Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 29, 2006, 09:56:02 PM
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/nintendo/free-radical-wii-cant-handle-our-game-190723.php
"If you're riding steerage on the cruise to next-gen gaming, part of the "One Console Future" crowd, and your primary console is going to be the Nintendo Wii, you won't be joining the rest of us at Free Radical's ritzy Haze party. The Timesplitters and Second Sight dev says they're just going to require a little more horsepower under the hood for their next-gen FPS.
"There are currently no plans for a Wii version of Haze. Sadly, the cutting-edge technology we're using requires more power than the Wii has available. If we could, we would."
I've seen the still pics of this game and does look amazing, but it remains to be seen if this game is a big loss. We still don't know how it will turn out in the end (especially if those purty graphics can hold up during gameplay). Let's say for arguments sake that it turns out good, I think Free Radical may start making Wii games if the system sells well, even if they do have to make some graphical sacrifices. Whatever their descision is, I don't think I'll be affected much either way since I am not a big fan of their games, but it still would be nice to get more 3rd party support. It should be interesting to see what the future holds about a year down the line, I predict that companies like Free Radical will tone down the graphical complaints and instead try to get onto the Wii bandwagon any way they can through gameplay/control focus (What an amazing idea!).
Post by: Kairon on July 29, 2006, 10:12:43 PM
But these are trade-offs that you have to accept if you intend to buy only one console. On one hand you have games that promise you higher technical toys, more resolution, neat little physics effects that dictate how enemies die, etc. On the other hand you have a brand new input, meaning brand new ways to interact with games. Some developers choose one path, and that's fine. *shrug* I've simply cast my chips with the developers who go down the road less travelled.
So good luck to Free Radical! They've got technology that will be cross-platform across the PS3, X360, and PC, and an FPS to prove it! Sadly, it won't be on the Wii... but *clasps hands together* C'est la vie!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ShyGuy on July 29, 2006, 10:48:05 PM
But seriously, let them do their thing/ PS3 and 360 need some games that give them a "reason for being". Otherwise, they'll end up like the PSP.
If it's super fantastic fun time, I'll check it out on the PC.
Post by: KirbySStar on July 29, 2006, 11:51:44 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 30, 2006, 03:27:19 AM
Their association with EA?
Post by: Magik on July 30, 2006, 03:47:31 AM
Anyways, people shouldn't get mad or pissed off about the Wii not getting Haze since it was never coming to the Wii from the very beginning.
*waits for the boat-jumpers screaming 'Free Radical sucks!'*
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on July 30, 2006, 03:59:35 AM
Post by: Edfishy on July 30, 2006, 05:51:40 AM
Post by: Arbok on July 30, 2006, 09:44:23 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 30, 2006, 10:23:49 AM
DOOM THEM FOREVER WITH SECOND-SIGHT-CLASS SALES.
Time to sell my copy of Time Splitters FP! (the game's aiming is broken anyway, the vertical axis movement is craptastically slow and the non-fixed camera aiming is horribly off. Good thing I only got it for $10 off amazon)
Apparently they're making games for the sake of having PURDY GAFFIX.
Post by: Requiem on July 30, 2006, 10:24:24 AM
However, Haze doesn't look like TP at all....(I like Free Radical's art style -- especially those DeerMen!)
Post by: Kairon on July 30, 2006, 10:30:44 AM
Read!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 30, 2006, 11:25:01 AM
Post by: Strell on July 30, 2006, 11:40:34 AM
I'm more interested in DoubleFine anyway.
Yes, not comparable, I know, but I'm just saying screw the companies that think they are big sh*t when I could just as easily have a lot more fun with someone focusing on something original.
Post by: Kairon on July 30, 2006, 11:50:36 AM
WWMD. What Would Miyamoto Do?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Strell on July 30, 2006, 12:07:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Haze might be original. Let's not bad mouth it before it comes out now. That's just mean.
WWMD. What Would Miyamoto Do?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
1. FPSes are hardly ever original. Out of the hundreds coming out, maybe 1-2 will have any original content. They can be fun, sure, but that's a different contention of argument.
2. When was the last time the Timesplitters series was original? Never, that's when.
Post by: Neodymium on July 30, 2006, 12:36:37 PM
I guess if you're an FPS fan then it sucks.
Post by: thejeek on July 30, 2006, 01:55:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Neodymium
Good thing FPS games are repetitive, mindless, kitschy affairs that are partly responsible for the downfall of video games.
Monkey Assistant!!!
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 30, 2006, 07:20:40 PM
That said, it still wasn't even that great. These people need to stop trying to do with a controller what NEEDS to be done with a mouse and keyboard (or a Wiimote).
Post by: cubist on July 30, 2006, 09:43:19 PM
Those who have written off Free Radical better take notice, they are THE Goldeneye Team along with Zoonami.
What the hell is going on with Zoonami anyway?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 30, 2006, 09:54:10 PM
And Zoonami is just a website that pretends to make games.
Post by: thejeek on July 31, 2006, 12:06:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Timesplitters 2 was the best console multiplayer FPS I've ever played.
That said, it still wasn't even that great. These people need to stop trying to do with a controller what NEEDS to be done with a mouse and keyboard (or a Wiimote).
TimeSplitters 2 - only console FPS worth playing. Pure genius.
MONKEY ASSISTANT!!!!!
Enough said
Post by: Mario on July 31, 2006, 12:10:53 AM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on July 31, 2006, 12:52:56 AM
No amount of frantic Haze style blasting will work.
"DRAW AFRICA, DRAW AFRICA, DRAW AFRICA"
Post by: Magik on July 31, 2006, 05:14:45 AM
Not having Haze is not a massive blow to the Wii at all when you consider the game was never intended for the Wii in the first place. The game was designed with having a powerful engine behind it from the very beginning.
Post by: Requiem on July 31, 2006, 05:28:30 AM
Post by: Bartman3010 on July 31, 2006, 06:00:44 AM
Anyway, seemed obvious with Haze, but the Time Splitter series might do well under the Wii or something...
Post by: Strell on July 31, 2006, 06:37:40 AM
All I'm saying is get ready to hear this a lot, Nintendo. Stupid bitch arrogant teams talking about how their "new engine is so awesome, it can render children in real time," and use that as an excuse to not develop for the Wii.
'Course, Sony is going to hear the same thing from smaller devs, only on the subject of money.
If you're not going to bother with making a game for the Wii because you're an idiot (Mark Rein) or some else equally as idiotic (horse power! HURRR!!!), then I just don't care. I'd rather have a small company like Nibris trying to do something partially new than hearing about how one of the 1000 new FPS game engines is too intense for the Wii, despite the fact that they all do the same thing.
I already said in previous posts that the more devs, the better. Even if they are truly crappy ones like Midway. So while I'd actually rather have FR around, if they are going to act like children, then forget it.
I mean, if you can't put 2 and 2 toghether and find that the Wiimote is the best damn thing for FPS games, there's simply something loose in your head.
Post by: Requiem on July 31, 2006, 06:45:44 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on July 31, 2006, 07:41:45 AM
Post by: Requiem on July 31, 2006, 08:22:35 AM
Time Splitters, or some other game, seems very probable now (if it hadn't before).
Post by: vudu on July 31, 2006, 12:13:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
TP is one of my favorite FPS series.
However, Haze doesn't look like TP at all....(I like Free Radical's art style -- especially those DeerMen!)
QuoteWhat the heck is TP? At first I thought it was a typo and you meant TS, but you keep doing it.
Originally posted by: Requiem
Well, I don't think Free Radical meant any disrespect. In fact, I bet they will mak a TP or something similar for the Wii after Haze. Especially since Future Perfect featured a weapon that would be PERFECT for the Wii. (the cyber-grappling hook thing).
Post by: ShyGuy on July 31, 2006, 12:25:42 PM
Post by: vudu on July 31, 2006, 12:35:34 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on July 31, 2006, 12:39:42 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on July 31, 2006, 12:40:25 PM
And Free Radical isn't making GameCube games anymore, because Iwata told developers that it was pointless a couple years ago.
Post by: vudu on July 31, 2006, 12:49:37 PM
QuoteBut it's not a series, smart ass.
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
But it IS a 3rd person shooter.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on July 31, 2006, 12:56:12 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on July 31, 2006, 01:38:56 PM
Post by: Kairon on July 31, 2006, 02:52:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix
The problem here is that Free Radical (among many others) has bought into the idea that next-gen is only higher rez, more special effects, more rag-doll physics, and Nintendo didn't make a console that catered to expensive blockbuster glitz-is-everything thinking(instead making a mass-market, realistically priced console, and giving it a "new-gen" input method so developers couldn't make unninovative sequel bash number XXX and then use a copout excuse).
Your welcome!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 31, 2006, 03:20:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix
The problem here is that Free Radical (among many others) has bought into the idea that next-gen is only higher rez, more special effects, more rag-doll physics, and Nintendo didn't make a console that catered to expensive blockbuster glitz-is-everything thinking(instead making a mass-market, realistically priced console, and giving it a "new-gen" input method so developers couldn't make unninovative sequel bash number XXX and then use a copout excuse).
Your welcome!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Lol that is great. Personally I find the Wii to be the most next generation console of the bunch since it is truly a step up when it comes to interacting with games not relying on graphical horsepower which is basically an evolution of gaming.
Post by: nemo_83 on July 31, 2006, 03:41:48 PM
The truth is there is no console that is superior. Nintendo has the next gen interface. MS has next gen visuals and online games. Sony has next gen visuals and the controller that should have been five years ago. There is no total package. Nintendo doesn't have games online at launch, Nintendo doesn't have next gen visuals, MS has an archaic complicated controller, Sony's driving away developers with costs, etc. It is coming down to consumer biases right now. Some are going to judge superiority by graphics, some will say it is all about gameplay, and the gamers who are not biased are going to feel jaded as usual because they have to buy a 360 and a Wii to get everything they want (Zelda and Halo) and they will begin to want them to be one system.
Post by: ruby_onix on July 31, 2006, 03:47:24 PM
Power costs money, but every year there's a new "sweet spot" where you get the most bang for your buck. I think Microsoft may have hit that point (graphically speaking) with the 360. But then they wasted some money by pushing it a little further so you could do those same things in HD (which they made manditory). I think Sony likely went too far with the PS3.
I think that Nintendo, coming in one year later and not adopting HD (although I still think it should be an option), should've been able to match MS's output at a significantly lower price, but by most accounts (even from Nintendo) it's not even in the same ballpark. They've aimed much lower than the sweet spot, and we don't even know if Nintendo's going to pass those savings they squeezed out of it down to us. A GameCube with 2x the CPU speed and 2x the RAM at 2x the price is not a deal. If it's $99, then yes, I'll be amazed. But nobody's predicting that, not even here.
You mentioned on page 1 that there are inherent tradeoffs in buying only one console. That we won't get MGS4 or FFXIII. We didn't get MGS2 and 3 because Konami didn't want to give them. We didn't get FFX and XII because Square didn't want to give them. The Wii is supposed to be all about changing people's minds about Nintendo, but even if they do change people's minds, we still won't get FF and MGS (in their current forms) because the Wii is incapable of accepting them. That's something that's not inherent to creativity or to Nintendo (N64 cartridge blunder aside).
Post by: Ceric on July 31, 2006, 04:53:02 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 31, 2006, 05:23:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix
Next gen consoles are supposed to have a nearly-exponential increase in power. How they want to use that power is up to the devs. If ragdoll physics are their thing, then good for them.
Power costs money, but every year there's a new "sweet spot" where you get the most bang for your buck. I think Microsoft may have hit that point (graphically speaking) with the 360. But then they wasted some money by pushing it a little further so you could do those same things in HD (which they made manditory). I think Sony likely went too far with the PS3.
I think that Nintendo, coming in one year later and not adopting HD (although I still think it should be an option), should've been able to match MS's output at a significantly lower price, but by most accounts (even from Nintendo) it's not even in the same ballpark. They've aimed much lower than the sweet spot, and we don't even know if Nintendo's going to pass those savings they squeezed out of it down to us. A GameCube with 2x the CPU speed and 2x the RAM at 2x the price is not a deal. If it's $99, then yes, I'll be amazed. But nobody's predicting that, not even here.
You mentioned on page 1 that there are inherent tradeoffs in buying only one console. That we won't get MGS4 or FFXIII. We didn't get MGS2 and 3 because Konami didn't want to give them. We didn't get FFX and XII because Square didn't want to give them. The Wii is supposed to be all about changing people's minds about Nintendo, but even if they do change people's minds, we still won't get FF and MGS (in their current forms) because the Wii is incapable of accepting them. That's something that's not inherent to creativity or to Nintendo (N64 cartridge blunder aside).
Gee I remember a time when next generation was determined more so by the games rather than the visual oomph a system has. Wii is the most "next" generation system because not only has it gotten a graphical increase, but it has also included a new way of interacting with games. Anyone can throw a bunch of graphical horsepower into a system, that isn't "next" anything, but a basic evolution of gaming. Now a new way of interacting with games in addition to a graphical boost is indeed next generation (something I felt this last generation lacked).
Post by: Kairon on July 31, 2006, 05:59:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix
You mentioned on page 1 that there are inherent tradeoffs in buying only one console. That we won't get MGS4 or FFXIII. We didn't get MGS2 and 3 because Konami didn't want to give them. We didn't get FFX and XII because Square didn't want to give them. The Wii is supposed to be all about changing people's minds about Nintendo, but even if they do change people's minds, we still won't get FF and MGS (in their current forms) because the Wii is incapable of accepting them. That's something that's not inherent to creativity or to Nintendo (N64 cartridge blunder aside).
That's a trade-off too. A single-console buyer will be asking themselves: which game? Wii Tennis or Haze? With the collected versions of Nintendogs tracking ahead of Halo numbers in the US, Nintendo is betting the former.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Requiem on July 31, 2006, 07:48:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuote
Originally posted by: Requiem
TP is one of my favorite FPS series.
However, Haze doesn't look like TP at all....(I like Free Radical's art style -- especially those DeerMen!)QuoteWhat the heck is TP? At first I thought it was a typo and you meant TS, but you keep doing it.
Originally posted by: Requiem
Well, I don't think Free Radical meant any disrespect. In fact, I bet they will mak a TP or something similar for the Wii after Haze. Especially since Future Perfect featured a weapon that would be PERFECT for the Wii. (the cyber-grappling hook thing).
Sorry, mate. It's a habit I formed ever since TP was announced. But it ain't me fault, we been talkin' Zelda for too long!
Post by: Strell on July 31, 2006, 09:03:34 PM
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.
Post by: IceCold on July 31, 2006, 09:32:38 PM
QuoteThanks, Mario. I bet it took you weeks to figure that out..
I'm calling it now , the first developer to make a -good- FPS for Wii that's online enabled and has good multiplayer has an instant million seller on their hands.
QuoteNo, really? It couldn't be!QuoteI assume that's sarcasm
Twilight Princess, duh
QuoteAh. You killed it with the wrong spelling of you're...
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix
The problem here is that Free Radical (among many others) has bought into the idea that next-gen is only higher rez, more special effects, more rag-doll physics, and Nintendo didn't make a console that catered to expensive blockbuster glitz-is-everything thinking(instead making a mass-market, realistically priced console, and giving it a "new-gen" input method so developers couldn't make unninovative sequel bash number XXX and then use a copout excuse).
Your welcome!
Post by: Requiem on July 31, 2006, 09:39:01 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on July 31, 2006, 10:38:39 PM
Post by: Kairon on July 31, 2006, 11:41:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteAh. You killed it with the wrong spelling of you're...
Originally posted by: Kairon
Your welcome!
You'll have to excuse me. English is my first language.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ruby_onix on August 01, 2006, 12:40:02 AM
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.
Post by: Kairon on August 01, 2006, 12:51:26 AM
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
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 01, 2006, 01:14:26 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on August 01, 2006, 03:14:22 AM
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.
Post by: Ceric on August 01, 2006, 05:43:03 AM
Post by: Strell on August 01, 2006, 06:16:16 AM
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.
Post by: Mario on August 01, 2006, 06:21:59 AM
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.
Post by: getter77 on August 01, 2006, 07:02:51 AM
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
Post by: Kairon on August 01, 2006, 07:19:29 AM
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
Post by: Requiem on August 01, 2006, 07:20:51 AM
BOOO!
Post by: Strell on August 01, 2006, 07:43:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
I say BOO! to this topic!
BOOO!
.....
Hooray beer!
Post by: Kairon on August 01, 2006, 07:47:22 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: getter77 on August 01, 2006, 08:02:57 AM
Post by: The Omen on August 01, 2006, 08:14:44 AM
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.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on August 01, 2006, 08:22:38 AM
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
QuoteWell, 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.
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.
Post by: ShyGuy on August 01, 2006, 08:43:27 AM
Post by: IceCold on August 01, 2006, 10:49:30 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 01, 2006, 11:28:24 AM
Post by: IceCold on August 01, 2006, 11:45:43 AM
Post by: ruby_onix on August 01, 2006, 01:08:21 PM
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.
Post by: Kairon on August 01, 2006, 02:04:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onixQuote
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
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 01, 2006, 02:29:39 PM
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?
Post by: Kairon on August 01, 2006, 02:35:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionQuote
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
Post by: ruby_onix on August 01, 2006, 03:00:15 PM
Quote
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?
I think I've explained a few times that that's not my position. Although I do think that to remain competetive, it's been proven that Nintendo would have to be insane not to take a <$50 loss on the hardware. But of course, Nintendo thinks (and knows) that they can get away without doing a lot of things.
Quote
Like I stated previously the Xbox still runs for 150$ 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.
Anyone who buys an original Xbox right now is a freaking moron. How you can think that's good for the Wii is beyond me.
The extras are "added value" items that have high profit margins and just increase the profits while giving you the illusion that you're actually getting something of value. I'm not happy with the idea of increasing the Wii's MSRP by $50 just so Nintendo can toss a tech-demo Wii Sports game into the box in a $0.99 DVD in a paper sleeve.
Quote
P.S. I thought Moore's law applied to processer speed?
I thought that was all Wii had over the Cube.
Quote
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.
The controller is the price that'll deliver as much profit as they think they can get away with.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 01, 2006, 03:01:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionQuote
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
It looks like you are right about Moore's Law, at least according to Wikipedia. I've heard it as processing speed, but it is nice to get some clarification. Speaking of Ruby's graphical power argument, I personally don't see the Xbox 360 that huge of a step above Xbox, it is quite minor compared to previous generations. Now it seems graphics are more about bigger areas and shinier objects to look at. We are quite past the point where even the weaker systems are "ugly" looking. Wii may be less powerful than PS3 and Xbox 360, but it will be far from ugly (in fact some of the games look quite attractive visually).
Post by: getter77 on August 01, 2006, 03:40:00 PM
Just because Sony and to a lesser extent MS decide to overpump their specs(inflates all manner of costs, less likely there will be games that manage to take advantage of SUCH a huge boost by the end of the generation etc) to appease the hardcore PC folk in terms of numbers on paper doesn't mean that is the smart move....or even one justified considering the past trends in the industry.
Especially with us at the stage of diminishing returns, Moore's Law only goes so far...and generally fails/can be manipulated here and there depending. Despite Nintendo claiming to be "new" this time around...it all really falls in step with logic and all the past console practices.
If we were hearing devs lamenting the Wii's lack of power...oh I dunno...7 years from now...I'd be inclined to take them seriously since the community at large will surely have most, if not perhaps all, of the PS3's power figured out effectively by then. Yet, this one seems to think they are already that far ahead when the system isn't out yet and all the devs simply have not had the breadth of time and experience to tinker with the machine. One that they have to learn from scratch in a new way to boot versus the vastly easier to tap into Wii.
Post by: nemo_83 on August 01, 2006, 04:59:09 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 01, 2006, 06:01:00 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on August 02, 2006, 09:21:39 AM
This is the new reality for small developers: releasing a game on the Wii is basically releasing it on a totally different platform. EA can afford to release 4 different versions of a game, especially if it's got a big name like Madden or Harry Potter attached to it. That might not make sense for a small developer creating a brand-new franchise. This could have a negative affect on Nintendo, although I think Wii will do fine thanks to its unique merits.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 02, 2006, 10:50:36 AM
Post by: Ceric on August 02, 2006, 10:58:46 AM
