Topic: Wii Life Span

[Nick DiMola]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I am constantly calling into question just how long the Wii (in it's current form) is going to live on the market. I have strong doubts that it will have the 5 year staying power of a usual console. I especially doubt it will match the lifecycles of the PS3 and 360 which will probably be closer to 7 or 8 years. I'm guessing within a year or two, the Wii's graphics and processsing power will be looking pretty bad in comparison to it's competitors.

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).

[Chozo Ghost]

I disagree with the argument that the Wii will have a short life cycle, for the simple reason that these arguments revolve around graphics. Haven't we learned that the weakest console always wins? PS1 smoked the more powerful Saturn and N64; PS2 vastly outsold the more powerful  Gamecube and Xbox; and now we see the graphically "weak" DS selling at least twice as much as the more powerful PSP. And now we see that the Wii is outselling the PS3 and X360 by a wide margin.

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.

[Shift Key]

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.  

[Ceric]

Ok, if you dig through to the older posts prior to the Wii release you may have noticed that I believed that the Wii would have a 4 year lifecycle at max.  If the sales were even or only a little above the other two competition I would still maintain this idea.  Though I cannot maintain it with the Wii outselling the competition as much as it is currently.  If it can consistently do this well I can see the system lasting for a full lifecycle much like the PS2 did.

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...

[vherub]

Nobody has a crystal ball, but you can look at other things and create a more informed guess. The xbox was the most powerful system, but it had the shortest lifespan, while the ps2 continues to perform strongly.
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.

[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.

[KDR_11k]

Either way I doubt the Wii will be obsoleted before Nintendo says it is and they have no need to short it unless the competition is really pushing hard. Once a console is in the lead it's the safe bet for consumers and developers, noone's going to say "Well, this console has all the games but that one's prettier so I'll take that". Well, at least not in quantities that can change the marketshare of the consoles. People don't say "these consoles are ugly, let's go with the PC", after all.

[denjet78]

I don't get why everyone seems to think that the PS3 and 360 are going to leap massively in graphics. That's been assumed every generation, that once developers learn to harness the raw power... Blah, blah, blah.

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.

[JoeTrumpet]

One thing that worries me most about Wii is 3rd-party support. If you take a look at sales of Spiderman 3--an unremarkable game, but a typical 3rd party game nonetheless--the PS3 version is outselling the Wii. I believe Godfather is also selling very similarly between PS3 and Wii. Considering the installed base, that doesn't seem to be a good sign to 3rd parties, especially when you factor in 360 sales, which dwarf both PS3 and Wii. Admittedly, Wii production costs are considerably lower, so that must make Wii more profitable than PS3, however it's still disconcerning, especially considering the inevitable PS3 price drop and the 360's popularity.

[Chozo Ghost]

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.

[Ian Sane]

"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."

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.

[that Baby guy]

You can get conventional controls with a Wii-mote and a nun-chuk easily.  The point is moot, and developers are starting to realize that should should offer multiple ways to control, so gamers can choose what works for them.

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.

[Louieturkey]

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.

[SixthAngel]

Weren't game consoles originally replaced by the next generation not because of any sort of need for graphical advancement but because the "novelty" of the device began to wear off and people stopped buying the games.  A new system doesn't just offer new graphics but draws attention.  It becomes something new that people want to buy things for and typically offered new experiences then in the past.  A 6 year old device has done most everything it can do in all aspects while a new system is supposed to offer new experiences and possibilities.

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.

[that Baby guy]

Nope.  Atari sold more 2600 games than 5200 or 7800 after the 2600's predecessors were released.  It's always been for power.  What happens is that a competitor would release a more powerful product, and attention would shift to the more powerful system, so then the original system releases a new console in response.  It's almost always been about outdoing the competition.  The NES had such great user integration numbers that it sold much more games at the beginning of the SNES's life span, and more titles were being made for it, the same happened to the SNES later one, and then the PS and the PS2, too.  Developers lose interest, and new consoles are released to outdo competition.

[Kairon]

I actually don't feel very worried about Life Span at all... I don't know why, but I think 5 years is a very comfortable length and I doubt anyone would do something drastic to change it... unless they're desperate.

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.

[Nick DiMola]

Looks like Michael Pachter read my mind:

"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.

[thebondster]

Well, to the person that mentioned that Spiderman is selling better on PS3 than Wii, you have to remember that Spiderman is SONY owned. That might have a little to do with it.  

[IceCold]

With the Wii, everything is completely different, which is why a 2 or 3 year lifespan is ridiculous. If all goes as planned, the Wii will have a long, successful life, despite the weaker hardware. Just look at the DS - it can easily go to even 2010 and still be pushing forward with great new games.

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.

[Galford]

I suppose I could turn this into a long diatribe, but the main factor that will determine the Wii's lifespan is...
"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.

[Urkel]

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.

[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.

[GoldenPhoenix]

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?  

[ThePerm]

its difficult to predict Wii's lifespan, its selling like hotcakes right now, and smash brothers isnt out yet. I think mp3 will do modest numbers at first, buit once Brawl comes out metroids numbers will jump up as well.

[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.