Topic: Square Enix's CEO Expects New Wii by 2011

[Urkel]

Seriously, for someone who acts like he's too smart to fall for the bullshit that game companies try to pull, Ian seems to think the very same way as these companies who have no respect for their customers.

Ian and the Game Industry are on the same wavelength.

I'm depressed now.

[Deguello]

I think the reason the whole "Nintendo must update to HD" third party movement really irks me is it signals an inability or the lack of motivation to go to where the customers are, as opposed to hoping the customers will come to them in high-priced HD-land.

Why don't they just make Wii games NOW and save their HD-stuff for when Nintendo does upgrade?  Why does Nintendo, who moved heaven and earth to fight the game market decay brought about by the 360 and the PS3, went against constant criticism and stupid jokes, survived the worst games and most devious sabotage, now have to again capitulate to third party demands made in bad faith?

[broodwars]

Why does Nintendo, who moved heaven and earth to fight the game market decay brought about by the 360 and the PS3, went against constant criticism and stupid jokes, survived the worst games and most devious sabotage, now have to again capitulate to third party demands made in bad faith?

Hyperbole, much?  I think you forgot to mention how Nintendo also created the Earth in only 5 days because the almighty was being too slow.   

Yes, Nintendo suffered so much with their giant mountain of money they had before this generation when they decided to "sacrifice" and use tech for the Wii that was well over 5 years old, instead of using tech that everyone else was using and letting the developers decide how they wanted to use it.

[Deguello]

What was hyberbolic again?  Are the combined totals of the 360 and PS3 MORE than the PS2?  If not, can we assume that Nintendo basically saved the industry from a more than 50% user freefall?

Yes, Nintendo suffered so much with their giant mountain of money they had before this generation when they decided to "sacrifice" and use tech for the Wii that was well over 5 years old,

What's your point here?

use tech for the Wii that was well over 5 years old, instead of using tech that everyone else was using and letting the developers decide how they wanted to use it.

Erm, newsflash.  Everybody's getting into motion controls now.  Obviously they are becoming standard.  Nintendo's ahead of the curve, just not the one everybody bet on in 2005.  HD has turned out to have very finite appeal, much like any other inevitable and incremental technological upgrade, with graphics becoming a commodity in the near future.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I think the reason the whole "Nintendo must update to HD" third party movement really irks me is it signals an inability or the lack of motivation to go to where the customers are, as opposed to hoping the customers will come to them in high-priced HD-land.

Why don't they just make Wii games NOW and save their HD-stuff for when Nintendo does upgrade?  Why does Nintendo, who moved heaven and earth to fight the game market decay brought about by the 360 and the PS3, went against constant criticism and stupid jokes, survived the worst games and most devious sabotage, now have to again capitulate to third party demands made in bad faith?

The whole thing parallels some real life event happening right now.
With Nintendo being a special person with lots of likability and good faith from the regular people,
the Wii being a new proposal to do things a little differently going forward
and 3rd parties being the other side, trying to kill this new proposal since it doesn't fit their line of thinking.

There is no reason that Nintendo needs to play it out like it's parallel has and alter their proposal{(Wii) to cater to the other side(3rd parties) especially when we already know that it doesn't matter what Nintendo does, the other side still isn't gonna want to use it.

I really think Nintendo should just continue to do what they do best and stay on the planned path they have  already set. If that includes a WiiHD before they release a full Wii2 then so be it, if it's New system roughly every 5 years well then I'm on board with that too. Obviously whatever they've been doing is working, the majority of the people love it, the inner circle loves it and plenty of money is being made all around to all those who are "with the program" and not still just dumping idea off the scraps table

[Deguello]

I think I get your reference, BnM.  I think we can come to some sort of understanding about it.  Yes... we can.

I've had a particularly devilish idea in which Nintendo headhunts third parties' top talent or buys them out entirely.  Some might question these moves as some of the more hateful third parties will just drain their talent and leave Nintendo with a turkey.  But two things would definitely happen:

1) Nintendo would gain a wealth of IP and talent from these third parties that will be useful for future Smash Brothers-type games, as well as future iterations of IPs made by a close-knit group of headhunted talent, should they stay.
2) This spinoff, knockoff, party game, demographics, bad-games-on-purpose abuse will finally cease.

And even if all the talent leaves, they'll be forced to start from square one, so they won't be a threat for at least two generations, as evidenced by companies like Platinum Games and those guys behind Spyborgs.

Some might view this as anti-gaming, but what's really anti-gaming is dumping crap on the majority of gamers and laughing at them.  Some might view it as monopolistic, but nobody has a problem with MS just buying things.  Nintendo's got the money to be really competitive on the third party front.  If money's what it takes, then they should just spend it and try to sell more hardware with the games.

[NWR_Lindy]

Ah, the "Wii Hate HD" threads...always a favorite around here.

Nintendo isn't going after a market that gives a crap about the Wii's library.  Only game nerds like ourselves care about, or argue over, the overall quality of a console's library, and we make up probably 20% of the overall market if not less.  Most people buy a console to play one or two games, and might pick up something later.  I have friends that don't give a crap about video games, but they've bought a PS3 because they want to play Tekken 6 and play Blu-Ray discs.  I also have non-gamer friends that have bought a Wii so they can give their 4-year-old kid something to do, and if they find something cool on the console then so be it.  These people FAR outweigh the hardcore like us, and they're the ones that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo covet.  It just so happens that with the economy in the tank and family expenditures at a bare minimum, families that wanted a console went with the safe bet - Nintendo.  Their console is cheap, and consumers know that they will have games that both parents and kids can enjoy (separately and together).

Wii is like cable TV, and PS3/360 is like HBO.  Both cable and HBO have some great content, but cable is the one that everybody's gonna have because it's cheap and has something for everyone.  It's not rocket science as to why Nintendo has sold so many consoles this generation.  They've made the barrier to entry for their console virtually non-existent.

[Deguello]

Ah, the "Wii Hate HD" threads...always a favorite around here.

This isn't an HD hate thread.  It's really a "why do third parties give a damn about a system they never make their best games for?" thread.  "HD" gets mentioned like it's a "nuff said" issue, but that doesn't explain the industry's history when it comes to just that issue.

The N64 was "HD" before its time with something called "High Rez" which meant a higher resolution (!) of 640x480. Nobody really cared then.  The GC and Xbox dangled "Progressive scan" over the PS2 to zero effect.  Suddenly HD is like the buzzword of the generation, being thrown around more than blast processing.  Suddenly graphical output means a whole lot to third parties who didn't care at all last generation, and this includes the developers of series like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear, who previously resided on the least capable systems.

And just mentioning the fact that HD, itself, hasn't grown the userbase of anything isn't to "hate" it, it's just to state a fact.  It really hasn't.  And nobody really hates "HD" as a concept.  They just don't think it's worth the tradeoff of higher prices, longer dev times, and desperation attempts by the developers for more revenue, like Abusive DLC, Full priced demo disks, and product-less DRM schemes known as digital distribution. 

As an example, I love chocolate cakes.  They are delicious, but they are very expensive and bad for me.  I feel the same way about HD.  It is an inevitable occurrence that future consoles will be HD, so much that everybody won't care who did it first, but driving costs up for devs who then research the worst methods of capitalism, driving game prices up $10 minimum,  driving console prices past $400, and other such tactics in the process of economizing HD have really brought destruction to our fair hobby.  It's more complex than simply "Love/Hate"

Wii is like cable TV, and PS3/360 is like HBO.  Both cable and HBO have some great content, but cable is the one that everybody's gonna have because it's cheap and has something for everyone.

I'd agree with this if third parties went about making games for the Wii like TV production companies go about making shows for cable.  Because currently regular cable has better shows than HBO/Showtime, because HBO/Showtime usually just rips off an old cable show and inserts more swear words into the script.

That's not the case with Wii.  Nintendo still makes alright games, but third parties have somehow lost their minds and decided the best way to make a good impression on the largest userbase is to make some of the worst games they have ever made.

And finally, I don't think the Wii userbase, or regular customers/gamers in general are as nondiscriminatory as you think.  That's why all those surefire "Wii demographic" "party games" failed miserably. Of course in response to this, most will say something like "Hmmf, lousy casual Wii owners and their hardcore Nintendo fanboyism." (Gee, wonder why?)  Then they'll cut support, even as the Wii userbase grows to 50 million faster than the PS2.  It's never that they make horrible games.  It's the economy!  It's the Nintendo fans!  It's the magical casual market that's there for Wii Sports Resort but not there for Mega Pasture Party: Cowsill Clambake!

I just wish they'd make better games and stop trying to be Kanye West to Taylor Swift.  They bet on the wrong horse, but that never stopped them from picking the right one soon after.  I wish they'd stop treating Wii owners like schmucks, because it is really damaging to their reputations.

[broodwars]

What was hyberbolic again?  Are the combined totals of the 360 and PS3 MORE than the PS2?  If not, can we assume that Nintendo basically saved the industry from a more than 50% user freefall?

The way you referred to Nintendo having to "move heaven and earth" to "save" the industry.  One of the more laughable hyperbolic statements I've read in a while.

Yes, Nintendo suffered so much with their giant mountain of money they had before this generation when they decided to "sacrifice" and use tech for the Wii that was well over 5 years old,

What's your point here?

That Nintendo sacrificed exactly nothing when they put the Wii out.  They started from a position of nothing with the Wii and were already a massively-profitable company.  They just did the same thing with the Wii that Nintendo always does: exactly opposite to what the rest of the industry is doing and is most profitable to Nintendo. 

Nintendo would have been "sacrificing" if they were willing to drop the probably ridiculous profit margin they have on the Wii and give it true HD capability from the get-go.  Yes, it would have been more expensive for Nintendo and they would have had a harder time making a profit, but the Wii didn't sell on its graphics capability but on its motion control.  Just because something has HD capability, that doesn't mean it has to look a particular way.  We still could have had the cheap-looking "Wii" line of games Nintendo's in love of doing, but for those 3rd parties that want to go that extra step that would have been an option for them as well.  You get the kind of games you want, I get the kind of games I want.  Everyone's happy.  But no, Nintendo cheap-ed out on the Wii and made it substandard compared to what the rest of the industry had already prepared for, limiting the tools developers had to work with.  As usual, Nintendo did what was best for Nintendo only and 3rd parties suffered for it.  This doesn't excuse the **** they've put out on the Wii thus far, but look at what they have to work with.  You have entire teams of artists and programmers who want to paint works with a full canvas of tools.  Nintendo gave them a single paintbrush and some watercolors.  That's what irritates me most about the Wii: we could have had all the benefits of the two other consoles and motion controls, but because it wasn't in Nintendo's best interests we got only motion controls.

[Deguello]

The way you referred to Nintendo having to "move heaven and earth" to "save" the industry.  One of the more laughable hyperbolic statements I've read in a while.

I didn't say "save"  I said "fight the decay."  You can laugh all you want, but it's true.    Without the Wii, total console ownership would have fallen massively.  This is proven by sales numbers.  Go look them up.

That Nintendo sacrificed exactly nothing when they put the Wii out.  They started from a position of nothing with the Wii and were already a massively-profitable company.  They just did the same thing with the Wii that Nintendo always does: exactly opposite to what the rest of the industry is doing and is most profitable to Nintendo.

Where did I say they were sacrificing?  Man you seem to read posts and find different things other than what the words actually say.  And please enlighten me.  What did Nintendo do that was different from "the industry" with the DS?  It's not as simple as "Rest of industry vs. Nintendo" because considering the size of the DS and Wii userbases, it's everybody else who is violating "the industry" as in what the majority of the customers are demanding.  And this post was in the context of third parties making demands of a company they mostly insult over and over with bad games and sarcastic press releases.  The meat of the question has still not been answered, which is why should Nintendo listen to them when they offer nothing?

Nintendo would have been "sacrificing" if they were willing to drop the probably ridiculous profit margin they have on the Wii and give it true HD capability from the get-go.  Yes, it would have been more expensive for Nintendo and they would have had a harder time making a profit, but the Wii didn't sell on its graphics capability but on its motion control.

MS and Sony have still both lost billions of dollars on their respective consoles and Nintendo's profit margin for Wii's is about $8 per unit.  what is "ridiculous" here?  And if they loaded an extremely expensive graphics card from 2005  onto the console and drove the price past $400, I can safely say Nintendo would be dead last.

Just because something has HD capability, that doesn't mean it has to look a particular way.  We still could have had the cheap-looking "Wii" line of games Nintendo's in love of doing,

Yeah, all 5 of them.

but for those 3rd parties that want to go that extra step that would have been an option for them as well.

3rd parties never went that extra step last generation, to make games in high resolution progressive scan.  They just made games on the market leader, period.  Suddenly Nintendo's #1 and all these labels and demographics start flying around.  It's not hard to see what's going on.  They made a bad bet and they're angry at the successful guy.

You get the kind of games you want, I get the kind of games I want.  Everyone's happy.  But no, Nintendo cheap-ed out on the Wii and made it substandard compared to what the rest of the industry had already prepared for, limiting the tools developers had to work with.

Wii is still capable of every type of game on the 360 and PS3, referring to genres.  They won't look as nice, but there is no real limitation.  If anything Nintendo's given them an economic development platform with a sensation of a control scheme, that a lot of developers suddenly "love" now that SM and Sony are doing them.

As usual, Nintendo did what was best for Nintendo only and 3rd parties suffered for it.  This doesn't excuse the **** they've put out on the Wii thus far, but look at what they have to work with.

You make it sound like they are excused.  Nintendo make fine games on the Wii.  What's stopping third parties from doing the same?  3rd parties have made better games on the DS!  Explain quality in those limitations, sir, because the DS has currently got the best lineup of games this whole generation.

Nintendo gave them a single paintbrush and some watercolors.  That's what irritates me most about the Wii: we could have had all the benefits of the two other consoles and motion controls, but because it wasn't in Nintendo's best interests we got only motion controls.

Your grasp of what was financially reasonable and feasible in 2005 is very loose.

[Stogi]

What was hyberbolic again?  Are the combined totals of the 360 and PS3 MORE than the PS2?  If not, can we assume that Nintendo basically saved the industry from a more than 50% user freefall?

The way you referred to Nintendo having to "move heaven and earth" to "save" the industry.  One of the more laughable hyperbolic statements I've read in a while.

Yes, Nintendo suffered so much with their giant mountain of money they had before this generation when they decided to "sacrifice" and use tech for the Wii that was well over 5 years old,

What's your point here?

That Nintendo sacrificed exactly nothing when they put the Wii out.  They started from a position of nothing with the Wii and were already a massively-profitable company.  They just did the same thing with the Wii that Nintendo always does: exactly opposite to what the rest of the industry is doing and is most profitable to Nintendo. 

Nintendo would have been "sacrificing" if they were willing to drop the probably ridiculous profit margin they have on the Wii and give it true HD capability from the get-go.  Yes, it would have been more expensive for Nintendo and they would have had a harder time making a profit, but the Wii didn't sell on its graphics capability but on its motion control.  Just because something has HD capability, that doesn't mean it has to look a particular way.  We still could have had the cheap-looking "Wii" line of games Nintendo's in love of doing, but for those 3rd parties that want to go that extra step that would have been an option for them as well.  You get the kind of games you want, I get the kind of games I want.  Everyone's happy.  But no, Nintendo cheap-ed out on the Wii and made it substandard compared to what the rest of the industry had already prepared for, limiting the tools developers had to work with.  As usual, Nintendo did what was best for Nintendo only and 3rd parties suffered for it.  This doesn't excuse the **** they've put out on the Wii thus far, but look at what they have to work with.  You have entire teams of artists and programmers who want to paint works with a full canvas of tools.  Nintendo gave them a single paintbrush and some watercolors.  That's what irritates me most about the Wii: we could have had all the benefits of the two other consoles and motion controls, but because it wasn't in Nintendo's best interests we got only motion controls.

Wow...You are so off base here that it's almost not funny; almost.

First off, those motion controls you take for granted was a huge sacrifice. Being the first is always hard, and the risk was huge.

Secondly, they didn't **** over third parties. They have the cheapest dev kits, the best consultations, and even a system to deliver games that publishers won't touch.

Thirdly, the fact that you're pissed off because of one tiny issue that really doesn't help gaming just shows how completely naive and unrealistic you really are.

[Deguello]

I think what's also weird is how Nintendo gets pitted against "the rest of the industry" as if they are bit players with niche markets.  When Nintendo has the #1 and #2 userbases, being the DS and the Wii respectively, Nintendo IS the industry as far as those users are concerned.  Maybe third parties should be the ones who bend to the majority of the customers' wants and needs instead of trying to peddle influence.

[broodwars]

Secondly, they didn't **** over third parties. They have the cheapest dev kits, the best consultations, and even a system to deliver games that publishers won't touch.

Thirdly, the fact that you're pissed off because of one tiny issue that really doesn't help gaming just shows how completely naive and unrealistic you really are.

Except for one minor problem: the gaming market has diversified to a point where console exclusivity isn't as viable as it once was, so the name of the game is multiplatform.  The Wii can't do what the other two consoles are capable of, so 3rd parties can't port to Wii.  They have to make a specialized version just for Wii, which by the way Wii owners don't buy.  Sometimes it's because it's extremely watered-down from the original concept (Dead Rising), often because it was crap (see also: Dead Rising), and sometimes because I think we've just become predisposed over the years as Nintendo gamers to assume a 3rd party game will be crap after 2 generations of having to deal with it.  However it works out, 3rd parties can't do what is most profitable to them, so they focus on the platforms they can.

If you think this is an issue that pisses me off, you're somewhat off-base yourself.  I said it was an issue that "irritates" me.  I stopped being "pissed off" about it when I stopped holding out hope for better quality in my Wii games and bought a PS2/PS3, and now it's just something that reeks to me of a sad and missed opportunity as someone who prior to this generation had only purchased Nintendo products.  I brought it up because I thought we were having a sensible and fairly-cordial discussion on the subject.  I find it hard to believe that Nintendo couldn't have put a Wii in with firepower equivalent to the 360 as well as motion control, rather than just throw in an upgraded GameCube.

As for the DS vs. PSP, I'd have to hazzard a guess that developers took the PSP's power for granted in those early years and assumed that with specs close to that of a PS2 that they could simply put PS2-type games on the platform.  They didn't take into account that handheld and console games are very different beasts, something the DS developers had no problem understanding.  The DS gained in popularity and diversity, and the PSP continued to shuffle around with no apparent direction.  Nintendo also had the considerable advantage of pretty much being the name in handheld gaming.  Sony's continual bungling of the PSP certainly hasn't helped either, something that continues to this very day.

[Deguello]

Except for one minor problem: the gaming market has diversified to a point where console exclusivity isn't as viable as it once was, so the name of the game is multiplatform.

Please clarify this, because I don't it has actually "diversified."  And Console exclusivity is working wonders for Nintendo, and the have the extra burden of having to fabricate hardware and take huge risks on control methods.

They have to make a specialized version just for Wii, which by the way Wii owners don't buy. 

They "have to?"  Nintendo is forcing them to make bad games?  And Wii owners don't buy insultingly late ports?  I'm glad they appear to have more taste than they seem to get credit for.

Nintendo gamers to assume a 3rd party game will be crap after 2 generations of having to deal with it.

and whose fault is that?

However it works out, 3rd parties can't do what is most profitable to them, so they focus on the platforms they can.

Amusingly, third parties haven't been very profitable this generation.  In fact, some have even died or been swallowed by bigger devs.  So they're basically stuck in between their awful games reputations not being profitable on Wii due to their bad reputations and/or horrible games/sabotage and their actual efforts not being profitable on the others systems.  Well, sucks to be them, they've had their chances.

I brought it up because I thought we were having a sensible and fairly-cordial discussion on the subject.  I find it hard to believe that Nintendo couldn't have put a Wii in with firepower equivalent to the 360 as well as motion control, rather than just throw in an upgraded GameCube.

So, when third parties do what is most profitable to them, that's good.  But when Nintendo does the same... that's bad?  MS is still in the tank for billions on just the 360, not to mention their losses on the original Xbox.  Sony has squandered their ENTIRE PS2 Profits and almost all of their PS1 profits on just the PS3, something to the tune of $5 billion.  This is why that "firepower" was unfeasible to Nintendo in 2005, as well as most other companies run by people with multiple brain cells.  That could have just as easily been Nintendo hemorrhaging money like Sony if they tried to develop "future proof" processors and technologies.

[Stogi]

I was going to say something, but Deguello summed it up quite nicely.

I don't know why people hate on Nintendo so much. First it was "teh k1dd13", which made third parties "think" they couldn't sell mature games on a Nintendo system because it was too PC or some bullshit like that. But whatever, last generation the GC was dead last so I saw those excuses as just meaningless babble to side-step support.

But now, now it's all about HD and the two companies that are fighting for a select few of the markets dollars are the talk of the town, while Nintendo, rightly so, idly watches as if waiting for one of the stupid cocks to peck the other's eyes out. It's a shame really; a damn shame. Nintendo's making more money than it has ever had and it's damn near begging for third parties to jump on; anyone, everyone! But no, if Microsoft and Sony were to lose any support they'd be even deader in the water. So they toss out free money to companies willing to cash-in. But despite the free money, third parties are still dieing. Again, a damn shame.

If third parties want to make money and prosper, all they'd have to do is make a fun game and put it on the Wii. It's really that simple. It can be gruesome, cheerful, scary, rewarding, addictive; what the **** ever. Just take it seriously.

Meh...but whatever. When I did have a Wii, I had plenty of games that kept me happy and there's even more to come. I can't see why anyone, especially a person with multiple consoles could be truly irritated about the situation. Games are games; so pick the ones you like and get on with your life.

[broodwars]

I can't see why anyone, especially a person with multiple consoles could be truly irritated about the situation. Games are games; so pick the ones you like and get on with your life.

I'm irritated with the situation because my Wii has practically been a $250 paperweight gathering dust since summer of last year, and many of the games I have been playing on my PS3 (Bioshock, Prince of Persia, Dead Space, etc.) are games that would have been great on the Wii (and probably would have been on the system) if the system could have handled them.  So I pretty much had to buy a PS3 to get experiences that if the Wii were more powerful it probably would have gotten anyway.  Hence the irritation.

[Urkel]

So I pretty much had to buy a PS3 to get experiences that if the Wii were more powerful it probably would have gotten anyway.

Probably not. Gamecube was a beast and third parties largely ignored it. The few ports it did get were often half assed and even ran worse than the PS2 version. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't treat a more powerful Wii the same way.

And how much do you think such a console would've cost at launch anyway? Sony and Microsoft both sold their systems at a loss, so I can't imagine this hypothetical Super Wii retailing for anything less than $400. So whatever appeal the Wiimote had would've been moot since the mainstream would never dish out that much cash for a game console, so Nintendo would neither have marketshare nor third party support.

[broodwars]

So I pretty much had to buy a PS3 to get experiences that if the Wii were more powerful it probably would have gotten anyway.

Probably not. Gamecube was a beast and third parties largely ignored it. The few ports it did get were often half assed and even ran worse than the PS2 version. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't treat a more powerful Wii the same way.

And how much do you think such a console would've cost at launch anyway? Sony and Microsoft both sold their systems at a loss, so I can't imagine this hypothetical Super Wii retailing for anything less than $400. So whatever appeal the Wiimote had would've been moot since the mainstream would never dish out that much cash for a game console, so Nintendo would neither have marketshare nor third party support.

Perhaps, but we'll never know.  At one point, I'd have thought you were crazy if you'd told me that people would willingly pay $120+ for a single music game and $90 for a bathroom scale, but we've certainly seen that haven't we?

[KDR_11k]

I think Nintendo could have put beefier processors into the Wii without a real price increase, it wouldn't be up to the 360's level though (remember that thing went up to 400$, sold at a loss AND doesn't have any of the motion tech the Wii uses, hell, doesn't even include WiFi) and would lose the Gamecube backwards compatibility.

Malstrom once pointed out what kind of advanced tech the Wii does have, stuff like a slot loading drive that can accept mini DVDs (AFAIK all existing slot loaded drives would break if you gave them anything other than a full size disc), a really low power processor system, an advanced controller, proper WiFi and Bluetooth support, an SSD, a size that's significantly smaller than the competition... All that "Gamecube 1.5" comparisons focus on is the processing power but a console isn't just a bunch of processors.

[BwrJim!]

Lets keep in mind too a couple things about the Wii Hardware as well. The architecture of the memory system that is in place is actually a really good combination and configuration for their textures and other compliments.  The system is also has the ability to incorperate new techniques implemented years down the road to keep it going. 

  Dont get me wrong though, more memory is always beneficial, but for what the system is doing, its one of the best configured units on the market.   I am not sure where I saw this, but I did see someones idea on how nintendo could cater to bigger and badder markets in the next generation.

  It was something like, when it comes time to release a newer hardware, Nintendo could use a dual support system for the hardwares.  First was of course to make a new system that is backward compatible and had improved motion mechanics.  (lets face it, the controller works and so it most liekly will change just a little) while keeping the Wii going strong supporting the new markets they had created with it.  So as the "Core" Jump onto a newer system, Nintendo would keep that Wii going strong.  Then as the "Core" reach a more saturated point, it will begin to shift over users from one system to the next.  That way Nintendo would be able to keep multiple strong markets in the Console areana. Something that hasn't been done yet but came real close with the PS2. If the PS3 became as successful as Sony may of wanted, then this would of been a completly differnt race.   Now, its Nintendos turn to take a shot at it and lets not forget, Nintendo does like to sit back, watch the comptetition and then improve on what they are doing.   

So, we will see.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Can I expect Trace Memory Wii by 2011?

D=

[Peachylala]

That is about as likely as Epic Games making a Wii game.

[D_Average]

Why do people still hold on to strange conspiracy theories 3rd parties have a secret grudge against the Wii?  Its all about the dolla dolla bill ya'll.  Business will get in bed with anyone as long as it brings in the cash.  HD, SD, it doesn't matter.  Whatever sells is what matters.  Just take a look at all the 3rd party games with a Metracritic score of 80 or above that have less than stellar sales.  People aren't buying them.  Therefore, they've stopped making them.  Pretty simple.  The vast majority of Wii owners just aren't into what we are.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Sony Sports Stadium

Microsoft Fitness Simulator

You're going to LOVE what brings in the cash in the future.

[KDR_11k]

The problem is that all the games they use as sales metrics are games that never had a chance anyway, just too niche or just bad.