[ShyGuy]

I heard that new TROLL game for the 360 is not fun, but it isn't ugly

[IceCold]

Ubisoft will probably gauge the reaction on Red Steel, and if it does well, we may end up seeing a Free Radical exclusive..

[GoldenPhoenix]

I know this is a bit off topic, but why in the heck do people complain about a potential 200$ price tag for Wii? It makes sense to me, especially since the original Xbox is 150$ or so, and Wii will be more powerful than that, in addition to some neat things bundled in with it.

[IceCold]

And did you know that if you wanted the 360 to be WiFi compatible, which the Wii is out of the box, you have to pay an additional $130 CDN? I agree; a $200 pricepoint would be wonderful; the Wii's features more than justify that price.

[ruby_onix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
People can talk all they want about how ugly the Wii's graphics are going to be but, the 360 graphics really aren't that spectacular in most of the games I have played. For the most part I thought the Cube's graphics were pretty nice and I'm sure the Wii's will be even better considering they are double the Cube's specs. Resident Evil 4 by no means is ugly and that's only a mere Gamecube game, if I can expect better than that, you won't hear a peep out of me about the Wii's technical prowess.

My question to everybody: At what point did not as good as Microsoft and Sony become ugly? It's funny but I think the people who love Nintendo the most are the harshest on Nintendo's decisions.

I never said Wii or GameCube games were ugly. I was responding to someone who said that all he cared about was how the games played, not how they looked.

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Ruby you are also forgetting research and development, I am willing to bet that was tremendously high. The price of the controller has more included in it than the basic parts used to create it. Regarding graphics, it is funny because the first party games I've seen don't look at ugly at all but in fact look visually appealing, whether it be Mario Galaxy, Project Hammer or Excitetruck.

I consider R&D to be a one-time investment in Nintendo's vision of the future, not a material cost of the hardware. And Nintendo has always had that running. It comes out of Nintendo's (very healthy) bottom line. Did SNES owners have to pay for the botched SNES CD? Were we paying an increased price for the N64 hardware because of the 64DD, or experiments with analog? Of course not. How about the Virtual Boy development? Which console paid for that one? Was the GameCube hardware expensive because of all that "connectivity" reasearch? Of course, Iwata has been talking about making us pay for it this time.

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
When Microsoft loses money on each X360 sold, and is currently trying to reduce manufacturing costs such that THEY can save money, not consumers, then you have to wonder if a mass market price console with X360 level capabilities is possible.

The X360 must cost somewhere around $450 to manufacture, but a $150 loss on each unit is still quite below what analysts have guessed the situation is. And Microsoft lost $6 billion last gen, and are ready to lose another $6 billion this time around: they're only expecting their games division to profit with their third console. Sony likewise has said that when all is said and done, it will take them 5 years to break even on the PS3, much like it took them 5 years to break even on the PS2.

With hardware getting this expensive, for both manufacturer's AND consumers, it can easily be imagined that XBox 360 graphics come at too high a cost for all involved.

It's one year in, an MS is rumored to be considering a $100 price cut. That'd be $200 for the Retard Pack. And looking at the price speculation threads, some of you are lining up to pay $250 for Wii hardware that isn't even in the same league as it. Yes, MS is losing money on the Xbox360 hardware. But they've also got a number of extras that would be cut in a Nintendo console, like a hard drive, HD, and a headset with two of those terribly expensive speakers and a microphone.

Would you agree that the GameCube hit the "sweet spot" in terms of the most power for your money? And that it came in at $200? Moore's Law says that computers can double in strength every 18 months (yes, I know, it doesn't exactly apply to every situation). I don't see how anyone can think that five years later, a GameCube x2, at $200-250 is the best hardware Nintendo could possibly hope for.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
When Microsoft loses money on each X360 sold, and is currently trying to reduce manufacturing costs such that THEY can save money, not consumers, then you have to wonder if a mass market price console with X360 level capabilities is possible.

The X360 must cost somewhere around $450 to manufacture, but a $150 loss on each unit is still quite below what analysts have guessed the situation is. And Microsoft lost $6 billion last gen, and are ready to lose another $6 billion this time around: they're only expecting their games division to profit with their third console. Sony likewise has said that when all is said and done, it will take them 5 years to break even on the PS3, much like it took them 5 years to break even on the PS2.

With hardware getting this expensive, for both manufacturer's AND consumers, it can easily be imagined that XBox 360 graphics come at too high a cost for all involved.

It's one year in, an MS is rumored to be considering a $100 price cut. That'd be $200 for the Retard Pack. And looking at the price speculation threads, some of you are lining up to pay $250 for Wii hardware that isn't even in the same league as it. Yes, MS is losing money on the Xbox360 hardware. But they've also got a number of extras that would be cut in a Nintendo console, like a hard drive, HD, and a headset with two of those terribly expensive speakers and a microphone.

Would you agree that the GameCube hit the "sweet spot" in terms of the most power for your money? And that it came in at $200? Moore's Law says that computers can double in strength every 18 months (yes, I know, it doesn't exactly apply to every situation). I don't see how anyone can think that five years later, a GameCube x2, at $200-250 is the best hardware Nintendo could possibly hope for.

The latest rumours are that MS will consolidate their console at $400 for the console, Hard-Drive, 1250 gamer points, 3 months of XBox live, and Project Gotham Racing. They're STILL losing money. All of the latest rumblings about their new cheaper chipset manufacturing isn't about savings passd to consumers, but savings for MS so they can save a little bit of face when they announce how much money they lost on their next financial report.

Surely you don't advocate that Nintendo place themselves in the same position as Microsoft and Sony, hemorraghing money or looking at breaking even in 5 years? You, as a gamer, really want XBox 360 levels of hardware, but would you want that if you had to pay the X360's REAL price?

I mean, just look at what PC gamers have to put up with in terms of keeping up with cutting edge tech. Surely you don't believe that most consumers are ready for that level of financial commitment do you?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote

Would you agree that the GameCube hit the "sweet spot" in terms of the most power for your money? And that it came in at $200? Moore's Law says that computers can double in strength every 18 months (yes, I know, it doesn't exactly apply to every situation). I don't see how anyone can think that five years later, a GameCube x2, at $200-250 is the best hardware Nintendo could possibly hope for.

If the Wii comes bundled with an extra controller a game and perhaps some other goodies, then I see no reason why the 200$ price isn't justified. Like I stated previously the Xbox still runs for 150$ and that is for the bare bones version, so what is so horrifying about the Wii being 50$ more when it is not only more powerful (how much so remains to be seen) but will most likely be bundled with extras. Sounds like a heck of a deal to me!

In response to your R&D point, I was mainly referring to figuring the price for the controller, you HAVE to include R&D somewhere in your prices, heck look at Xbox 360's controller being 40-50$, you can't tell me that is the true cost of the parts. You are also forgetting that this generation is not like any other generation before for NIntendo, their focus is on the controller and thus most of the cost will be derived from that instead of hardware, with the GC all they needed to worry about when it came to cost was a relatively generic controller and what was under the hood.

P.S. I thought Moore's law applied to processer speed?

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution

Quote

Would you agree that the GameCube hit the "sweet spot" in terms of the most power for your money? And that it came in at $200? Moore's Law says that computers can double in strength every 18 months (yes, I know, it doesn't exactly apply to every situation). I don't see how anyone can think that five years later, a GameCube x2, at $200-250 is the best hardware Nintendo could possibly hope for.

If the Wii comes bundled with an extra controller a game and perhaps some other goodies, then I see no reason why the 200$ price isn't justified. Like I stated previously the Xbox still runs for 150$ and that is for the bare bones version, so what is so horrifying about the Wii being 50$ more when it is not only more powerful (how much so remains to be seen) but will most likely be bundled with extras. Sounds like a heck of a deal to me!

In response to your R&D point, I was mainly referring to figuring the price for the controller, you HAVE to include R&D somewhere in your prices, heck look at Xbox 360's controller being 40-50$, you can't tell me that is the true cost of the parts. You are also forgetting that this generation is not like any other generation before for NIntendo, their focus is on the controller and thus most of the cost will be derived from that instead of hardware, with the GC all they needed to worry about when it came to cost was a relatively generic controller and what was under the hood.

P.S. I thought Moore's law applied to processer speed?

Ooh. Good points. I wonder how MS can justify their $40 dollar wired controller and $50 wireless one. Unlike Nintendo, they didn't spend 2+ years experimenting to make that thing.

And I thought that Moore's Law didn't apply to speed or power at all, but instead merely to the number of transistors they stick on a chip?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com