Post by: Nick DiMola on June 15, 2007, 12:40:49 AM
Obviously Nintendo has proven it's not all about graphics, but to some extent it still is. I would love to see the Wii's unique setup used on a system with alot more horsepower, giving developers the flexibility to bring different types of games to the fans. It annoys me that we miss out on games like Soul Calibur IV/Resident Evil 5, which could be amazing with the Wiimote, simply because the graphical capability is not there.
I'm guessing/hoping the Wii will be on the market for 3 years before Nintendo replaces it with hardware based around the Wii concept with more graphical/processing power (Essentially at the point where building a PS3 is affordable).
Post by: Chozo Ghost on June 15, 2007, 12:53:50 AM
Why would this change in 5 years? Will the 360 and PS3 graphics double in that time? I doubt it since the hardware specs of those systems are locked, just as the Wii's specs are locked. You know, one other thing is that Wii graphics will also improve in the future just as their competition's graphics improve. Graphics of current games like Wii Sports look terrible I admit, but these games were rushed to completion and many of the games now out are basically ports of Gamecube or PS2 games... some are even DS ports.
So sauce for the goose. 360 and PS3 graphics will improve over time, but so too will the Wii's graphics and if you look at screenshots of some games like Mario Galaxy than you can see what is possible for the future. Not that it matters anyway, because Wii Sports is smoking anything on the PS3 right now, despite having graphics that could be done on the N64.
Edited to add: I don't want Nintendo to release a new console before their competition does anyway, because I am satisfied with the Wii's capabilities. Heck, I was satisfied with the Gamecube's graphics and am even satisfied with the graphics of my DS. Graphics before the 128bit were a big deal, but I think since then no one (aside from a minority of hardcore people who insist on buying $5000 TVs and having the latest gadgets).really cares anymore.
Post by: Shift Key on June 15, 2007, 01:18:04 AM
Quote
I am a little concerned about the creative depth of the Wii pool. I'm not sure if they will top out in 2008 or 2007.
Quote
The Wii will start to look really dated in a couple years when developers get more value from the 360 and learn more and more about the PlayStation 3.
Quote
But how much value can developers and creative folks get out of this wrist motion two years from now, or 5 years from now, or 10 years from now? How can they design products that aren't too derivative of what's already out there?
Quote
We know the PS3 pool is pretty deep. There's a lot to exploit there
Scott Steinberg, vice president of marketing, Sega Sammy.
Link
This interview made me smile for several reasons:
1. It was from a Sega rep - and we know how great they've been with making games and systems recently.
2. It shows that some developers are more than happy to make shovelware for the Wii and blame the Wii when it doesn't sell.
3. It shows that some developers are still wrapped up in the notion that graphics make a game, despite the success of the Wii.
4. I should give some thought to Sega's predictions of doom solely because of their experience with making their own doomed systems in the past.
But I guess time will tell.
EDIT: Mr Jack did not say these things.
Post by: Ceric on June 15, 2007, 04:06:13 AM
Also, much like the PS2 (NES, SNES, NeoGeo), I believe that developers will wrench as much graphically capability out of it that we are going to be looking at the games and going "Wait I thought that hardware was weak." Their are plenty of games on the PS2 were I look at them and go "How in the world did they pull that off?" Now for some speculation for the fun of it.
I believe that the chip for the next Wii is going to be multicored, the general variety, because that is the trend for processors at the moment. I also believe that Nintendo will make it a point to have their producers collaborate and try to get as much as possible on a single chip. 5 years from now it should probably be pretty doable. This will allow for blazing fast interconnects plus an even smaller console. I also believe that Backward compatibility will be done with a breakout box. The reason being if Flash and other solid state technologies keep going down in price and rising in capacity at the current rate I believe Nintendo will go back to "cartridge" style games. Think DS Cards. This gives them non-localized saves again, faster read speeds, more durable media, less moving parts (which means better reliability and durability), and lower power consumption. With a fast enough read speed it could go a long way, with good organization of your data, from needing to cache a lot of things in memory freeing it up for other such task. Talking about cache their will be larger chip caches and memory. Also since this would be a proprietory(sp?) version of Flash or some other Solid State technology it would make pirating games much harder, being harder to get blank media. It would also keep SD for downloads and like. Could grow as the system proceeds through its lifecycle. The key thing would be if cost gets low enough...
Post by: vherub on June 15, 2007, 04:26:40 AM
No doubt sony would have been happy riding the ps2 at least another year or 2, but they think (right or wrong) that system power is still a top3 selling point.
If nintendo takes the lead with the wii, though, they've already shown they are not in that mindset. Much as they rode the gameboy for years, if the wii breaks 50 million, its traction is simply too great to be abandonded in a mere five year. Like the nes or snes, could then go 7 or even 8 years with a redesign coming in those last two years. In the same breath, development costs for the wii in those later years will be if anything, cheaper than they are now. Especially when hurdles like control are smoothed out. The ps3 and 360 development costs could continue to balloon as they focus on grander and grander projects.
The wildcard really is the type of gamer that the wii brings in. The average movie watcher doesn't care what the specs of their dvd player is, they just want to watch the movie. If the wii can get to that person, and to a point where gaming is as entrenched as the dvd, all bets are off.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 15, 2007, 06:32:33 AM
What about the SNES? It was more powerful than the Genesis and the PC-Engine. The Playstation was also more powerful than the Saturn. The console that attracts the most third party support wins and it does that by either providing the most flexible option (ie: no N64 cartridges or sh!tty battery power on a portable or crappy Atari 5200 controllers or offline Gamecube or ridiculously high price) or by being "good enough" and using the momemtum of previous success to keep a grip on third party support (SNES, PS2). If anything history reflects negatively on inflexible designs like the Wii with it's significantly underpowered hardware and "oddman out" controller.
I don't think the hardware will be the main limit for the Wii. It might be a problem but with the PS3 being so expensive and with Microsoft being screwed in Japan I think the Wii by default can do well. I think the lifespan is more dependant on how long people stay interested in the remote. WiiSports is very popular. Nintendo has made a successful game that uses the remote. They've proved it's fun. But they haven't established it as the new standard like they promised. Right now I view it like a lightgun. Duck Hunt is cool and it proved that lightgun games could sell but the NES didn't use the lightgun as the normal controller. How well will the remote do as a controller for ALL types of games? If it doesn't become the standard how long will interest last in a console that relies so much on it? If interest isn't sustained the Wii can convert to a "normal" console. It does have normal controllers as an option. But then the hardware weaknesses come into play because with no interest in the remote it's just the Gamecube 1.5.
Is the remote the real deal or just a fad? That will determine how long the Wii can last.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 15, 2007, 06:38:08 AM
Post by: denjet78 on June 15, 2007, 07:17:54 AM
And every generation the first cycle of software turns out to be extremely indicative of what you're going to get for the rest of the generation. Usually there's 1 or 2 graphically impressive games (which almost always turn out to be one of the most impressive games the system will ever see) followed by a slight increase in graphics. Some minor tweaking so to speak. Only a handful of developers will EVER put the time, energy or resources into a game to actually get some impressive graphics back out of it.
Sure games will look better by the second cycle but look, the 360 has been out more than a year. If it was going to pull away it would have started to already and it's not. What you see now is basically what you get. There will be a game here or there on the PS3 or the 360 that will make you say WOW but the same can be said about Wii. In fact, Wii is in a MUCH better position to see a huge graphics leap. Almost no one has put any kind of effort into the system so far in the way of graphics, and that includes Nintendo.
If you're expecting some magical, mystical graphics jump because Sony or MS releases a new system call in their updated development kits like real_life_graphics_on() you're going to be very disappointed. I've seen too many generations to even continue to pretend the whole "graphics will get better once developers learn to harness the power" myth.
Post by: JoeTrumpet on June 15, 2007, 09:14:40 AM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on June 15, 2007, 09:38:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Haven't we learned that the weakest console always wins?"
What about the SNES? It was more powerful than the Genesis and the PC-Engine. The Playstation was also more powerful than the Saturn. The console that attracts the most third party support wins and it does that by either providing the most flexible option (ie: no N64 cartridges or sh!tty battery power on a portable or crappy Atari 5200 controllers or offline Gamecube or ridiculously high price) or by being "good enough" and using the momemtum of previous success to keep a grip on third party support (SNES, PS2). If anything history reflects negatively on inflexible designs like the Wii with it's significantly underpowered hardware and "oddman out" controller.
I don't think the hardware will be the main limit for the Wii. It might be a problem but with the PS3 being so expensive and with Microsoft being screwed in Japan I think the Wii by default can do well. I think the lifespan is more dependant on how long people stay interested in the remote. WiiSports is very popular. Nintendo has made a successful game that uses the remote. They've proved it's fun. But they haven't established it as the new standard like they promised. Right now I view it like a lightgun. Duck Hunt is cool and it proved that lightgun games could sell but the NES didn't use the lightgun as the normal controller. How well will the remote do as a controller for ALL types of games? If it doesn't become the standard how long will interest last in a console that relies so much on it? If interest isn't sustained the Wii can convert to a "normal" console. It does have normal controllers as an option. But then the hardware weaknesses come into play because with no interest in the remote it's just the Gamecube 1.5.
Is the remote the real deal or just a fad? That will determine how long the Wii can last.
In the case of the SNES, it had a very close battle with the Genesis up until the end when it finally pulled ahead, but was the SNES really that much more powerful? Graphically, yeah, but the SNES had a much slower processor, so which of the two consoles was actually more powerful kinda depends on how you look at it. Plus the Genesis had some issues that hurt it that weren't really related to graphics, such as releasing those ridiculous addons that had almost no support, and the fact their controllers only had three buttons and made a lot of games require more button presses for moves and such.
The graphically weaker Genesis almost won as it was, but if it had a better standard controller and Sega didn't release those addons (or if they had actually supported them) then I have no doubt the Genesis would have won that battle. That was just an exception to the rule, and it was mostly because of bad moves on Sega's part.
I think it is also debatable whether the PS1 was more powerful than the Saturn or not. I know the 3D capabilities of the Saturn weren't as good, but didn't the Saturn beat it in other respects? This could be another exception to the "weaker console always wins" rule, for the same reasons as above. The Saturn controller lacked an analog stick, and Sega never recovered from the consumer confidence they lost from their Genesis add-ons.
Being weaker usually means the console is cheaper and easier to develop for. Barring unrelated stupid decisions -- such as the ones Sega made -- this usually is a recipe for success, as this lower price attracts consumers and developers alike. Oh, and btw, wasn't the Saturn extremely difficult to develop for? That's another thing that contributed to its demise. Weaker consoles don't *always* win, but when they don't thats the exception rather than the rule. It proves that graphics are nowhere near as important as being cheap and attracting developers, and better graphics are usually a hindrance to those more important factors.
As for the controls, why must all games follow one way or the other? Some games make sense to use the wii-mote to play, but other games are better suited for standard controlling. I don't see why companies should all force games to be wii-mote enabled. There was a similar issue with the DS early on, where developers seemed to insist that all games use the Stylus in some way, even when it made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Eventually, we started to see games which no longer required the touchscreen for play and this is how it should be.
Right now everyone wants to jump on the wiimote bandwagon even when it makes no sense, but I think you'll start to see this wear off in time and some games will use it and some won't. Plus there is that potential for future add ons, so I think things will stay interesting and fresh for the Wii's life cycle, which I predict will be as long as its competitors.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 15, 2007, 12:41:51 PM
I agree in that the controls should always be what works best. The problem is Nintendo offered that option with the DS but not the Wii. The DS comes with traditional controls built in. Remove the touchscreen and you've pretty much got what the next Gameboy would have been anyway and it even has a significant hardware upgrade. The Wii however does not come with the classic controller. Nintendo doesn't even sell the nunchuk and remote as a package. Thus developers are going to feel the pressure to support the remote because that's the safe bet. That's what they can assume everyone has. If they make a game strictly for the classic controller they run the risk of a large group of people not having the hardware requirement to play it and they may not want to buy a different type of controller to do so. It's like how even though the PS2 is capable of four players often games were limited to two players, even when it didn't make sense to, because the developer didn't want to support hardware that not everyone had.
Post by: that Baby guy on June 15, 2007, 12:50:54 PM
Your argument that devs will be afraid to make games for lack of accessories is pretty moot. Otherwise, there wouldn't be multiplayer games on the 360, Live! multiplayer would not happen, and pretty much anything on Xbox Live Arcade wouldn't sell. Devs aren't afraid of a lack of accessories when they are reasonable, and the 360 proves it. Since the Wii costs less than a 360, I think $10 more for each extra Wii-mote+Nunchuk controller over the 360 controller isn't unreasonable.
The PS2 could actually handle five players, BTW. It didn't because Sony never, ever, ever pushed the multi-tap. That's Sony's fault for making faulty decisions as far as the PS2 marketing goes. If Sony had included information about the Multi-tap, as well as pushed their own games to use it, it would have worked out better. I doubt Sony worried about it, though, since they never needed to.
Post by: Louieturkey on June 15, 2007, 02:00:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguyThe PS2 could actually handle five players, BTW. It didn't because Sony never, ever, ever pushed the multi-tap. That's Sony's fault for making faulty decisions as far as the PS2 marketing goes. If Sony had included information about the Multi-tap, as well as pushed their own games to use it, it would have worked out better. I doubt Sony worried about it, though, since they never needed to.
Just to be nit picky, the ps2 actually supported up to 8 players with two multitaps, which was mostly used by EA in Madden and Winning eleven.
Post by: SixthAngel on June 15, 2007, 02:16:36 PM
With how strong the ps2 is selling (more then the 360) despite the userbase being so large it makes me think that Sony cut its life short because it was supposed to, not because they wanted to or should have.
Post by: that Baby guy on June 15, 2007, 02:27:29 PM
Post by: Kairon on June 15, 2007, 03:30:40 PM
For example, MS broke the 5 year barrior with the XBox 360 because they wanted to one-up Sony and had relatively little to lose. And Nintendo has shown that they'd prefer to sit on successful hardware as long as possible with the GB, Pocket, Color, etc and FINALLY the GBA about 10 years later. The DS? They were forced to release it, because Sony and the shrinking industry had disrupted their normal way of doing things.
Actually, I'd be much more worried of Sony breaking the 5 year lifecycle this gen since they seem most desperate to disrupt the status quo.
Post by: Nick DiMola on June 15, 2007, 04:05:12 PM
"It's easy to envision a Wii 2 in a couple of years that runs at full HD, and has both a Wii-mote and an analog controller, so that all games can be ported to it. If Nintendo were to introduce such a device, it would be fully comparable to the Xbox 360..."
I do agree with alot of the comments you guys are making though. If the Wii is still selling like hotcakes why bother upgrading the hardware until you absolutely have to. Personally I wouldn't mind Nintendo doing something in a couple of years that had the processing muscle of the PS3 with the awesome capabilities of the Wii. Though if Nintendo waits the full 5 year cycle I'm sure they will put out something that outpowers both the PS3 and 360 by a considerable amount. I'm sure we will know in time.
Post by: thebondster on June 15, 2007, 05:27:40 PM
Post by: IceCold on June 15, 2007, 05:49:53 PM
Nintendo has disrupted the market. And if they win this generation by a considerable margin, MS and Sony will be in trouble, because now more powerful hardware isn't the ticket to success anymore, and they'd have to change their plans.
Post by: Galford on June 15, 2007, 06:39:41 PM
"How long will casual gamers support it?"
Right now Nintendo has the casual gamer group on their side.
If Nintendo can maintain the momentum it has and the Wii base grows so stupidly large that developers have to put their main projects on it
then the Wii will last. If in 2008 the Wii begins to stumble and casuals walk away from it expect the Wii to be called "GC version 2".
Nintendo doesn't have the hardcore gamer base other consoles have to fall back too, it has have continued casual support or it's screwed.
Post by: Urkel on June 15, 2007, 07:05:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
Nintendo doesn't have the hardcore gamer base other consoles have to fall back too
Except for the millions of fans they have.
Post by: anubis6789 on June 15, 2007, 08:07:22 PM
Know what? Self-described hardcore gamers can keep the title, I don't want all the elitism and snobishness it intails, call me a causal gamer if you want, it still makes me a gamer.
On subject: The Wii's life span will last the full 5 year cycle becuase Nintendo does not drop support on a system until it becomes unviable, meaning that developing for the system would cost more money than they would get back from the sales of a game or piece of hardware, which knowing Nintendo and looking at current trends does not seem to be anytime soon.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 15, 2007, 08:30:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: anubis6789
I wish someone would define "hardcore" for me. Does it mean playing the newest epic cinematic game and then moving on to the next, or is it training in Wii Boxing for 4 hours so that you are ready for the fith rematch with your friend/rival the next day? Could it be owning all the current-gen systems and having 20 games for each, or is it owning one current-gen system while having 100 games for it? Is "hardcore" playing and becoming the master of a single game, or is it playing many different games at a lower skill level? Which is more "hardcore", playing a game in HD with a suround sound system, or playing a game on any screen you can find? Maybe "hardcore" is determined by playing only the most complex games, or perhaps it is liking many different types of games becuase you enjoy playing them, no matter how shallow or complex they are?
Know what? Self-described hardcore gamers can keep the title, I don't want all the elitism and snobishness it intails, call me a causal gamer if you want, it still makes me a gamer.
On subject: The Wii's life span will last the full 5 year cycle becuase Nintendo does not drop support on a system until it becomes unviable, meaning that developing for the system would cost more money than they would get back from the sales of a game or piece of hardware, which knowing Nintendo and looking at current trends does not seem to be anytime soon.
That is a great post, I agree fully. The hardcore title is basically an elitist title, it really means nothing, some of the most "hardcore" games out there have been accessible and enjoyable to everyone. Look at Mario 64, that game was a blast even if you never played a game before. Heck look at many of the classics, Pacman, Asteroids, Centipede, etc. are those hardcore games? Many would argue they are, well what makes those games better than newer games that are pick up and play friendly? So yes I do agree, people throw hardcore around to be snobs and elitists, to make themselves feel better, it is human nature! I don't know how many times I've read here and elsewhere about people making snide and condescending remarks about Nintendo's more "casual" focus, it gets to be stomach turning.
What is perhaps the most hypocritical to these so called "hardcore" gamers is that they will call something like Smash Brothers hardcore. I'm sorry but that game is perhaps the most easily accessible fighter out there, and anyone can enjoy it, so wouldn't that be a "casual" game? Heck I've heard whining and complaining about Nintendo making traditional games more accessible, well then shouldn't you be whining about something like the Mario series or Smash Brothers?
Post by: ThePerm on June 16, 2007, 06:52:51 AM
Post by: Galford on June 16, 2007, 07:11:40 AM
I'm not trying to bash you. If it makes you happy then go for it, I'm not being sarcastic.
Here's my perspective...
I have supported Nintendo for 20 years.
I have endured the problems known as the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube.
Having bought a Wii back in December, I'm giving Nintendo one last chance to prove it can make things right.
However, everytime some one from Nintendo opens their mouth I feel Nintendo once again is ignoring me.
The Wii's online is still a joke.
The system is woefully underpowered.
The controller is innovative but not condusive to certain gameplay types, I shouldn't have to buy add-ons for the default controller.
That being said, I'm not a big fan of Sony or MS.
I can safely say this is the first generation of consoles in which I'm supporting the company I hate the least,
not the company I want to win.
Post by: Kairon on June 16, 2007, 08:30:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
I'm not trying to be an elitist snob, if you love playing non-games for 5 hours straight, then God Bless You.
I'm not trying to bash you. If it makes you happy then go for it, I'm not being sarcastic.
Here's my perspective...
I have supported Nintendo for 20 years.
I have endured the problems known as the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube.
Having bought a Wii back in December, I'm giving Nintendo one last chance to prove it can make things right.
However, everytime some one from Nintendo opens their mouth I feel Nintendo once again is ignoring me.
The Wii's online is still a joke.
The system is woefully underpowered.
The controller is innovative but not condusive to certain gameplay types, I shouldn't have to buy add-ons for the default controller.
That being said, I'm not a big fan of Sony or MS.
I can safely say this is the first generation of consoles in which I'm supporting the company I hate the least,
not the company I want to win.
It's sad to hear that. I consider this generation the one where I might have "quit" gaming if it had continued the way it was going. I actually feel like last gen took a lot of the magic out of it, disillusioning me, and crystalizing gaming into something I didn't belive in.
I, for one, am not too concerned over whether a game has online or not, or whether it can do bump-mapping, or push 120 FPS. I played Animal Crossing and Cubivore, for god's sake. If I can have the time of my life in N64 ports to the GC, then I can't be bothered to "get a second job" just for some eye candy (or some deathmatch candy either).
Instead, my criteria was simple. I wanted the promise of a new horizon, a vast expanse of unexplored experience and gameplay that couldn't already be predicted a thousand times over. I wanted the fun of discovery and wonder and potential.
I think the Wii has delivered that in a way unparalleled by any system before (N64 maybe?).
... You know, it's strange, but after the hard GC years I don't trust Nintendo anymore. They're a company, and they have their own philosophy that doesn't always go with the mainstream. I don't trust them at all to do what I want them to.
Instead, I merely have faith in them to accomplish their own dreams. And as long as those coincide with mine, I'll be along for the ride.
Post by: ThePerm on June 16, 2007, 08:51:36 AM
Post by: Ceric on June 16, 2007, 09:23:27 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 16, 2007, 09:33:14 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 16, 2007, 10:05:27 AM
This is despite the fact that the GC and N64 both had a number of 5 million+ sellers while the Xbox had Halo and Halo 2 and that's about it.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 16, 2007, 10:32:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Someone pointed out that people are quick to dismiss the GC and N64, but praise the Xbox in the same breath.
This is despite the fact that the GC and N64 both had a number of 5 million+ sellers while the Xbox had Halo and Halo 2 and that's about it.
I can understand people being dissapointed with GC (even though I wasn't) but being so with the N64 is mind boggling when you look at what it did for the industry even if carts held it back.
Post by: Luigi Dude on June 16, 2007, 10:42:00 AM
And for everyone that says the difference was never this big, oh yes it was. The DS vs PSP was the precursor to the Wii dominating the market. As anyone could see, there was and still is a very noticeable difference between DS and PSP games, yet the DS is killing the PSP in sales. The reason is because the DS has a great selection of games with a wide variety and many that appeal to the wide audience. Even if Sony was to release a PSP 2 with better graphics and more power it wouldn't matter because people are buying the DS regardless of the graphics.
This is what is happening with the Wii and will continue to. Even if the 360 and PS3 were some how able to achieve photo realistic graphics next year, it wouldn't mean sh!t. As I've said a million times, people don't buy systems for their power, they buy them for the games. Right now Nintendo is winning because they have the best price with the best variety of games that appeal to a wide audience, and this will only increase as time goes on.
Post by: 31 Flavas on June 16, 2007, 01:20:00 PM
QuoteYea, I mean, i'm sooooo sorry that Galdford had to "endure the problems" that were Mario 64, Mario Kart, OoT, Majora's Mask, Perfect Dark, DK64, Smash Brothers, Paper Mario, Starfox 64, Goldeneye, etc, etc, etc... What a terrible glut of subpar crappy games those were. Worst. Games. Evar. (in Simpsons Comicbook guy voice)
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Pretty sad when someone considers N64 one of Nintendo's problems, considering it propelled the industry to new levels with Mario 64 and OOT. Yeah N64 had its problems (mainly carts) but it still was home to some of the finest games ever crafted.
Post by: that Baby guy on June 16, 2007, 03:51:48 PM
Post by: Kairon on June 16, 2007, 05:29:13 PM
Post by: King of Twitch on June 16, 2007, 05:31:17 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 16, 2007, 05:37:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Hey, I'm all for proclaiming the wondrous joys of the N64 to high heaven... but uh... Aren't our public NWR lynch mobs exclusively reserved for Ian?
Divide and conquer, divide a conquer!
Post by: Urkel on June 16, 2007, 08:53:56 PM
Seriously, while Nintendo really took a beating in terms of market share and third party support with the N64 it's hard to ignore the fact that almost everything published/developed by Nintendo from that era is considered to be either a masterpiece or at least a damn good game.
Pretty much every modern 3D game has borrowed from the groundwork Nintendo set with Mario 64 and OoT.
Quote
Hey, I'm all for proclaiming the wondrous joys of the N64 to high heaven... but uh... Aren't our public NWR lynch mobs exclusively reserved for Ian?
Ian doesn't even try anymore.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on June 16, 2007, 09:01:53 PM
Post by: Urkel on June 16, 2007, 09:10:27 PM
Quote
I really want to know what that Sega guy is thinking.
He isn't. It's Sega.
Post by: Adrock on June 16, 2007, 10:15:35 PM
Anyway, what the hell is this crap about Wii having a short lifespan? It will last 5 years. Granted, the last year will likely be thin in terms of major releases, but what else is new? Consider that Nintendo is not going to stop making games. Even if 3rd party support suddenly drops to absolutely no releases for some inexplicable reason, Wii owners will still have plenty of Nintendo games to keep themselves busy with. However, with the way Wii has been selling, I can't see that happening. There's too much money to be made on the platform for it to simply fade away.
Post by: Mario on June 16, 2007, 10:19:08 PM
Quote
The Wii's online is still a joke.
No it's not, Mario Strikers is the best online game ever.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on June 17, 2007, 03:39:38 AM
The controller for it was truly revolutionary. While the three grips for it wasn't such a great idea (and was never again repeated), the analog stick changed the industry forever. I also loved that it could have modules like the rumble pak and memory pak plugged into it. I'm glad to see Nintendo has returned to this approach with the Wii remote. Imagine how things could have been if the Gamecube allowed paks to be plugged into its controller...
The 4 standard controller ports was also an innovation that is now an industry standard. I also recall them promising a disc drive add on for the N64 for a long time, but never released it in the west and in Japan it had very limited support. That was a shame. Imagine if this disc drive had came out much sooner and was more heavily supported. If Nintendo pursued that Disc drive concept much more aggressively then I think it would have made up for most of the disadvantages of being a cartridge based system. Add ons like that *can* work, but they only work if the company throws its full support behind them, instead of offering quarter-ass support like Sega did with its Genesis things.
This is how I think the Wii is going to have a long life time. The ability to add things to the controller and the upgradeable firmware and such is really going to keep it updated for the years to come. Depending on how well Nintendo pursues the ability to add on to it, the Wii could actually become the longest living console of all time. Graphics aren't really that relevant these days... Nintendo *could* release an addon or revision to the Wii in the future that adds HD support; but really, what else can be done to improve graphics? Someday there will be 3D gaming, but that would require either a new kind of TV or some headset or something. Again, Nintendo could just add a headset peripheral for the Wii to do 3D gaming without the need for a brand new console.
So the Wii could be like the Commodore 64 and live on for like 20 years with add-ons and stuff keeping it going. Sony and MS may follow this strategy with their consoles. I think we are nearing the end of the days where consoles are updated every 5 years... if this generation doesn't break that cycle, then the next one surely will, and the industry will settle at some point because graphics can only be improved so much, you know? Any graphics that look better than real life would actually require humans to upgrade their eyes.
This incremental increase in console power every 5 years is going to stop eventually... and it may already have stopped.
Post by: Ceric on June 17, 2007, 04:23:48 AM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on June 17, 2007, 04:48:16 AM
The 360 and PS3 are now about at the point where they can't really improve without either a headset or a new sort of tv, and that sort of thing will probably take longer than 5 years to come out. There will be newer consoles in the future, but there isn't really a reason to make them until the TVs themselves actually change. It will probably take 10-20 years before something even better than HDTV comes out, and I think that's about how long the newer lifetime of consoles will be.
It is great for consumers too, because there won't be a need to get a new $300+ console every 5 years in order to have current games.
Post by: BigJim on June 17, 2007, 06:21:16 AM
As long as there is competition without standards, lifecycles will continue, give or take. There's simply too much pressure. Nintendo got away with 10+ years on GB thanks to monopoly control. I don't think that'll ever happen again. If Sony doesn't make sure of that, MS will.
Post by: Adrock on June 17, 2007, 09:22:31 AM
Quote
If Nintendo pursued that Disc drive concept much more aggressively then I think it would have made up for most of the disadvantages of being a cartridge based system. Add ons like that *can* work, but they only work if the company throws its full support behind them, instead of offering quarter-ass support like Sega did with its Genesis things.
Ehh, I disagree. Add-ons suck. It splits the audience in two because not everyone wants to or is willing to pay extra for something they don't necessarily need. 64DD was Nintendo's answer to CDs at the time, but why should consumers have to pay for Nintendo's mistake of using cartridges?
Nintendo shouldn't bother with add-ons. They just need to keep making good games and Wii should be fine.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 17, 2007, 10:05:01 AM
Post by: Ceric on June 17, 2007, 10:27:23 AM
I think the industry needs the shake-up every little bit to keep the fans engaged and the publishers moving between consoles.
Post by: Kairon on June 17, 2007, 10:34:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
The N64 was an excellent piece of hardware except for that it used cartridges. If it had been CD based I have no doubt it would have probably been the most popular system of its era, and wouldn't have lost its developer support.
Too bad games like Mario 64 and Zelda: OoT would have been impossible on CDs at the time, according to Miyamoto.
Post by: Kairon on June 17, 2007, 10:35:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: UrkelQuote
I really want to know what that Sega guy is thinking.
He isn't. It's Sega.
You think they confiscate your brain when you walk in the door?
Post by: Urkel on June 17, 2007, 08:52:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: UrkelQuote
I really want to know what that Sega guy is thinking.
He isn't. It's Sega.
You think they confiscate your brain when you walk in the door?
No, that would imply Sega execs have a brain to begin with.
"Hey, you know that Shenmue 2 game we just made? That one that cost us a whole lot of money to make? Yeah, that game. How about instead of releasing it on our own system in North America, we release it on an unproven western console where Japanese games don't sell. At all."
But back to the N64...
I don't deny the N64 had some huge problems, I just feel like it never really got the respect it deserved. Back then all I remember hearing was how it was a total failure and how it sucked. I get the feeling that most of the negative sentiments towards the N64 are more about Nintendo losing dominance in the industry than about the actual experience the system delivered.
Post by: BigJim on June 18, 2007, 12:34:21 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 18, 2007, 03:12:10 AM
What comes after the Wii is what will be interesting. Ceric awhile back made mention of a new model of the Wii coming out after a few years of this Wii's success. Basically a Wii with true HD graphic support and 100% capable of competing against the other systems...but at an amazingly affordable price. (Ok, I added some more description to the unit than Ceric did. (At least I think it was Ceric))
I do believe this is the route Nintendo will take. After all Nintendo and Apple have both proven that people will buy upgrades to Electronics if they are affordable and seem to add new functionality to a system they already love.
The new Wii system will use the exact same controller or a very similar controller, and be 100% compatiable with the virtual console, Gamecube games, and Wii games.
Post by: Ceric on June 18, 2007, 03:43:17 AM
Also in the same thread that Spak-Spang is thinking of it was mentioned and backed up that Nintendo tends to work on an Innovate-Upgrade lifecycle, for conosles at the least. Nes(Innovate)-SNES(Upgrade), N64(Innovate)-GCN(Upgrade),Wii(Innovate)-Wii2(Upgrade). Keeping full backward compatibility, a cheapish price ($200-250), and maybe a way to automagically be both Wii and Wii2 Enhanced (like the Gameboy Color) would go a long way to keeping Nintendo a viable console juggernaut. This can be maintained because in 5 years I think we'll be roadmapped for the 32nm process. Making it possible for chips just as powerful if not more than the PS3/360 to be made in a much smaller more efficient package. Also there is some interesting heat reduction technology coming on the horizon, like one that converts heat to sound and sound to electricity giving you a "gain" in energy efficiency. Not to mention new forms of wireless power and Video communication that is being investigated. 5 years for an upgrade would definetly be a good thing since each of the competitors are gunning for an ~10 year life span.
Which is good because:
Quote
Source: NPD May 2007 as interpretted by Fun With Numbers
Wii- Will catch up with the PS2 in ~236 Months or ~19 Years 8 Months
- Will catch up with the GC in ~27 Months or ~2 Years 3 Months
- Will catch up with the Xbox in ~34 Months or ~2 Years 10 Months
360- Will catch up with the GC in ~43 Months or ~3 Years 7 Months
- Will catch up with the Xbox in ~57 Months or ~4 Years 9 Months
PS3- Will catch up with the GC in ~146 Months or ~12 Years 2 Months
- Will catch up with the Xbox in ~161 Months or ~13 Years 5 Months
As you can see if they keep selling the same as May it will take that long to reach and surpass the last gen 2nd and 3rd place. (Except the Wii which I just threw in there for some perspective. A massive maintained sales surge would need to come for a catchup to the PS2 at the moment. In other words Nintendo production isn't up to snuff for the task at the moment.)
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 18, 2007, 04:54:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
I think the Wii lifespan in its current state will be around for 3-4 years. (This is one reason Nintendo is aggressively releasing titles for the system and launching all their big games earlier than spacing them out.)
What comes after the Wii is what will be interesting. Ceric awhile back made mention of a new model of the Wii coming out after a few years of this Wii's success. Basically a Wii with true HD graphic support and 100% capable of competing against the other systems...but at an amazingly affordable price. (Ok, I added some more description to the unit than Ceric did. (At least I think it was Ceric))
I do believe this is the route Nintendo will take. After all Nintendo and Apple have both proven that people will buy upgrades to Electronics if they are affordable and seem to add new functionality to a system they already love.
The new Wii system will use the exact same controller or a very similar controller, and be 100% compatiable with the virtual console, Gamecube games, and Wii games.
You know you do bring up a good point, Nintendo is releasing so many of its big guns this year, that it could indicate a shorter lifespan.
Post by: Mario on June 18, 2007, 04:58:20 AM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on June 18, 2007, 05:40:34 AM
Besides, haven't some of you guys been complaining there was a drought this year? Nintendo just can't win no matter what they do.
Post by: Ceric on June 18, 2007, 07:32:06 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 18, 2007, 07:38:04 AM
Post by: Strell on June 18, 2007, 07:43:29 AM
There's about a dozen things to address here, so why not take a minute to do so.
First off, let's be philosphical for a moment and propose that the Wii will never die, at least from a purely abstract standpoint. Why? Because if you are any kind of sane, you already know that MS and Sony are working on their next systems with motion controls. Sony even tried to half ass this time around. Bill Gates is talking about "gosh I'd really love to pick up a pencil sharpener and f*cking sharpen some pencils in a game."
Point being that such technology is a mainstay. So I'd suggest you get used to it. It's going to become analogous to the analog (hah) stick and rumble, just like setting up central servers to handle online gaming will fast become the norm.
And since that's doubtless going to happen in the future, everyone who is paying even the slightest attention is going to think "This all spawns from the Wii." The hardcore gamers will think that because they tend to be in the know, and while I am always amazed at their resiliancy to avoiding the truth and making up bullsh*t, they too will have to acknowledge where the ideas came from originally. Casual/non-hardcore gamers will just flat out know and accept it, being that most of them are pulled into this generation based solely on that.
And since some Native American tribes believed that you are alive as long as you are remembered, that gives the Wii and endless lifespan.
As for whether or not the current iteration outlives the current iteration of the Xbox/PS#? That's a different question. I could imagine an Xbox 360 v2 (ho ho, by which I mean Xbox 1.75) with motion showing up within 2 years. Likewise I can see Sony trying to force the Eyetoy a lot harder. The moment that happens, the Wii has won the survival contest. Say what you will, but if Sony and MS try to pimp out some answer to the Wiimote, that's throwing up the flag in my eyes. And when that flag promises potential cash moneyz, it makes me think all you naysayers are in for some disappointment relatively quick.
Finally, to anyone saying less than 2 years: You are delusional. You need medication or a sanity animal, like a mongoose or some sh*t. If you think for a second that tons of third parties aren't shifting resources over to the Wii, and subsequently aren't going to release a flood of games once development is completed (minimum 1 year, but average 2), then I want to be around you when the releases trickle out next year, because the look of disappointment is going to be epic.
The compliment to this is to shut down all these comments about how this is another Gamecube - no motherf*cker, it's not. Don't even pretend to act like it is. The DS wasn't another GBA either. Show me at any time during the GC's lifecycle that it had this level of acceptance and praise. I will also expect you to show me a game from Tecmo, a company that has been adamantly anti-Nintendo console for quite some time. Since you can't do either of these things, I'll let you attempt to put the square peg in the round hole for a little while longer.
Expect the Wii to last another 3 years. That would put it at 4. If it does that, then it's essentially lived the Gamecube's life, since it was DOA for the last year. And if sales continue, I don't see why another year couldn't be tacked on.
As I repeated endlessly from September - December of last year, we had to wait a year to see what the hell was going to happen with the Wii's sales. And in another year, we're going to see how the software stream has picked up or dried off. Then we'll be able to make some real judgement calls.
Again I invite a lot of you to continue to hold onto your tiny straws that the system is dying and not getting support. It is amusing, you see.
Post by: Rhoq on June 18, 2007, 07:59:14 AM
I expect the Wii's successor to arrive no later than 4th Quarter 2010. It's power will at least equal that of the XBox 360 and/or the PS3.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on June 18, 2007, 08:27:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Nintendo releasing their big titles in such a short period of time may just be their way of getting the "expected" sequels out of the way as quickly as possible. As they have created more franchises there has been pressure from fans to keep those franchises going on each gen. We just expect a Mario Kart game or an F-Zero game or a Star Fox game on each Nintendo console. If Nintendo allows that to get out of control that alone can take years and eat up time for new stuff. That's probably why they farmed F-Zero and Star Fox out last gen (not that they made that much new stuff in it's place but whatever). So maybe Nintendo figures if they get SSB, Metroid, Zelda and Mario out of the way ASAP they have more freedom to work on something else.
I think you're right. By releasing all the usual fare that fans expect every Nintendo console to have early on they can then shift focus to creating and expanding other franchises. Besides, why should we think that these Metroid, Mario, and Zelda games will be the last of their kind for the Wii? Mario and Zelda games typically show up twice per generation, and Metroid showed up twice on the Gamecube. I'm sure a few years from now there will be sequels to these "big gun" franchises.
While we're on this subject, where is Kid Icarus? Where is Donkey Kong? Kirby?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 18, 2007, 09:26:26 AM
MARK YOUR CALENDERS
Post by: Kairon on June 18, 2007, 09:39:56 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on June 18, 2007, 09:40:17 AM
As for when Nintendo will release its next system, I think it depends on how long it takes the company to come up with some cool new ideas to capture market interest. I don't believe Nintendo is going to make more powerful hardware a priority ever again. Maybe it'll include HD TV on the next one, maybe it'll even have 360-like power, but it won't be cutting-edge tech unless cutting-edge tech is what the market wants. So far Wii suggests otherwise.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on June 18, 2007, 10:35:42 AM
So this probably explains two things: 1.) it explains why the Wii lineup is so strong for its first year, and 2.) It explains why the Gamecube lineup was so weak for its last year.
That combined with Ian's explanation is probably all there is to it. There is probably no early Wii termination conspiracy.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 18, 2007, 11:29:46 AM
Maybe? I'm pretty sure it will be an expected feature by then. Aren't all TVs supposed to be HD by some deadline? Not including next gen would be like the SNES only supporting coaxial. But then this is Nintendo we're talking about so "maybe" is probably the safest word to use.
Post by: Ceric on June 18, 2007, 12:31:10 PM
Post by: King of Twitch on June 18, 2007, 01:34:24 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 18, 2007, 04:02:14 PM
I think Nintendo has started to examine its business practices with much more strategy, and are not taking anything for granted anymore. It is that reason alone I believe in a shorter life span, but a more realistic approach to console power, and pricing...and gaming in general.
And I actually believe Ceric is on to something. Solid state medium is much more reliable and better than disc, and as the DS has proven it isn't that much more expensive and it is getting cheaper. I could see us moving back to that in two generations...if we haven't moved to straight download by then.
Post by: anubis6789 on June 18, 2007, 06:02:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MJRx9000
Never believe anything they say about future consoles until you're unwrapping it on launch day.
How right you are. *cough* region free *cough*
Post by: Adrock on June 18, 2007, 07:40:50 PM
Post by: denjet78 on June 18, 2007, 09:37:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
Good content sells consoles.
DUDE!
Don't do stuff like that!
I spit soda all over my monitor!
Content sells consoles... Yeah right. Where the hell were you when the PS2 was eating up the market it's first year with nothing but crap and garbage for games?
Lies sell consoles.
I'm sure we all know that by now.
That's why Nintendo lies about the Wii every change they...
Hrm...
Post by: Adrock on June 18, 2007, 10:33:40 PM
PS2 had Dreamcast to worry about its first year. Being a cheap DVD player and the successor to PS1 certainly didn't hurt either. Sure, the first year wasn't great, but in the end, PS2 wouldn't have crushed Gamecube and Xbox if it didn't have good content.
I see Nintendo's handling of Wii as a lesson learned from Gamecube. They're filling up that lineup to keep people hooked. A robust lineup builds confidence in a platform. Nintendo wants Wii owners to keep spending money on Wii because any money spent elsewhere is not spent on Wii (obviously). They want people coming back for more. Nintendo can pimp motion controls all they want as this cool and new way to play games, but talk is pointless without something to back it up.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 19, 2007, 03:05:17 AM
However, Nintendo could be lying to itself with this expand the market business strategy. We are going to move into the future and see if we can truly turn non gamers into at least casual gamers, buying 3-4 games a year. If they don't buy games then it is a waste sell of a Wii.
Post by: Ceric on June 19, 2007, 04:15:28 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 19, 2007, 05:31:57 AM
I personally don't see downloads as the future, at least not as the only option. There is a certain security involved with owning a physical copy. You own it. These days companies are trying to get it so we just rent everything. That's a scary idea so at least until those who were alive before the internet became mainstream have died I think physical copies will exist. Plus removing the physical copy removes the collector's nature of it all. And a download only model is more technical and doesn't appeal as much to the older generations that have lived the majority of their life in a world without the internet. With Nintendo targeting non-gamers a download only model seems too hardcore, or at least it is in the time frame we're talking about.
Post by: Ceric on June 19, 2007, 07:13:04 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 19, 2007, 07:19:30 AM
Wii's life spam is secured.
Post by: Adrock on June 19, 2007, 08:44:34 AM
Quote
Adrock: He was being sarcastic.
I considered that, but the PS2 comment certainly threw me off.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on June 19, 2007, 08:46:22 AM
Plus, even with broadband it would take a very long time to download games that are the size of a DVD or (heaven forbid) Blu-ray!
Post by: Kairon on June 19, 2007, 08:49:43 AM
Post by: UERD on June 19, 2007, 11:08:59 AM
The console market isn't self-correcting. It's a vicious cycle. The console that pulls ahead gets more developers, which means more people buy the console, which means more developers develop for that console....et cetera. Nobody's going to spend the GDP of Kenya's worth of money on a lavishly-FMVed PS3 game in two years if the Wii's userbase is so much larger than the PS3's, for example.
I mean, you could tell the end was near once Sony's reps started saying stuff like 'people aren't comparing it to computers or consoles, they're comparing it to PLAYSTATION' and 'the name is capitalized because PLAYSTATION is so fundamentally different from everything else'.
Post by: that Baby guy on June 19, 2007, 11:14:02 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 19, 2007, 11:29:36 AM
yeah, nothing before PS3 was such an astronomical embarrassment to industry and lifestyle.
