Topic: Wii Successor and Glassess Free 3D: How Will It Work?

[NWR_insanolord]

If they add 2 or 3 face buttons to the remote, you could do traditional controls without motion tacked on and still be able to do NES style controls. Do that, build Motion+ into it, maybe stick a gyroscope into the nunchuk, and you've got a pretty good refinement.

[Ian Sane]

With high definition graphics and the unreal engine 3 compatibility, there is no excuse as to why third party developers can not develop games for the wii 2 and have them be a success.

I think that will make the biggest difference.  Devs want something they're familiar with.  Nintendo hyped up the Wii as being easy to develop for because it was built on the same architecture as the Gamecube.  There is a big problem with that - hardly anyone is familiar with the Gamecube architecture because the Gamecube had weak third party support.  The only developer for which the Wii would immediately be easy to work with would be Nintendo themselves.  When you have a negative reputation for only developing hardware for your needs alone this is pretty much the ideal to way to confirm this reputation.  Hell claiming it is easy to develop for is like a passive-agressive "**** you".  Claiming you're developer friendly when no developers think you are just makes you look worse.
 
I think the controller has issues but I don't think that will make or break things on its own.  I think the combination of weaker hardware and a weird controller was more the problem.  It was too many incompatibilities.  Third parties are willing to make games for both the PC and HD consoles despite obvious differences in control options.  I think the greater danger of having a controller that is too weird is getting the worst version of multiplatform games but if the hardware is easy to port to and work with then I think they'll work with the controller unless Nintendo has something just completely batshit insane.
 
The real key is to find out what developers actually want.  Not what Retro or IS want or what the few devs that are working with the Wii want but what Capcom and Square Enix want.  What companies like Rockstar, who don't really work with Nintendo much, want.  What do western devs that are used to working with PCs want?  There are devs that just stay away from the Wii and that is who Nintendo needs to approach.  What sort of hardware would convince you to make games on our system?  If Nintendo will make a mistake next gen the most likely one wil be designing the system for the converted.

[NWR_insanolord]

Everything we've seen so far indicates that Nintendo designed the 3DS with third parties in mind, which seems like a pretty good sign that they'll do the same with their next console.

[Kytim89]

Watch the 3DS closely and if the third parties develop high end franchise with large production value then the wii 2 will get all kinds of good attention from third parties.
 
For the exception of a few major first party titles on the PS360, I would like to see a new era where all the major third party developers have their major franchises as exclusives for the wii 2.
 
If the internet connectivity is good enough, I would love to see Bioware create titles for the wii 2. Maybe Sonic Chronicles 2 and then something like Mass Effect and Dragon Age, but for the wii 2.
 
I have no problem with the wiimote, but I would like for the wiimote for the wii 2 to encorporate better technology. For example, built in motion plus, blue tooth connectivity, and better battery power.
 
 

[Luigi Dude]

I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo's next system ends up being very similar to the PS3 tech wise in order to make it very easy for the Japanese developers to come on board.  Since we all know Nintendo's third party relationships are usually strongest with the Japanese developers, I'd imagine they'll want to make it easiest for the Japanese parties to come on board.

I imagine that one of the purposes of the 3DS is to build stronger relationships with third parties so that Nintendo can then convince third parties not to make a huge investment with Microsoft and Sony's new systems like they did with the PS3/360 years before the Wii even came out.  This way if Microsoft and Sony's new systems end up being extremely expensive to develop for like the PS3/360 were in there early years, Nintendo should be able to prevent a lot of the Japanese companies from giving them major support by allowing them to continue using their PS3 development tools to easily keep making games for the Wii's successor.

Western developers on the other hand will be a much trickier sell though since they always want the latest and most powerful engines.  This is why I see next gens third party software becoming divided with Western developers giving major support to the 360/PS3 successors, while the Japanese developers giving major support to the Wii's successor.

[Ian Sane]

For the exception of a few major first party titles on the PS360, I would like to see a new era where all the major third party developers have their major franchises as exclusives for the wii 2.

This I don't see happening because the trend these days seems to be multiplatform development.  When the Wii was first getting big it seemed like it would be a lock to get exclusives because it was so different that a Wii game could not be recreated on another system.  Well the Wii has many many exclusives but most of them suck.  The uniqueness became a liability.  Third parties want their games to be on as many platforms as possible.

[Mop it up]

I don't want to have to relearn the controller every time a new system comes out. A controller is just a means of playing games, it doesn't need to drastically change with each system. Besides, I think the more "casual" audience would be more likely to buy the new system if the controller were one with which they are already familiar.

[Kairon]

Besides, I think the more "casual" audience would be more likely to buy the new system if the controller were one with which they are already familiar.

Well, the Wii Remote is like an NES controller turned on its side, so maybe you're onto something. &P

[Mop it up]

Do you really think the 70 million+ Wii owners had an NES?

[Ian Sane]

It's funny the NES gets all this credit for being accessible and such and yet as a kid I never met one adult who played it.  All the people of my parent's generation that I know who play with the Wii, were the same parents telling my friends and I that videogames will rot your brain.  No one's parents that I knew ever playing Nintendo except for the occasional "cool" dad or uncle who would join in on a two player game.

And the people that were playing the NES at the time as kids?  I don't know any that left gaming and then came back because of the Wii.  They either have played games the whole time or they're still not playing anymore.  My brother is a lapsed gamers, having lost interest once things went 3D.  Wii Fit and Wii Sports don't get in interested they turn him off because they seem like wimpy creampuff games.  It takes old school arcade style games with lots of action and challenge to get him to play new stuff.

[broodwars]

For the exception of a few major first party titles on the PS360, I would like to see a new era where all the major third party developers have their major franchises as exclusives for the wii 2.

Sentiments like this disgust me, and it sickens me even more to think I once was like this.  The different platforms are governed by 3 different companies with 3 very different philosophies about games and game design, and all 3 contribute to a healthy industry in their own ways.  IMO, little good comes of an entire industry dominated by a particular philosophy.  With this next generation, I hope that the 1st party games are the only ones that are exclusive.  Let the 3rd parties develop on whatever they please, and let the fans pick the experience they want to play.  If they want the experimental motion control version of the game, they can get the version on the Nintendo platform; if they want the version with a heavy online and community emphasis, they can get the version on the Microsoft platform; and if they want the version with maybe that extra technical nudge, they can get the version on the Sony platform.  Over the past few years as I've slowly experienced gaming outside of the Nintendo bubble, I've come to appreciate what each console brings to the table and the awesome games they've all had.  Next time around, let everyone have the opportunity to play the awesome games and let the fans, rather than backroom deals and contracts, decide where they can enjoy it.

[NWR_insanolord]

For the exception of a few major first party titles on the PS360, I would like to see a new era where all the major third party developers have their major franchises as exclusives for the wii 2.

Sentiments like this disgust me, and it sickens me even more to think I once was like this.  The different platforms are governed by 3 different companies with 3 very different philosophies about games and game design, and all 3 contribute to a healthy industry in their own ways.  IMO, little good comes of an entire industry dominated by a particular philosophy.  With this next generation, I hope that the 1st party games are the only ones that are exclusive.  Let the 3rd parties develop on whatever they please, and let the fans pick the experience they want to play.  If they want the experimental motion control version of the game, they can get the version on the Nintendo platform; if they want the version with a heavy online and community emphasis, they can get the version on the Microsoft platform; and if they want the version with maybe that extra technical nudge, they can get the version on the Sony platform.  Over the past few years as I've slowly experienced gaming outside of the Nintendo bubble, I've come to appreciate what each console brings to the table and the awesome games they've all had.  Next time around, let everyone have the opportunity to play the awesome games and let the fans, rather than backroom deals and contracts, decide where they can enjoy it.

If the three consoles next generation are reasonably comparable in tech, this is exactly what will happen. HD development is too expensive to do otherwise, unless there are moneyhats involved.

[Mop it up]

Mostly for financial reasons, I wish that videogames were more like movies and music, in that there were only one universal player. Then, people wouldn't have to make decisions about which system to buy, or which version of a game they should get, as every videogame out there would work in their player. This would also be beneficial to game companies too, as they wouldn't have to spend resources porting a game to two or three platforms, or research the demographic of each system, so they could focus on simply creating games. There could still be systems with special features as well, such as an expensive model that offered things like HD and online components, and a more basic model that just had the essentials. It would be similar to how some VCRs had special features like recording abilities, enhanced sound capabilities, slow/stop motion, etc.

Realistically I know this will never happen, for the exact reason stated: the three current major game companies are all striving toward different goals.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Mostly for financial reasons, I wish that videogames were more like movies and music, in that there were only one universal player. Then, people wouldn't have to make decisions about which system to buy, or which version of a game they should get, as every videogame out there would work in their player. This would also be beneficial to game companies too, as they wouldn't have to spend resources porting a game to two or three platforms, or research the demographic of each system, so they could focus on simply creating games. There could still be systems with special features as well, such as an expensive model that offered things like HD and online components, and a more basic model that just had the essentials. It would be similar to how some VCRs had special features like recording abilities, enhanced sound capabilities, slow/stop motion, etc.

Realistically I know this will never happen, for the exact reason stated: the three current major game companies are all striving toward different goals.

I don't buy that the three major game companies are striving for different goals.  They are trying to protect their brands, but they are all striving for the same goal $$$$.  Nintendo has had a hard time breaking into the teen-young adult teen market.  But they certainly have tried by changing Metroid into a FPS and bringing about Eternal Darkness, etc, but they haven't been successful yet.  And Sony will love if there core market gobels up the move, but it is definately a move to infringe into Nintendo's core market of non-traditional gamers.  They aren't going to come out and say it (for fear of their core) but they want a little grandma love too, because Grandma has $$$$.
 
I also think that at some point in our lives we will see a universal console.  Heck with internet, stronger processors, SD slots, and USB ports, someone smarter than me could probably turn a normal TV into a game machine.  Interactive commercials?  The TV producers would love it.  So would developers.  You can say Nintendo is smarter than developers because they make more money but largely the current console cycles suck for developers.  They have to pour all this money into developing games and engines when a new console releases and they generally see very few sales because it takes 2-3 years for a market to mature (gain enough participants).  Then by the time they have developed efficiencies and understand the market, it's time to take their lumps again on a new cycle.  It's long been rumored that EA would try to splash into the world with a universal console.  Of course the big three would hate this because their middle man days would be over, but as more consumers moved over Nintendo would be forced to develop for the Universal Console or go nitcher than the N64 days. 
 
More likely what I feel really could really happen is that article a while back on Gamespot.  You'd essentially have a box (with minimal processing power for the controller and a wireless or wired internet connection).  The games you owned would be on a server and the server would provide all the in game processing power necessary to play the games.  The technology is there now, my work is actually already making the move to net based pcs (i.e. no local memory/hard drive/or processing).  The things holding back this tech now are 1.  Broadband to support steaming 1080p isn't sufficiently available across the U.S.  2.  Someone would have to manage the vault of computers and possibly dole out subscription fees.  3.  Consumers might not be ready for this jump yet. 

[broodwars]

More likely what I feel really could really happen is that article a while back on Gamespot.  You'd essentially have a box (with minimal processing power for the controller and a wireless or wired internet connection).  The games you owned would be on a server and the server would provide all the in game processing power necessary to play the games.  The technology is there now, my work is actually already making the move to net based pcs (i.e. no local memory/hard drive/or processing).  The things holding back this tech now are 1.  Broadband to support steaming 1080p isn't sufficiently available across the U.S.  2.  Someone would have to manage the vault of computers and possibly dole out subscription fees.  3.  Consumers might not be ready for this jump yet.

Yeah, I'm definitely in that 3rd camp there: I'm a strong proponent of actually owning my purchased property, and I don't want my games going all digital as one big monster machine any time soon.  Besides, I like the specialization of the 3 consoles right now, and I think having every game on the same console would drown out exposure for anything other than the AAA titles (since they would all be collected in one place).

[Mop it up]

I don't buy that the three major game companies are striving for different goals. They are trying to protect their brands, but they are all striving for the same goal $$$$.

Well obviously the main goal of any company is to make a profit. But the three companies strive towards that in extremely different ways, and they all want to control the market (especially Sony). And actually, sometimes I wonder if they care more about marketshare than profits; why are Sony and Microsoft continuing despite that they've lost billions?

Also, I, too, fear we're headed toward an all-digital future, as much as I hope the two can co-exist. As someone who likes to replay games, I don't like the idea of renting them for an indefinite period of time, where they will disappear forever once they are no longer offered by the service provider.

[TJ Spyke]

Microsoft made it no secret that they just wanted to stop Sony from taking over the living room of the average consumer. Microsoft started profiting from Xbox 360 several years ago, Sony only started profiting on the PS3 a few months ago.

I do not think we should ever have digital distribution be the main method of delivery. Can all or most physical releases also be available as a download? Sure, but it should not be the only or primary way of publishing games.

I have my doubts it will happen anytime soon, but the console makers should look at DVD as a good example. Creating a industry governing body that anybody involved with video games can join (developers, publishers, chip makers, peripheral makers like Mad Catz and Logitech, etc.) who will make up the standards for the format, then let any company who wants to can make a system that follows those specs. More high end models might have more features, but every system would be able to play any game released for it. This would help keep down costs by not having to develop for multiple systems and would provide potentially more money since everybody would have access to the games. It would also potentially provide gamers with more game choices than ever before.

[BranDonk Kong]

Way too lazy to read all of this, but if you have the Homebrew Channel on your Wii, then you need to play the head tracking demo, then you can see how glasses-free 3D may be done. It's a simple demo, but it's absolutely incredible to see.

[Kytim89]

How does the the vitality sensor play into the wii 2? I think Nintendo will probably push it back to the time of the wii 2 so that it have one more gimmick.

[NWR_insanolord]

I wouldn't be surprised if we never heard from the Vitality Sensor again.

[Stratos]

The Vitality Sensor IS Wii 2!!! Megat0n! 

[Sarail]

I wouldn't be surprised if we never heard from the Vitality Sensor again.

Agreed.  I just don't see that thing being marketable at all. Even if Nintendo says they're going to show it off at another place and time that's quieter or more calm. Gamers just don't care... and I feel that it's already too late into the Wii's lifetime to release something for casuals to gobble up.

Just bring on the new console already.

[TJ Spyke]

Why? The current system is still selling great (and is still at $200) and shows no sign of slowing down. There is no reason or incentive for Nintendo to release a new system anytime soon.

[balzzzy]

Why? The current system is still selling great (and is still at $200) and shows no sign of slowing down. There is no reason or incentive for Nintendo to release a new system anytime soon.

TJ is exactly right. With the 3DS approaching release that will be the system to hold you over until the Wii 2 is released.

Nintendo's R & D budget reportedly tripled since the launch of the Wii in 2006, suggesting that a new console could be in an advanced stage of pre-production. With the Wii still enjoying phenomenal success, it would be unlikely that Nintendo would want to launch the Wii 2 anytime soon. Let's not forget Nintendo's launch history with delays factored in either.

[Sarail]

Why? The current system is still selling great (and is still at $200) and shows no sign of slowing down. There is no reason or incentive for Nintendo to release a new system anytime soon.

TJ is exactly right. With the 3DS approaching release that will be the system to hold you over until the Wii 2 is released.

Nintendo's R & D budget reportedly tripled since the launch of the Wii in 2006, suggesting that a new console could be in an advanced stage of pre-production. With the Wii still enjoying phenomenal success, it would be unlikely that Nintendo would want to launch the Wii 2 anytime soon. Let's not forget Nintendo's launch history with delays factored in either.

Oh, hah... I didn't mean bring out the next console right now. I meant by the end of next year.  I just hope the Vitality Sensor doesn't take precedence over a new console possibly getting released by the end of next year -- causing it to get pushed back.

And yeah, the 3DS will definitely tide me over until the next console's release. No prob there.

Why? The current system is still selling great (and is still at $200) and shows no sign of slowing down. There is no reason or incentive for Nintendo to release a new system anytime soon.

Nintendo can still sell a crapton of Wiis even after a new console launches.  Sony's PS2 is proof of that.  Don't even tell me that you can only have ONE console out on the shelf... I'm not gonna believe that for one second. Casuals will continue to eat up the Wii a couple of years after the release of a new console -- especially if it's geared a little more back at the traditional crowd.