Topic: XboxOne ~News/Rumor/Speculation~ Biggest Console Released This Gen!!

[MaryJane]

What world do you live in Ian?

Where was the gimmick in the SNES, N64, and GC? Where is the gimmick that got people to move from Xbox to 360 and PS2 to PS3? It was simply new/more powerful technology.

Before 3DTV, manufacturers were touting their improvements to HD, like 120Hz refresh rate, and more accurate reproduction of colors.

After 3D it will be 4k (which is broadcasting 4 1080p signals onto seperate quadrants of one screen) and after that it will be holographs.

Yes companies are always trying to find new ways to sell their wares, but they do so on the back of new and/or recently affordable technology.

For how freaking long were manufacturers able to make money on CRT TVs before HDTVs came out? How did they do so? By coming up with better color, bigger screens, and better picture. Same as they are doing now.

I can't believe I even have to say this, but Nintendo went with the Wiimote to attract casual gamers. The enticement for GC owners was new Nintendo games, just as it always was, but after the kiddy labeling, that wasn't enough for PS boys, so Nintendo said F them let's find ourselves some new gamers, gamers who don't listen to gaming analysts and forum trolls, and they did so.

And let's be real the Virtual Boy suffered from a lot of things, namely method of use. Who wants to literally blinded to the rest of the world when playing videogames? I remember demoing one at Toys R Us and promptly getting kicked in the leg by a friend who didn't bother to run because I couldn't tell which of my friends did it. Also, being completely in red didn't help. The VB was too ambitious, just like 3D movies in the 50's and 80's.

[Stogi]

3DTV's suck right now. It's not like HDTV's where walking into Best Buy basically made your jaw drop and the little kid inside us all cried when we saw the debilitating price tag. 3DTV's aren't there yet. Once we can go into a store and see **** popping out all over the place, then will we cry inside all over again.

That is why I just don't get the push right now. Glasses aren't the future. It's ok for a theater because it seems kinda neat. It's like everyone getting a life jacket when going on a booze cruise. It's fun, even if slightly annoying.

Ian has that Vancouver mentality where he could give a **** about TV in general. Who needs a TV when I can smoke a joint on the way to a jazz bar? But for the rest of us (e.g. those of us who have 'movie night' or something equivalent), we quietly tap the floor with our foot waiting for grand entertainment technologies to become affordable. And 3DTV's are what we are waiting for next.

[Ian Sane]

What world do you live in Ian?

Where was the gimmick in the SNES, N64, and GC? Where is the gimmick that got people to move from Xbox to 360 and PS2 to PS3? It was simply new/more powerful technology.

The new/more powerful technology was sufficient so no gimmick was necessary.  But from the Cube to the Wii a gimmick was needed because the boost was so minor.  It didn't have to be, Nintendo chose for it to be like that.  But I think that's what we'll see more of in the future as the benefits of improved hardware become less obvious to consumers so a gimmick will be needed to justify a next gen.
 

Ian has that Vancouver mentality where he could give a **** about TV in general. Who needs a TV when I can smoke a joint on the way to a jazz bar?

Yeah, but all those people I know who own an HDTV also live in Vancouver.

[Spak-Spang]

Ian is right.  This is why Google and Apple are pushing internet TV...where you can watch youtube and other flash video services on the television...or stream your digital movies to your television.  They are trying to sell more TVs and devices that are not needed by most of the people using televisions. 

3D has the wow factor and immediate understanding of improvement over the regular television, but it really adds little to nothing to the overall quality of show, and in fact sometimes it hurts the quality. The Last Airbender is proof of that. 

So why is everyone so desperate to push this as the big breakthrough?  Money.

[Spak-Spang]

Guys Gimmicks are not actually a bad thing.  Gimmicks are neutral.  They are the device that makes a product: fun, unique, interesting, or whatnot.

It is whether the gimmick is worthwhile and actually interesting whether or not it is a good.  Gimmicks are common lingo in the commercial world.

Lets look at some things that can be considered Gimmicks and what worked or didn't work:

Fludd: From Super Mario Sunshine was a gimmick.  Mario was given a backpack.  It mostly works, but in the end, was unnecessary and I would say wasn't a great addition to the series.

Sphere Platforming:  Super Mario Galaxy:  This is a huge gimmick, but an amazing gimmick that works.  It created a completely new play experience.

Youtube on televisions is a gimmick...why do I need it?  Cool?  Maybe but pointless.

OnStar for your car...Gimmick to buy a car...and not necessary...but it does provide a service people like.

Gimmicks are basically everywhere and yes the Wiis motion control was a gimmick.  A very fine awesome gimmick that mostly works. 

[Stogi]

Using Last Airbender as a 3D example isn't fair to 3D.

Listen, all I'm saying is this and only this. Cover one eye with your hand. Then don't. How is that not better?

[BlackNMild2k1]

Actually, the 3DS is proof that 3D is here to stay. The most popular system EVER is going to incorporate the tech, and you don't think that bodes well?

That's a funny statement because I think I know what you're trying to say but it didn't come out clearly.

At this point, the 3DS is proof that 3D is now affordable. Nothing more.
I assume your "most popular" statement was in reference to the DS brand and not the 3DS itself since the 3DS isn't even out yet and couldn't possibly be proof of success(of 3D) much less the title holder of "most popular".

[Chozo Ghost]

Speaking of 3D, there was something on the news awhile back about the 3D glasses they use in the theaters, and they did tests on them and found fecal matter and all kinds of germs and bacteria on them. It was disgusting. Who would want to put something like that on their face and wear it for 2+ hours? Certainly not me. I will wait until the 3D is built into the screens and doesn't require the glasses.

[Spak-Spang]

The Last Airbender is a PERFECT example.  Because as we start pushing head long into the 3D world where everything must be 3D people are going to force budget 3D on us.  Force filmed shows to be converted to 3D and it is not going to work.  3D works when done well...but it is not always done well...in fact it is usually done poorly...and even when it is done well you have problems with it making people sick or giving them headaches.  Now that IS with glasses, but I think it will be similar without glasses and even Nintendo is worried about that. 

[MaryJane]

Something like 10% of the population gets sick watching 3D, and yes Nintendo is worried about, and that is why they have a slider to turn it off.

Whoever said they don't want to put on the glasses at theaters, great don't do it. Millions of people do it every weekend, and also use similarly filthy bathrooms in those same movie theaters. Also, exposure to various forms of bacteria is good for you, it helps build your immune system, and keep it from getting lazy. Not saying actively seek it out, but it's also not the end of the world, or even the end of your health.

@Ian: You also alleged that 3D was a gimmick to push the new DS. Yet the 3DS is plenty more powerful, so your argument is still moot. Also, the 3D is probably to further differentiate from the PSP line, which is going to incorporate touch controls and cameras, which set the DS/DSi apart before.

@BnM: Yes, but I actually meant Nintendo's whole line portable products. I actually think if only for the sake of record keeping and boasting, they should have kept the Gameboy name since that 3rd pillar thing didn't pan out, but maybe they'll still surprise us with a portable GC that also has a GB/C/A port. Edit: I said it bodes well, not that it was proof of success.

Forced 3D sucks of course, just like upscaling SD and even 720p to 1080p isn't always a smooth transition. Current 3DTVs (badly) upscale 2D content into 3D, so by the 'logic' of the doubters, obviously 3D is doomed, instead of the obvious indication that the push is proof of concept. Movies are no longer tacking on 3D (expect big things from The Hobbit and those RED Epic cameras) because they can now plan ahead, instead of retroactively because now every knows its here to stay.

[Ian Sane]

Ian: You also alleged that 3D was a gimmick to push the new DS. Yet the 3DS is plenty more powerful, so your argument is still moot.

Well I never said the 3DS isn't a significant upgrade to the DS, but the 3D aspect of it is still a gimmick.  Come for the 3D, stay for the analog stick and improved specs.  The 3D part is the novelty that grabs your attention but thankfully the 3DS will also be a worthwhile follow-up even if it didn't have 3D.  I think the 3DS would sell with core gamers from the hardware boost alone but having a gimmick is necessary to attract the casuals.  And as technology improves less and less people will notice the hardware increases so gimmicks will become more necessary.  To sell an Xbox 720 I think MS needs something that makes it stand out more.

[BlackNMild2k1]

@BnM: Yes, but I actually meant Nintendo's whole line portable products. I actually think if only for the sake of record keeping and boasting, they should have kept the Gameboy name since that 3rd pillar thing didn't pan out, but maybe they'll still surprise us with a portable GC that also has a GB/C/A port. Edit: I said it bodes well, not that it was proof of success.

Just to clarify;

I actually quoted exactly what you said in my post. you said "the 3DS is proof that 3D is here to stay."
but it's not out yet and hasn't succeeded yet, so it's not really proof of anything other than 3D is now affordable.

as far as that boding well for 3D, well it's the best thing 3D has going for it at a consumer level in the near future, but it still isn't proof that 3D is here to stay since once again the 3DS isn't even out yet and therefore isn't successful... yet.


As far as TV & movies are concerned, 3DTV's have been selling like crap AFAIK even though 3D movies (being actually shot in 3D) is on the rise. But also isn't proof that 3D movies are here to stay, it just means that shooting movies in 3D is very popular right now thanks to Avatar and we should expect to see more movies in proper 3D over the next few years than ever before when there was a 3D boom in effect. Between those movies, 3DTV advancements and the 3DS (3D cellphones on the way too), we have yet to see if 3D is here to stay, but the odds are definitely stacked in it's favor this time.

[TJ Spyke]

You are absolutely wrong. The boom in HDTVs is what brought the price down to $1,000, and that only happened within the last 18 months or so. Early last year HDTV saturation was at about 35% and now a Google search will tell you that it's anywhere from 56-65%. And there about 116 million household in the U.S just for reference.

Those people who bought an HDTV in the last few years ARE going to be willing to make another $1,000 purchase in the next few years.

America is the land of over-indulgence and "keeping up with the Jonse's" it is wrong to assume a family would be unwilling to buy two TVs in a matter of 4-6 years, especially when next year 3DTVs are certain to be big part of 2011 Black Friday/Cyber Monday/holiday shopping.

And your point about only 46% of US homes receiving an HD signal proves my point; lack of content is not a hinderance to purchase. Those 9-19% of people with no HD signal through their cable provider either have BluRay or are just simply enjoying widescreen TV. Most 3DTV owners are probably just viewing the demo disc their TV came with or the few 3D BluRays they can buy. For now, the point of the purchase is being 'hip' and having the privilege of bragging about the lack of 3D content to people who don't have your level of perceived luxury.

Sorry, but you are wrong. HDTV's have been under $1,000 for a few years now, and that is when the boom started. You don't realize how many people only upgraded to HDTV because their old TV's were 10-15 years old. Assuming 3D TV's aren't just a fad, I think it will be several years before they are not just niche products.

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't think you can even buy standard definition TVs anymore (not counting used ones at garage sales or whatever). So when a TV breaks or parents decide to buy one for Billy's room they go to the store and what they come with is HD, because that's all there is anymore, and they are now at the same price ranges the old SD TVs used to be. Some really tiny ones may be as low as $100.

3D TVs are no where near at that point yet. Right now they are probably at the point HD TVs were 5 years ago. Give them another 5 years and by then they may become the new standard.

[Spak-Spang]

The only real reason why HD televisions were more expensive than standard definition for awhile was because television companies wanted the additional profits from preceived value.  It is also the only reason the 3DS will cost $300.00 because of preceived value.  That leak about Nitnendo changing the price after the reception they got from E3 was a huge blunder, because they basically said it could have been cheaper. 

[MaryJane]

@Ian
So where was the gimmick for the DS-DSi upgrade? Cameras? And do you really think Nintendo needed a gimmick to sell the DS's successor? With how amazing the graphics are, in combination with the analog stick, it would have been fine, but obviously Nintendo (like every other corporation out there)  sees something in 3D.

@BnM
3D is here to stay. Look at all the instances of 3D you yourself mentioned and then ask how that doesn't bode well. Yes, the 3DS isn't out yet (I am painfully aware of that) but just as Nintendo made motion gaming a staple, so they are looking to pioneer 3D gaming, at least of the autostereoscopic/anyone-can-play-because-it-doesn't require-TV-or-glasses kind.
And, it's my fault, but I meant to say the 3DS is 'further proof' that 3D is here to stay. You know just as well as I do that the 3DS is going to sell. Even if it didn't have 3D, the nearly 45million people who have a DS/DSi would be looking to buy one. The 3D aspect just gives them *another* reason not to switch to the PSP.

@TJ
Do you live in the U.S? Vizio was the first to introduce sub-$1000 HDTVs and they were small and crappy. Sometime around 2006 other companies jumped on the cheap HDTV bandwagon, but again they were small and crappy. Then early last year, maybe late 2008, Vizio and others started making good, large, and affordable HDTVs. By your reasoning, Sony has an easily affordable console in the market; the PS2. $1,500 isn't outrageous for a new TV, especially when you consider that HDTVs were marginally popular when they cost $3,000. Maybe it's just living in a major metro area, but people around here don't seem to mind buying a new, or at least another, TV every few years.

[Morari]

MaryJane, do you own stock in 3D technology or something?

[Ian Sane]

So where was the gimmick for the DS-DSi upgrade? Cameras? And do you really think Nintendo needed a gimmick to sell the DS's successor? With how amazing the graphics are, in combination with the analog stick, it would have been fine, but obviously Nintendo (like every other corporation out there)  sees something in 3D.

The DSi is for suckers so I discount it.  It's Malibu Stacy with a new hat.  The GBA was very successful but it didn't sell with casuals like the DS did.  The DS had all the gimmicky bullshit with the touchscreen that attracted rubes.  If Nintendo wants to sell to rubes again with the DS successor they need another gimmick.  That's just how you sell to that demographic, they ignore legitimate improvements but are impressed by superficial novelties.  Nintendo doesn't need a gimmick to sell the 3DS, just to sell it to casuals.  Core gamers would buy it without the 3D because for us being able to play Gamecube level games on a portable is an easy sell.

[Adrock]

Touchscreen was a gimmick? /facepalm

Some of the most inventive games on DS use the touchscreen. Granted, some just use the touchscreen for the hell of it (I'm looking at you New Super Mario Bros.). The touchscreen gave developers options. Some used it well, some did not. That's still no different than any controller.

[BlackNMild2k1]

The touchscreen was a gimmick and so was the dual screens.

It (the touchscreen) just turned out to be a very useful one that has caught on on almost all mobile devices.

In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries.

Motion Capture is the gimmick for Kinect, WiiHD is the gimmick for Move and 3D is the gimmick for 3DS

[Chozo Ghost]

The touchscreen was far more than a gimmick, because certain games work MUCH better with that than they would without it. It improves gameplay in some respects, and in other respects there's no way certain games could have worked without it.... so its definitely not a gimmick. Now, granted there were many games, especially in the beginning, that tacked on touch controls in ways that didn't make any sense, such as the Castlevania game which had you draw the seals or some crap like that...

In those cases, yeah the touch screen was used in a gimmicky way, but that's not the fault of the hardware itself. In some cases its called for and very much needed, in others its just a gimmick. But overall the hardware itself is definitely NOT a gimmick. Its a new standard for portable gaming. If you're going to call that a gimmick you might as well call the analog stick a gimmick as well.

[Kytim89]

Would an audio player inside an automobile be considred a gimmick?

[BlackNMild2k1]

The touchscreen was far more than a gimmick, because certain games work MUCH better with that than they would without it. It improves gameplay in some respects, and in other respects there's no way certain games could have worked without it.... so its definitely not a gimmick. Now, granted there were many games, especially in the beginning, that tacked on touch controls in ways that didn't make any sense, such as the Castlevania game which had you draw the seals or some crap like that...

In those cases, yeah the touch screen was used in a gimmicky way, but that's not the fault of the hardware itself. In some cases its called for and very much needed, in others its just a gimmick. But overall the hardware itself is definitely NOT a gimmick. Its a new standard for portable gaming. If you're going to call that a gimmick you might as well call the analog stick a gimmick as well.

It's still a gimmick. It was just a good one that was actually useful.
The touch screen was a feature that Nintendo used to make the DS stand out from other products therefore the touchscreen(& dual screens) was the gimmick. Being a gimmick does not automatically mean it was a useless add-on that was thrown on just for the bulletpoint (as the definition I posted showed), it just means that it is a feature that is used as the hook to get you to try it out.

Touchscreen seems like a "no brainer" now since everyone is all over it and it's on everything that could use one, but back in 2003/4 touchscreen was very much the gimmick in getting the DS attention (as was dual screens) and getting people to want to try it out and for devs to make some unique software that you wouldn't be able to play anywhere else (since no other widespread device was touchscreen enabled back when the DS came out).

[Guitar Smasher]

Oh how I love the "gimmick" debate.

Touchscreen was a gimmick.

1080p HD was a gimmick.

Rumble feedback was a gimmick.

Battery-powered saves was a gimmick.

You can't just limit your definition to things that didn't resonate with you; every sales point is another gimmick.  Whether you personally find them compelling or not is irrelevant.

And Ian, your memory of the DS is terrible.  It wasn't the touchscreen that attracted the expanded audience, it was the software.  Nintendogs, Brain Age, etc.  Remember, the DS wasn't doing too hot until these games came out.  (Well I guess you don't remember, but trust me...)  It's always the software.

[Spak-Spang]

The touchscreen was a gimmick and so was the dual screens.

It (the touchscreen) just turned out to be a very useful one that has caught on on almost all mobile devices.

In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries.

Motion Capture is the gimmick for Kinect, WiiHD is the gimmick for Move and 3D is the gimmick for 3DS

I already stated this without the nifty wikilink, but thanks for the validation.  I hate how Gimmicks are perceived as bad, because of the term Gimmicky.