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

[BlackNMild2k1]

MS would likely be the one to force Sony's hand.
MS will release the Xbox720 making Sony release the PS4 to combat it.
MS is already "profitable" with the 360 and next year is MS's 5th year with the 360.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

It's not in 3rd parties' best interests to support the Market Leader.

Yay?

[vudu]

I'm hoping by 2011 we'll see a Wii 2 with specs comparable to the PS3 (hardware that is now affordable to mass produce)

But it's still really difficult to make a profit on the games since they cost so much to make.

And you can say "as a gamer I don't care about a company's profitability" all you want, but when every game looks the same because they all use the same damn Unreal 3 engine it's a problem that affects you.

[Ian Sane]

But it's still really difficult to make a profit on the games since they cost so much to make.

Are they always going to be unaffordable to make?  I would assume that as time goes by a developers get more familiar with the hardware that the development time will shrink.  Sony and MS aren't going to downgrade their consoles.  So Nintendo can either catch up or be forever behind.  Do you think the Wii hardware is suitable enough to last for ten years?  I figure the HDTV issue alone is reason to upgrade.  Anything that does not support HDTVs is going to very soon come across as archaic.  And the third party support is not going to improve until they match the hardware and I don't think Nintendo can keep the top spot past 2011 if the quality of the library doesn't improve.  They can't afford to coast and if they don't release a Wii 2 that's what they'll be doing.

[KDR_11k]

Shrink somewhat but the difference isn't going away, ever. The problem is that while the costs go up (factor 2.5 from what I heard) the customerbase is constant or even shrinking. That's the reason behind all that 60$/70€ price, DLC, anti-used-sales, tons of special editions, digital distribution, DRM, etc bullshit, a desperate attempt to get revenue growth when the number of customers is not increasing. The HD games are hardly sustainable, the successes are pretty shallow and require wringing money out of the few customers there are while the failures are devastating. That's more of a philosophical difference than an actual hardware issue though, the industry has fallen into a blockbuster mentality that is completely out of touch with what people really want (do HD graphics really increase our enjoyment of the game 2.5 fold?).

[GoldenPhoenix]

Development costs for HD games probably won't drop much, you still have to design the visuals and the details that go into them, that takes a lot of work hours.

[ShyGuy]

Seems like I read somewhere that 70% of a HD game's budget was dedicated to creating art assets.

[broodwars]

(do HD graphics really increase our enjoyment of the game 2.5 fold?).

I would argue that they do in any game that relies heavily on atmosphere or an especially unique look.  Dead Space; Bioshock; Prince of Persia; and Valkyria Chronicles just wouldn't be the same to me without that level of HD polish.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Yar, technology boosts don't eliminate art labor.

[ShyGuy]

Game Informer did an article about Oblivion years back, detailing all the steps went through just to make a rock wall.

They created the polygon wall
Then they created a hi-res rock texture
Then they added lighting
Then they did bump mapping
Then they add bloom
Then they softened the bloom and lighting
Then they added a grimy filter
Then they added a clear coat varnish
Then they added one of those fancy sandwich toothpicks with the frilly stuff on top.

[GoldenPhoenix]

It is a similar concept to CGI movies, as time goes on they aren't getting any cheaper, they are getting more and more expensive.

[broodwars]

It is a similar concept to CGI movies, as time goes on they aren't getting any cheaper, they are getting more and more expensive.

Not quite.  Yes, it gets increasingly more expensive to do CGI movies with increasingly-better CGI.  However, it does get less expensive over time to put out the same quality of CGI as our hardware and software grow increasingly more advanced.  Just look at the CGI used in TV shows like Battlestar Galactica (which IMO easily rival many feature films) or Terminator: the Sarah Conner Chronicles.  5-10 years ago, that would have been theatrical quality animation but we can now produce it on a TV show budget.  Computer Graphics that looked outstanding on TV just 10 years ago is now commonplace in college computer animation classes through programs like Maya.  The cost of doing HD graphics as we know them now will decrease over time just as anything technology-related will.  It's just a matter of if companies will be satisfied with the level of detail we have now or if they want to keep pushing it further into costlier territory.

[Ian Sane]

If the Wii 2 had comparable hardware to the Xbox 360 is there anything preventing Nintendo from continuing to make games that look like Dreamcast launch titles?  No.  Nintendo can continue to make games within whatever budget they see fit.  If the market is willing to accept something like the Wii series, which visually wouldn't stand out on last gen consoles, when these HD games exist with clearly superior visuals then what's the problem?  Something like Mario can only look so detailed because of the cartoony style involved anyway.  And games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band, which are not on the cutting edge of visual presentation, are on the HD consoles and are very successful on them.  You don't have to push the visuals as far as they go to be accepted by the general public.

But the real difference would be IF a developer chose to make some super-expensive blockbuster HD game then there would no roadblock to prevent it from being released on Nintendo's console.  Right now there is.  Nintendo's only cost involved is to manufacture the hardware itself and we have now reached a point where that hardware can be sold at an affordable price point.

Many MANY good third party games are not being released on the Wii.  To continue to allow this is to give the competition an edge.  For Nintendo to assume that they can continue to be number one as the Wii's library is full of shovelware, while the competition's libraries get better and better is stupidly arrogant.  They can't "fake it" forever.  If they don't have the best library of games then their market share is largely phony and it's only a matter of time before the bubble bursts.  They have to address that issue and a Wii 2 in 2011 is the only way to do it.

Plus to reject HD completely is going to become like rejecting colour TV back in the day.  The general public doesn't care how much money you save by filming in black & white.  Once something becomes expected you have to support it and by 2011 a videogame console that doesn't support HD is going to come across like a fossil.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"If they don't have the best library of games then their market share is largely phony"

Good luck supporting that statement.

[Ian Sane]

Good luck supporting that statement.

It's not phony in the sense that the raw numbers aren't there.  But ideally the market leader should provide the best product.  With a videogame console it's all about the games and I would consider the Wii to easily have the weakest library.  The sheer amount of junk that third parties make for it ensures that.

Since this is not the case Nintendo cannot assume that their market share is secure because it is largely undeserved.  The quality of the product is not proportionate to the level of success.  Therefore I would assume there is a certain amount of consumer ignorance in the market share which is understandably since Nintendo very cleverly targetted a demographic that was otherwise unfamiliar with videogames.  Great idea, great marketing strategy.  But ignorance is finite.  In time Nintendo will not be able to keep the market share if they don't keep the quality of their product up.  They'll either lose customers to the competition or just lose customers that grow disinterested and leave the market altogether.

The phoniness is that one would at a glance look at the numbers and think "well Nintendo is number one so they should be fine".  But I don't think that's the case.  The Wii's success is deceiving since it relied so much on catching a target market largely ignorant of videogames off guard.  You can only do that once.  To assume that everything will remain fine is foolish because I'm looking at the products here and I see the competition improving while the market leader gets worse.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

With Mr. Sane's comment concluded, I am now opening to floor to responses.

Yes, You in the back, go ahead...

[King of Twitch]

"The Wii's success is deceiving since it relied so much on catching a target market largely ignorant of videogames off guard."

So...what's your excuse for getting a Wii?

[GoldenPhoenix]

"The Wii's success is deceiving since it relied so much on catching a target market largely ignorant of videogames off guard."

Kind of like the PS2, DS, GBA, GB, NES.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Very strong opening responses thus far.  Let's invite a few more responses to ensure Mr. Sane responds with BLAWK TEXT after we return from recess.

All right, You with the Chihuahua in your purse manpurse?, let us hear it...

[Ian Sane]

So...what's your excuse for getting a Wii?

Well I'm a longtime fan of Nintendo and it had some games I really wanted to play.

[broodwars]

"The Wii's success is deceiving since it relied so much on catching a target market largely ignorant of videogames off guard."

Kind of like the PS2, DS, GBA, GB, NES.

Don't forget the original PlayStation as well.

[Mop it up]

"The Wii's success is deceiving since it relied so much on catching a target market largely ignorant of videogames off guard."

Kind of like the PS2, DS, GBA, GB, NES.

Don't forget the original PlayStation as well.

What about the Atari or Game And Watch? Didn't they do that too?

[King of Twitch]

So...what's your excuse for getting a Wii?

Well I'm a longtime fan of Nintendo and it had some games I really wanted to play.

As we all know, TP turned out to be OOT 2.0 and Metroid Prime 3 was full of stupid purple lunchbox waggle rehash. You were caught off guard and duped, out of videogame ignorance, $250. You ignorantly thought Nintendo would change and actually listen to the non-ignorant fans such as yourself and make more games you were interested in.

[KDR_11k]

Since this is not the case Nintendo cannot assume that their market share is secure because it is largely undeserved.  The quality of the product is not proportionate to the level of success.  Therefore I would assume there is a certain amount of consumer ignorance in the market share which is understandably since Nintendo very cleverly targetted a demographic that was otherwise unfamiliar with videogames.  Great idea, great marketing strategy.  But ignorance is finite.  In time Nintendo will not be able to keep the market share if they don't keep the quality of their product up.  They'll either lose customers to the competition or just lose customers that grow disinterested and leave the market altogether.

In summary: Casual gamers are retards. That's the assumption that third parties go into this with and produce their shitty party games for, then they wonder why the retards won't lap them up. Maybe the retards aren't so retarded? Maybe they're picky but the things they pick are completely invisible to the ignorant you?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Bullseye.