Nintendo Wii is kicking ass.

[nebrazca78]

Important numbers from this article:

Consoles sold:

360 - 10 million
Wii - 5.8 million
PS3 - 1.8 million

Nintendo NETTED 1.87 BILLION DOLLARS this fiscal year through March!


Check it out:

Nintendo Plans to Boost Wii Production
By YURI KAGEYAMA, AP Business Writer

Fri Apr 27, 5:22 AM

TOKYO - Nintendo's president acknowledged Friday that the shortage of the hit Wii game machine was "abnormal," and promised production was being boosted to increase deliveries by next month.

"We must do our best to fix this abnormal lack of stock," Nintendo President Satoru Iwata told reporters. "We have not been able to properly foresee demand."

The comments came a day after the Japanese manufacturer of the Wii _ which comes with a wand that can be used as a sword, tennis racket or fishing rod depending on the game _ reported that sales nearly doubled for the fiscal year, lifted by robust sales of the Wii and the DS portable, a handheld video game.

Kyoto-based Nintendo Co.'s net profit jumped 77 percent to 174.29 billion yen ($1.47 billion) in the year through March, up dramatically from 98.38 billion yen a year earlier. Sales soared 90 percent to 966.53 billion yen ($8.13 billion).

The Wii has pummeled its rivals in a head-to-head battle in next-generation video game consoles involving Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 3, which has been plagued with production problems, and Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox 360.

Iwata refused to disclose the monthly production capacity for the Wii, and said it was too early to say by how much the production was being raised.

But he said efforts were under way to increase production, and more machines will get delivered to stores around the world.

"We will do our best to offer the machine for those who are waiting," he said at a Tokyo hall.

The Wii's motion-sensitive remote control wand has made it hit even with people unaccustomed to playing video games. It faced some minor problems early on with its wand, which flew out of the hands of some zealous players, snapping the strap and at times crashing into TVs. But that hasn't dented profits, and the console is still flying off store shelves.

Nintendo, which also makes Pokemon and Super Mario games, is planning to sell 14 million Wii machines for the current fiscal year through March 2008, having sold 5.84 million Wii consoles worldwide in the five months since its release late last year.

Sony has sold just 1.84 million PlayStation 3 machines so far worldwide, while Microsoft has shipped more than 10 million Xbox 360 consoles worldwide.

The PlayStation 3 went on sale late last year in the U.S. and Japan, and in March in Europe. Xbox 360 beat rivals to market in 2005.

Nintendo also has a big hit in the DS, selling more than 40 million since its launch in late 2004. The machine comes with a touch panel, introducing new easy-to-play games such as raising a dog that players can pet on the screen. Nintendo expects sales of 22 million more DS machines this fiscal year.

Iwata said Nintendo is now producing 2.5 million DS machines a month to meet bursting demand, the highest production ever for a Nintendo game machine.

[agbulls]

So by those numbers, Nintendo is only 4.2 million consoles behind Microsoft. Considering they launched last November that is amazing. If this keeps up, Nintendo really will be #1 again.

I just can't believe. Wow.:yipes:

[diskoboy]

The console may be selling well, but my Wii has been gathering dust for the past month or so.

EDIT - Don't get me wrong - I love my Wii. But you wanna talk about a game drought? Jeez!

[agbulls]

The console may be selling well, but my Wii has been gathering dust for the past month or so.

Sounds a lot like the first year and a half with my PS2. Look what happened there.

It's all about one thing and one thing only: Install base.

Once you have that, the good games come. They always do.

[Nebagram]

The console may be selling well, but my Wii has been gathering dust for the past month or so.

Mine too, but so has my ps3 for the most part, and when metroid prime 3 and smg come out, well, DAMN.

[Parpunk]

Man this is great NES is my favorite system ever. And no matter how much Nintendo slumps, or puts out new repeated mario titles they will always be number 1 in my book just because of the NES and SNES days. So its great to really see them come back once again. Plus i think a big part of all this is the Retro factor of the Wii. Being able to play old classics is just great. And it seems they keep paying tribute to the classics. I saw my friend playing the new Paper Mario and man i have to say when he got that powerup and mario turned into a giant Classic NES Mario and blasted through the stage. I think i got chills lol. I still have yet to get a Wii because honestly i still cant find one lol. ! I still have yet to see any on shelves where i live?

[segagamer4life]

The console may be selling well, but my Wii has been gathering dust for the past month or so.



yeah aside from super paper mario and even prince of persia, nintendo needs to pump out more games at a steady pace.

[diskoboy]

Mine too, but so has my ps3 for the most part, and when metroid prime 3 and smg come out, well, DAMN.


Agreed. MP3, SMG, and NiGHTS 2 are the only games I know I'm looking forward too.

Maybe Alien Syndrome.

[Oobgarm]

The console may be selling well, but my Wii has been gathering dust for the past month or so.

Agreed.

[RCM]

It'll be interesting to see how Microsoft responds. It's time to drop the 20 gig system to $300. a $250 Wii vs. $300 Xbox 360 (non-core) will be a tough choice. Congrats to Nintendo, if they win will they fumble again? This is the first console cycle since the NES that their marketshare is increasing.

[8-bitNesMan]

It'll be interesting to see how Microsoft responds. It's time to drop the 20 gig system to $300. a $250 Wii vs. $300 Xbox 360 (non-core) will be a tough choice. Congrats to Nintendo, if they win will they fumble again? This is the first console cycle since the NES that their marketshare is increasing.

What about the SNES?

[heybtbm]

It amazes me that you still can't find these things. Not counting the day I found mine, I've never seen a Wii in a store...anywhere.

[jajaja]

Didnt PS3 sell like 3 million consoles?

[RCM]

What about the SNES?

While the SNES was a success, it didn't capture the same amount of marketshare the NES did. Each generation from NES-GC Nintendo lost ground compared to their last system (Nes-SNES, SNES-N64, N64-GC).

[Anthony1]

The sales of the Wii are going to present an interesting conundrum for Publishers. On one hand, you simply can't ignore the installed base that the Nintendo Wii is developing. Yet, on the other hand, the publishers best developers aren't very interested in making GameCube games, despite the Wii-mote factor. So as a publisher what do you do? Do you pull your triple AAA development team away from Xbox 360 and PS3 projects to make games for the Wii because it's a hotter system from an installed base standpoint....risking to piss off the developers, because they want to push the boundries of game design, and feel they can't do that by making a GameCube game......or do you have one of your lesser development teams make Wii games, (which is what is going on at the moment). But how can you have your 3rd string development team make the Wii games, when the Wii is the hottest thing going right now, and continues to stay hot?

It's definitely a Catch-22 situation for the publishers. You have to wonder how long the PS2 and PSP port train is going to go. Right now, it seems the standard operating procedure, is to make a game for the PS2 and PSP, and then port it to the Wii, with minor Wii-mote control alterations. Of course, the developers that are still making PS2 and PSP games, aren't typically the top tier developers under the publishers umbrella. Those developers are making the big Xbox 360 and PS3 games. They are trying to make franchises that will last another 5 or 6 years, along with the 360 and PS3's expected lifecycles. As popular as the Wii is, can it's lifecycle really extend that far with it's lack of technological prowess?


The other thing publishers have to debate about, is what kind of game do we put on the Wii. Do we continue with the party type games, and the mini games? Certainly these kinds of games have been very popular on the Wii so far, but it's starting to get kinda crowded out there. Tons of party games and mini games are available, so how much is too much? Do you try to make an in depth adventure type game that normally is better suited to the Xbox 360 or PS3? Or will you end up getting panned by all the critics like Red Steel did? Do you take existing GameCube games, and try to re-work them with Wii controls and promote them as a totally new experience? There are lots of different avenues that publishers can choose, but it's going to be very interesting to see how all this stuff plays out. The funny thing is, sales of the Wii are probably going to slow down a little bit, but then just as they start to begin to slow down and normalize, that's when we are going to see Metroid and Mario Galaxy, and then sales are going to pick right back up. And with Nintendo making $75 profit on each Wii sold, that means they have tons of wiggle room to lower the price if they so choose. This is really going to make it a very interesting video game market over the next 2 to 3 years.

[mregashu]

I keep hearing about the Wii software drought, and I just don't see it. I think Nintendo will always have accusations of droughts on their systems because of the software they make. Quite frankly no other hardware maker makes games like Nintendo. So, if there is a long pause between Nintendo releases (like there always is) the system is suddenly in a drought. I know if the EBGames fairy came with a handful of giftcards right now, I could easily find another 3 or 4 games for the Wii I want.

As far as the types of games that will work on the Wii, I'm pretty confident just about any game can work on the system with some creative and top notch programming skills. Just because it has been a party game machine so far doesn't mean it has to be. Sports games, driving games, FPS (still waiting but it will work well in the right hands), and most importantly adventure games will all work well. I wasn't sure about adventure games until playing The Godfather. If you haven't played this yet on the Wii - do so. A GTA clone to be sure, but the Wii controls are so well implemented that the game has single-handedly assured any fears I had the Wii was a one-trick-Wii-Sports pony.

[Graham Mitchell]

@Anthony1: Realistically, there's no type of game the Wii can't do. Using the nunchuck plus wii-mote combo isn't all that much different from using a conventional controller most of the time; although it is sometimes a little more comfortable than a conventional controller. And in regards to the Wii being incapable of "pushing the boundaries of game design"...dude I hate to tell ya', but game design hasn't changed all that much since PSX. So it doesn't have the graphics muscle that 360 or PS3 have. So what. I really doubt that anyone will develop a game that is truly too complex in design to run on a Wii. I know visuals are your thing, but there are a lot of people (myself included) who are no longer impressed by graphic muscle because the improvements between generations are not earth-shattering, but still appreciate a game with some depth to it. Hideo Kojima makes Gameboy Advance and DS games. I'm sure top-tier developers will be designing Wii games in the future. If not, Nintendo is hands down the best game maker in the world, and always have been, so the Wii will always have an edge there.

[nebrazca78]

Didnt PS3 sell like 3 million consoles?

Apparently not.

[bangtango]

Wii - 5.8 million
PS3 - 1.8 million

Nintendo NETTED 1.87 BILLION DOLLARS this fiscal year through March!

That is one hell of a head start. So does that mean Sony will actually acknowledge a competitor for a change?



And with Nintendo making $75 profit on each Wii sold, that means they have tons of wiggle room to lower the price if they so choose. This is really going to make it a very interesting video game market over the next 2 to 3 years.

So what about your statement awhile back that the Wii was going to be irrelevant in a couple of years or so? :)

[Anthony1]

So what about your statement awhile back that the Wii was going to be irrelevant in a couple of years or so? :)


I said it's hard for me to imagine the Wii being viable for more than 3 years.


http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94832&highlight=viable


Key word is "more". So I can definitely see the Wii being viable for 3 years, but I'm not sold on it being viable for more than 3. The 3 year anniversary for the Wii is November 19th, 2009. That's still a long time from now. I will admit that I had no idea that the Wii would still be hot in March and April. This is very suprising to me. It continues to be a very hot ticket, and I don't see that slowing down significanty in the very near future. I do think sales will slip a bit, but right as sales start to slip, whatta ya know, Metroid and Mario are released, and then sales go thru the roof.

When I did the thread about not being able to see the Wii viable for more than 3 years, I was thinking sales would slow down big time once Xmas was behind us. I really thought it was the Xmas hype that was driving it. It was the hot ticket for Xmas, and it was "THE" gift to give for Xmas, and it was super hard to find, and all that played into it's favor. I thought that once Xmas was behind us, that novelty of being the "IT" gift of Xmas would wear off, and the sales would start to slow considerably. Obviously, this hasn't happened at all. It continues to be red hot, of course, I think the lack of availability is adding to the allure of the Wii, and if it was super widely available, I'm not sure it would still be so hot, but that's a different story. (I concede by the same token that it has lost many sales because it wasn't available, so those factors probably cancel each other out)

My current take on the Wii, is that it will continue to sell well to the non-gaming and casual gaming crowds. The word of mouth on the Wii is tremendous. I recently had a large gathering at my house, and I had the Wii going, and tons and tons of people were talking about it. Many grownups seemed interested in getting it for their kids. Grownups that normally had somewhat of disdain for video game machines. So, based on all that, I think it will continue to sell well, there will be a slight slowdown in late summer, but I think right around the time the Wii sales start to slow down/catch their breath, then you are going to see Metroid and then Mario, and then sales are going to shoot right back up. I think the biggest problem for the Wii, is that I think alot of people are going to buy the system, and some accessories, and a few Nintendo published games, but I just don't see the Wii being a big thing for third parties. That fact, along with it's graphical inferiority, will cause it's lifespan to be aborted earlier than normal. This could be perfectly fine for Nintendo, cause they could easily release a Wii 2.0 in November of 2009, to maintain their gravy train.

I'll admit that I was wrong, but I still think the Wii isn't built for the long haul, but 6 million sold is 6 million sold. Publishers simply can't ignore the Wii or treat it like a red headed stepchild. I'm still skeptical that we are going to see development teams like Infinity Ward or Rock Star North or Pandemic or any of those guys making Wii games, despite the 6 million sold. They want to push the boundries of graphics, sound and game design, and I still think that if you are trying to push those boundries, the Wii isn't the place for that. The only thing you can really do with Wii in terms of pushing the boundries is to push the boundries of just how inovative the Wii control scheme can be. Can you really make the Wii control scheme non-gimmicky for a real deal action/adventure type game? I don't think we will see studios like Pandemic trying to do that. They will continue to work on PS3 and 360. They might be slightly intrigued by the control possibilities, but that won't be enough to get them to go back to making GameCube games in the year 2008 and 2009.

[Gentlegamer]

They might be slightly intrigued by the control possibilities, but that won't be enough to get them to go back to making GameCube games in the year 2008 and 2009.GameCube games :rolleyes:

[Wolfrider31]

The console may be selling well, but my Wii has been gathering dust for the past month or so.

EDIT - Don't get me wrong - I love my Wii. But you wanna talk about a game drought? Jeez!

I hear that brother. I use mine mostly for streaming TV online rather than playing games. Granted, once I get my hands on Super Paper Mario that will change but after that? Smash Bros, Galaxy, and No More Heroes. That's it. I hope this is will be similar to the drought at the beginning of the DSs life span. Because if the Wii can kick off the quality titles that the DS is, then come next year we're in for a good ride.

I can only hope.

[Insaneclown]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/insaneclown7/Sony_PlayStation_WiiRox.jpg

[diskoboy]

Anthony1 has a very good point.

It's what I call "The Dreamcast Effect".

As most of us know, the Dreamcast did very well for the first year and a half, or so. It had one advantage. It was the most powerful console of the PS1/N64 days. The PS2 was stil a few months away from being announced. Then when Sony finally released the PS2 specs, the DC was instantly obsolete, and basically fell completely off the map. Then the Gamecube came out and was (Arguably) a little more powerful than the PS2. The Xbox followed soon after and blew both of them away (hardawre wise - not to mention the HD made memory cards obsolete and made streaming games form the DVD to the HD possible for the first time)

Back to my point - Since the 360 came out, I really haven't touched my original Xbox. I'm actually thinking of selling it, now that all my games are backwards compatible. Therein lies the Wii's problem - it's really not much more powerful than the first Xbox. After a while people will get bored with the sub-par graphics compared to the 360 and PS3, the novelty of the wiimote will wear completely off after a while, plus I also fear Nintendo will never shake their 'kiddie' image - even with Project HAMMER or Disaster: Day of Crisis. Nintendo is a known dumping ground for Nickelodeon, Disney and other kiddie IP's. Plus Nintendo themselves have almost run Mario, Wario, Donkey Kong, and most of their other franchises into the ground.

Nintendo is gonna have to pump out one killer app after another to stay as viable as the 360 or PS3, for a whole console cycle.

[Penguin]

Finally for the first time in 15 years Nintendo may be on top again, that sounds good. :)

[whoisKeel]

How long do games take to design, develop, and publish? A year or more for a quality title? So perhaps developers didn't take notice to the Wii until it was successful. Maybe they are designing and developing games now, to be released a year after the release of the Wii.

I just think it is entirely too early to say that the Wii isn't going to get good third party support.

[lendelin]

Amazing how many get carried away instead of keeping a cool head.

These numbers don't mean that Nintendo will be soon number 1 again, nor is the Wii the future of gaming, and the Wii isn't certainly a serious competitor to the 360 and PS3.

The Wii is the alternative niche console which profited from a very high price point of the PS3, and has a certain short-lived appeal for the casual gamer as well. That's it. Install base is one thing, game sales are another aspect. Game developers listen carefully to install base numbers, but they produce according to software sales numbers -- how many games sold of which type and genre for which system considering demographics.

The casual gamer won't buy a lot of Wii games, and the system isn't able to compete from its processing power with the big two. The limited sales numbers for games speak volumes: Zelda is actually a GC game and plays better on the Cube, and is the best selling Wii game. What else is there? What else is impressive on the Wii specifically because of this hyped control scheme? Nothing.

The thing is a market and image hype, and as such it is successful with the casual crowd: students in dorms, the elderly, and little girls (18year olds) like the daughter of a friend of mine who sits in front of the Wii or the Cube with bongos and says "I'm getting better at those video games."

The games are fun for a short time, then the shallow gameplay sets in -- even for the casual gamer. The system will survive as a party machine, as a hybrid of a console with games that have handheld characteristics -- but it won't be a system which can even remotely contribute to solve important problems of game design. In order to do the latter you need muscle the Wii lacks. In game design for modern games innovative ideas aren't eenough -- you need technical bodybuilders trimmed in gyms.

The control scheme is shallow as it comes concerning gameplay. That doesn't mean that Mario Galaxy or Super Paper Mario are bad games. On the contrary. The control scheme doesn't prohibit good games. It is merely an add-on gimmick for image reasons.

Despite these sales numbers N delivered with the Wii its last hurrah in the console market. The Wii (and therefore N) became the extreme opposite of innovative -- it became retrospective and shallow searching for a different demographic. The Wii is an outdated, ridiculous system, overpriced, and won't be competitive anymore in two years from now. The Wii lovers will face the same reality as the Wii-mote fanatics who fell for the marketing hype of commercials and pictures two years ago: there will be nothing left of light-saber swinging-wannabe-Jedi Knights, only the desperate and failed attempt of N to survive in the console market.

I know I'm swimming against the (main-)stream now strenghtened by short term numbers and hurrahs, but I also know that I'm right.

Nah, the Wii doesn't interest me in the least. I'll buy it when it is cheaper. I got the NES very soon after launch. I got the SNES and couldn't wait to play it, and I got the N64 on launch day, and two months after its release I got the GC. All of them were great systems in their days, and on the cutting-edge of technology; but those were the days when N was still competitive and didn't produce the ridiculous motto 'less power is more.'

I certainly would have been disappointed if the SNES had produced the same graphics as the NES; and I certainly would have been amused if N-fanboys would have said that graphics aren't everything and not impressive at all looking at the Genesis.

The Wii? I'm not even tempted despite hype and fanboy babble. The system is outdated, and the games are not there. I'd rather buy the overpriced PS3 -- yep, that's how BAD the situation for N is. The daughter of my friend might buy one game in the next 12 months, she won't play the Wii in two years at all, but I guess she soon will get married -- while I'm still playing and buying games ten years from now.

[Anthony1]

The Wii is an outdated, ridiculous system, overpriced, and won't be competitive anymore in three years from now. The Wii lovers will face the same reality as the Wii-mote fanatics who fell for the marketing hype of commercials and pictures two years ago: there will be nothing left, only the desperate and failed attempt of N to survive in the console market.

I know I'm swimming against the (main-)stream now, but I also know that I'm right.

Nah, the Wii doesn't interest me in the least. I'll buy it when it is cheaper. I got the NES very soon after launch. I got the SNES and couldn't wait to play it, and I got the N64 on launch day, and two months after its release I got the GC. The Wii? I'm not even tempted despite hype and fanboy babble. The system is outdated, and the games are not there. I'd rather buy the oevrpriced PS3 -- yep, that's how BAD the situation for N is.


Wow.... That's pretty harsh.. ha ha.

1. outdated - Um, I guess I would have to agree with that. Technically, it is using 6 years old technology. (besides the controller)

2. ridiculous - Eh, I wouldn't call it ridiculous.

3. overpriced - Well, apparently not. They can't keep the thing on shelves, so I would hardly say it's overpriced. It's true that Nintendo is making about 75 beans per unit, and I originally expected it to be $199, but if people are going to shell out $250 for the thing, then Nintendo isn't going to stop them from doing that. In hindsight, I think the pricing was brilliant. They can still drop their price twice $229 and $199, and they will still be making a healthy profit on each unit.

4. won't be competitive anymore in 3 years from now - Well, this is what I said in my other thread from a long time ago, of course, that was before the thing continued to sell like hotcakes even though Xmas was far behind us. I think the Wii will definitely be on the back burner compared to the 360 and PS3 in 3 years, but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm underestimating the power of the casuals. I know the hardcore set will grow tired of the Wii pretty quickly (some of them already are), but the casuals can keep this thing floating for a long time.

5. desperate and failed attempt of N to survive in the console market - It might have been a desperate attempt, but how can you say it's a failed attempt? Even if the 3rd parties never fully get with the program, Nintendo is making cash hand over fist with this thing. They have everything working in their favor. The Wii is a cash cow. It has this perception of being affordable, yet once you buy all the various accessories and the extra Wii-motes and Nunchuks, most people could have bought the 20 gig PS3 (had it still existed). Yet, people aren't really that aware of all the cash they are spending on all this stuff. Myself included. I've bought extra sensor bars and component cables and even two extra power adapters. I've poured some serious money into this Wii thing, and until you sit down and add it all up, you don't really notice just how much you are spending. Nintendo is making huge bucks off this, and the goal of all publicly traded companies is to make crazy profits, and that's exactly what they are doing. The first party games like Zelda and Super Paper Mario are selling very well, and you know Metroid and Mario and Smash Brothers are going to sell like crazy too. Even if the Wii only has a 3 year run, Nintendo will definitely be the most profitable company of the big 3 during that 3 year period, and that is anything but failure.


Look, I'm not exactly a champion of the Wii, hell, I still find myself calling it the GameCube all the time. I have friends that ask me what my take on the Wii is, and I tell them that it's highly overrated, it's basically a Gamecube with a gimmick controller, it seems incredibly fresh and fun for the first 60 days, and then you come crashing back down to Earth, and it's still a pretty fun and unique experience, but still highly overrated by the mainstream media... but having said all of that, I think you are being a bit overly harsh in your takes. I'm not a huge fan of Nintendo essentially taking the gamecube hardware, shrinking it down in size, adding Wi-Fi and a gimmicky controller and charging me an extra $150 to buy it, and having tons of PS2 and PSP ports with Wii-mote controls tacked on at the last second, but even though I can criticize it in that fashion, I still have to give Nintendo a helluva lotta credit for pulling this whole thing off. They are bloody magicians I tell you! They really pulled a rabbit out of the hat with this one, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. I can't knock them for that. I give them much credit, where credit is due. I've been playing my Wii quite a bit lately, and it's certainly not the one console I would take to a desert island (it's a distant third for me), it still has it's charms and I'm looking forward to some inovative and interesting software coming down the pipe eventually.

[j_factor]

Where is everybody getting the idea that inferior graphics are such a big problem? It wasn't a problem for PS2. Or NES.

And no, pushing the boundaries of game design doesn't require the most powerful hardware. Sure, the most powerful hardware provides benefits and allows you to do some things that you couldn't before, but hey, so does the Wii controller. Either way, any artist works with the canvas he has, and if you look at games of the past that pushed the boundaries of game design in their time, they weren't all on the most powerful hardware available.

And with the possible exception of Gamecube, every system Nintendo has ever released was outdated from the start. Nintendo has never been on the cutting edge of technology.

[goemon]

The Wii is the alternative niche console which profited from a very high price point of the PS3, and has a certain short-lived appeal for the casual gamer as well.

So casual gamers are a niche market now? 1080p high-def graphics freaks are now the majority? That's news to me. If casual gamers had little impact on the market, then there wouldn't be so many Madden games, would there? The Wii and DS are proving that innovative control and fun games are more profitable than processing power and high definition graphics.

[MarioMania]

1. outdated - Um, I guess I would have to agree with that. Technically, it is using 6 years old technology. (besides the controller)



What...Can Super Mario Galaxy be done on the Gamecube, I don't think so..Give it 3 years

[Graham Mitchell]

Everybody who spent $700 on a PS3 loves to call the Wii's controls a "stupid gimmick" in order to defend their purchase. Look at the DS--that turned out not to be such a stupid gimmick; that's an incredibly successful system, and it still gets tons of quality software that maximizes the control scheme.

And everybody's saying that the Wii is chock-full of shallow, mindless games. If you're talking Wii Sports and Wii Play, then yes. But what about Zelda? Give it a while for the software to hit the shelves.

BTW-I've been playing games for 20 years and the only next-gen console I own is a Wii. Like it or not, the Wii IS competing with the other two, and it IS appealing to "hardcore" gamers, whatever that means. None of my friends in my age group own a PS3 or a 360. They ALL have wii's, and they've been gaming since the days of Intellivision.

The problem with this thread is that nobody's objective here. We're all on here just defending our purchases.

[jajaja]

Look at the DS--that turned out not to be such a stupid gimmick; that's an incredibly successful system, and it still gets tons of quality software that maximizes the control scheme.

To be honest i think DS would have the same success (or almost) even without the touchscreen. Just look how well GBA did because of the great games. DS also got alot of great games so even without the touchscreen i'm sure it would sell just as good, or atleast nearly as good as today.

[bangtango]

Where is everybody getting the idea that inferior graphics are such a big problem? It wasn't a problem for PS2. Or NES

I'd think graphics would be more important if the system had a higher price tag. The only time I remember people griping so much about the graphics of a system would be the Sega Genesis and that was when the games were compared side by side to the Super NES versions. Unless the Wii is so underpowered that key features, aside from the expected dropoffs in the graphics/sound, are removed then people are still getting the same game (at least the same game offline).

[slip81]

Where is everybody getting the idea that inferior graphics are such a big problem? It wasn't a problem for PS2. Or NES.

that's because there was never this big of a gap before. The SMS ddin't look too different from the NES, and it's the same with the PS2 vs the GCN/Xbox.

I'm not a big component of the good graphics=good games philosophy, but even I'll admit that it's bad for business when you're putting out 480p at best and the competition is using 720p minimum, that is a huge difference.

Especially now that the 360 beat everone out of the gate and raised the bar for graphics, sound, and size of games, now most people playing games expects them to look like GoW.

[Anthony1]

Where is everybody getting the idea that inferior graphics are such a big problem? It wasn't a problem for PS2. Or NES.

And no, pushing the boundaries of game design doesn't require the most powerful hardware. Sure, the most powerful hardware provides benefits and allows you to do some things that you couldn't before, but hey, so does the Wii controller. Either way, any artist works with the canvas he has, and if you look at games of the past that pushed the boundaries of game design in their time, they weren't all on the most powerful hardware available.

And with the possible exception of Gamecube, every system Nintendo has ever released was outdated from the start. Nintendo has never been on the cutting edge of technology.


1. PS2's graphics were "slightly" inferior to GameCube and Xbox. Not a full generation behind like the Wii is.

2. Pushing the boundries of game design can mean alot of things. With this next-generation, I think alot of that is going to come with innovations in physics and A.I. You need pure processing muscle to really take physics and A.I. to the next level.

3. Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64 were both cutting edge technology when released. Both were technologically superior to what was available at the time. The Super Nintendo could put 512 colors onscreen compared to the Genesis 64 colors, and that was a huge difference. Then there was the built in hardware scaling and rotation, better known as mode 7. The SNES was playing the role of PS3, the Genesis was the 360, and the TurboGrafx was the Wii. With Nintendo 64, it was a very advanced machine when released, despite the chosen media format. I remember playing 3DFx computers at the time, and when playing Turok Dinosaur Hunter, I thought to myself that the Nintendo 64 is basically like a simplified 3DFx computer with cart games. Sure the cartridge part of the equation was a mistake and wasn't technologically advanced, but when the N64 first hit, most people considered it vastly technologically superior to the PS1 and Saturn.

[chrisbid]

the wii is not a full generation behind in graphics, on standard-def TVs (80% of the market) it looks about as good as the ps3 or 360. its a 50% increase in power over the cube, so its at worst a half generation behind. casual gamers arent a niche, videophiles are the niche and will continue to be until HD sets finally saturate the market.

in terms of software, the wii will become the dumping ground of shovelware like the PS2 was last generation and the DS is in the handheld world. but within that mountain of crap, you will get more than a few quality titles. katamari damacy was budget priced japanese port shovelware.

[Anthony1]

the wii is not a full generation behind in graphics, on standard-def TVs (80% of the market) it looks about as good as the ps3 or 360. its a 50% increase in power over the cube, so its at worst a half generation behind. casual gamers arent a niche, videophiles are the niche and will continue to be until HD sets finally saturate the market.




Why are you lying to yourself? You're like O.J. Simpson. You keep telling yourself over and over that the Wii isn't a full generation behind, so that you actually start to believe your own lies. Dude, the Wii is a freaking GameCube. Get over it already. I've gotten over it. I was playing my Wii for about 3 hours last nite, and I was having a good time with Super Paper Mario and Excitetruck, but I still know the thing is basically a GameCube. No need to lie to yourself about it. The Wii's graphics and sounds technology is 6 years old. Big freaking deal. Enough of that already. Let's get beyond the fact that it's a full generation behind.

[ubersaurus]

that's because there was never this big of a gap before. The SMS ddin't look too different from the NES, and it's the same with the PS2 vs the GCN/Xbox.

I'm not a big component of the good graphics=good games philosophy, but even I'll admit that it's bad for business when you're putting out 480p at best and the competition is using 720p minimum, that is a huge difference.

Especially now that the 360 beat everone out of the gate and raised the bar for graphics, sound, and size of games, now most people playing games expects them to look like GoW.

You said it yourself though, the casual set still buys the wii over anything else. At this pace it'll surpass the 360's installed base soon enough, and like it's been said...whoever's the market leader, gets the games. 360 certainly will have its hardcore gamers that'll keep it going, but the wii will likely have those and the much, much larger casual set to work with.

[slip81]

You said it yourself though, the casual set still buys the wii over anything else. At this pace it'll surpass the 360's installed base soon enough, and like it's been said...whoever's the market leader, gets the games. 360 certainly will have its hardcore gamers that'll keep it going, but the wii will likely have those and the much, much larger casual set to work with.

I hope that's the case too, because while I don't own a Wii yet, I have a feeling that it'll end up like the DS (slowish start software wise, but then a flood of great games).

Though it seems that a lot of people care a lot about how good a game looks, and I'm wondering if when the other two lower their price, and HDTV's become the norm, if the Wii is still gonna be flying off shelves.

[heybtbm]

The problem with this thread is that nobody's objective here. We're all on here just defending our purchases.

That's not true at all. I own all three new consoles and could care less about "defending my purchase" for any of them. Let me give a objective and informed opinion about the Wii...

...so far, it sucks.

I'll be buying Metroid 3, Super Smash Bros., and Mario Galaxy...but I'm not very excited to be playing them with the stupid Wii-Remote. The controller is a gimmick and it needs to work a hell of a lot better than it does. I cringe when I think of how Nintendo could very well ruin Super Smash Bros. Brawl. with that stupid controller. They've already taken most of the fun out of online matches with the ridiculous "friend codes" BS.

[j_factor]

1. PS2's graphics were "slightly" inferior to GameCube and Xbox. Not a full generation behind like the Wii is.

A full generation behind? That's a dubious exaggeration. And hey, PS2's graphics really are a full generation behind, and it's still outselling both 360 and PS3. Superior graphics alone ain't selling systems, and it never has.


2. Pushing the boundries of game design can mean alot of things. With this next-generation, I think alot of that is going to come with innovations in physics and A.I. You need pure processing muscle to really take physics and A.I. to the next level.

Physics and AI? Yawn. I am so sick of hearing about the newest engines and improved AI. We've been improving physics and AI for the past how many years? Especially on PC, how many FPSes have been selling themselves on new physics and AI? Who cares anymore?


3. Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64 were both cutting edge technology when released. Both were technologically superior to what was available at the time. The Super Nintendo could put 512 colors onscreen compared to the Genesis 64 colors, and that was a huge difference. Then there was the built in hardware scaling and rotation, better known as mode 7. The SNES was playing the role of PS3, the Genesis was the 360, and the TurboGrafx was the Wii.

SNES was never cutting edge. It used the same CPU as the Apple IIgs, which people were calling underpowered back in 1987. An improved color pallette is hardly cutting edge, especially if the only point of comparison is a console two years older that was derided for its low color pallette even back then. Mode 7 was nice, but Atari Lynx technology was no longer cutting edge in 1991. Hell, we saw hardware sprite scaling with Space Harrier back in 1985.


With Nintendo 64, it was a very advanced machine when released, despite the chosen media format. I remember playing 3DFx computers at the time, and when playing Turok Dinosaur Hunter, I thought to myself that the Nintendo 64 is basically like a simplified 3DFx computer with cart games. Sure the cartridge part of the equation was a mistake and wasn't technologically advanced, but when the N64 first hit, most people considered it vastly technologically superior to the PS1 and Saturn.

The media format was too big a difference to gloss over, IMO. People were saying that CD-ROMs were the future of gaming back around the time SNES was released. By the time N64 was around, they were very well-established. As for it being "vastly technologically superior", I never really got that impression. I remember playing Quake 64 and wondering why everything was so small.

[Nebagram]

I cringe when I think of how Nintendo could very well ruin Super Smash Bros. Brawl. with that stupid controller. They've already taken most of the fun out of online matches with the ridiculous "friend codes" BS.

Good news then: Nintendo has no intention of using the wii remote to control ssbb. :)

[Cryomancer]

I still say Dreamcast games look better than PS2 games. Not saying that they are omg 34523562476347 more polys, I'm saying they *look* better, more pleasing to the eye. Brighter colors, less jaggies, solid framerates. Looking real doesn't mean looking good, if you ask me.

[Garry Silljo]

Why are you lying to yourself? You're like O.J. Simpson. You keep telling yourself over and over that the Wii isn't a full generation behind, so that you actually start to believe your own lies. Dude, the Wii is a freaking GameCube. Get over it already.

Actually, you're the one lying. The Wii is based, repeat BASED, on GameCube technology, but if you are going to be honest you are forced to admit that it is in fact more powerful and can do things the GameCube cannot. Therefore everytime you say "the Wii is a freaking GameCube," you are lying plain and simple.

I have 1/2 my father's DNA, since I'm based on him does that mean my differences don't matter and I am therefore him? No, because that is ridiculous.... you are ridiculous.

[neuropolitique]

It's like deja vu all over again. (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57737&highlight=demise+nintendo)

[Hep038]

I am all giddy waiting for about 3 to 4 years to pass and people to start posting pwned!
and
The Wii made a billion dollars ! lets throw nintendo a party!!! And send them thank you notes!


lol

[Lothars]

Anthony1 has a very good point.

It's what I call "The Dreamcast Effect".

As most of us know, the Dreamcast did very well for the first year and a half, or so. It had one advantage. It was the most powerful console of the PS1/N64 days. The PS2 was stil a few months away from being announced. Then when Sony finally released the PS2 specs, the DC was instantly obsolete, and basically fell completely off the map. Then the Gamecube came out and was (Arguably) a little more powerful than the PS2. The Xbox followed soon after and blew both of them away (hardawre wise - not to mention the HD made memory cards obsolete and made streaming games form the DVD to the HD possible for the first time)

Back to my point - Since the 360 came out, I really haven't touched my original Xbox. I'm actually thinking of selling it, now that all my games are backwards compatible. Therein lies the Wii's problem - it's really not much more powerful than the first Xbox. After a while people will get bored with the sub-par graphics compared to the 360 and PS3, the novelty of the wiimote will wear completely off after a while, plus I also fear Nintendo will never shake their 'kiddie' image - even with Project HAMMER or Disaster: Day of Crisis. Nintendo is a known dumping ground for Nickelodeon, Disney and other kiddie IP's. Plus Nintendo themselves have almost run Mario, Wario, Donkey Kong, and most of their other franchises into the ground.

Nintendo is gonna have to pump out one killer app after another to stay as viable as the 360 or PS3, for a whole console cycle.

I agree 100%, I don't see the Wii being anything special in the long run but It will be an interesting couple years.

[Melf]

Where is everybody getting the idea that inferior graphics are such a big problem? It wasn't a problem for PS2. Or NES.

For the PS2, graphical prowess wasn't really an issue since it entered the hardware cycle with the most anticipated machine against a competitor that barely has any cash to support its console. In Nintendo's case, it had 92% of the market locked up. Who needed superior graphics?


And no, pushing the boundaries of game design doesn't require the most powerful hardware. Sure, the most powerful hardware provides benefits and allows you to do some things that you couldn't before, but hey, so does the Wii controller. Either way, any artist works with the canvas he has, and if you look at games of the past that pushed the boundaries of game design in their time, they weren't all on the most powerful hardware available.

Unfortunately, too many third parties don't think this way right now. It's why Miyamoto himself was complaining about them putting their 3rd and 4th string developers on the Wii. Can you name one major 3rd party game coming to the Wii? Mercenaries 2? MGS4? Assassin's Creed? GTA? All of those are coming for everything but the Wii. Innovative control or not, I don't see developers taking the time and effort to dumb-down their major franchises to fit onto the already aging Wii hardware. If this trend continues, the Wii is going to miss out on more and more big names, and I doubt that every publisher is going to make up for it with an incredible Wiimote experience. Expect to see lots of ports of lesser games with Wiimote controls added (like Godfather, Call of Duty 3).


And with the possible exception of Gamecube, every system Nintendo has ever released was outdated from the start. Nintendo has never been on the cutting edge of technology.

..and it's lost more and more market share with each successive generation. At least it's tried to change that by making the Wii more than just "one more console to go under the TV."

I think the real challenge for the Wii is going to be attempting to make each game take full advantage of the controller. Nintendo's definitely going to do it, but are enough 3rd party games going to? Moreover, it's only been five months. Can the Wii maintain its sales once the novelty of the new control scheme wears off? I can't see people saying "but the Wiimote is so innovative!" in 2009. By then, the visual and memory differences between the Wii and the other consoles may be larger than it is now.

[j_factor]

For the PS2, graphical prowess wasn't really an issue since it entered the hardware cycle with the most anticipated machine against a competitor that barely has any cash to support its console. In Nintendo's case, it had 92% of the market locked up. Who needed superior graphics?

And I would say that the Wii is in a somewhat similar situation. Graphical prowess really isn't an issue; who needs superior graphics? I think it's being way overestimated as to how many people really care that much about graphics. Complain all you want about how Wii can only do 480p, but only a minority of people are using sets that can do anything over 480i. Granted, that number will increase, but even then, do you really think most people are gonna be thinking "no 1080p, no sale"?


Unfortunately, too many third parties don't think this way right now. It's why Miyamoto himself was complaining about them putting their 3rd and 4th string developers on the Wii. Can you name one major 3rd party game coming to the Wii? Mercenaries 2? MGS4? Assassin's Creed? GTA? All of those are coming for everything but the Wii. Innovative control or not, I don't see developers taking the time and effort to dumb-down their major franchises to fit onto the already aging Wii hardware.

There won't be any dumbing down for games developed for the Wii from the start, and considering its success, you better believe those games will be coming. Critical bashing aside, Sonic and the Secret Rings was a fairly "major" third party game and it didn't seem dumbed down at all. Future games like No More Heroes should be fine.


If this trend continues, the Wii is going to miss out on more and more big names, and I doubt that every publisher is going to make up for it with an incredible Wiimote experience. Expect to see lots of ports of lesser games with Wiimote controls added (like Godfather, Call of Duty 3).

If the trend continues, Wii's installed base will soon eclipse that of the 360 in North America, as it probably already has done in Japan. I expect the porting situation to reverse, with games being developed for Wii and ported to 360 with "dumbed down" controls and improved textures. Third parties would be crazy to ignore the #1 console.


..and it's lost more and more market share with each successive generation.

Not anymore. Trend reversed.


I think the real challenge for the Wii is going to be attempting to make each game take full advantage of the controller. Nintendo's definitely going to do it, but are enough 3rd party games going to?

How many 3rd party games really "need" to take complete advantage of the controller? I don't think that's a factor at all.


Moreover, it's only been five months. Can the Wii maintain its sales once the novelty of the new control scheme wears off? I can't see people saying "but the Wiimote is so innovative!" in 2009. By then, the visual and memory differences between the Wii and the other consoles may be larger than it is now.

In 2009 the Wiimote will not seem innovative anymore, but if the Wii's userbase is still larger, it won't matter. DS's sales certainly haven't slouched due to its 'novelty' wearing off, so I don't expect Wii's to.

And once again, the visual and memory differences simply don't matter much.

[Lothars]

How many 3rd party games really "need" to take complete advantage of the controller? I don't think that's a factor at all.


I think a really big portion of the 3rd party games are needing to take complete advantage of the controller, It's really what the Wii is about

The controller is innovative and one of the main things the Wii has going for it but I think it will hurt the system in the long run if 3rd party games are not using the Wii Remote that much or if it's a tacked on feature to the 3rd party games.

[Anthony1]

A full generation behind? That's a dubious exaggeration. And hey, PS2's graphics really are a full generation behind, and it's still outselling both 360 and PS3. Superior graphics alone ain't selling systems, and it never has.

The Wii is clearly a full generation behind. If you can't at least accept that, then it's really hard to have a logical argument with you. I have no problem bantering back and forth and discussing this, because it's quite fun, but if you are going to continue with the myopic beliefs, then it makes things counterproductive. The PS2 is $129.99 compared to $399.99 and $599.99. The PS2 has tons of software, tons of budget software, it's a proven platform, and was a great gift choice for parents. That's why it's absolutely demolishing the 360 and PS3 in sales.




Physics and AI? Yawn. I am so sick of hearing about the newest engines and improved AI. We've been improving physics and AI for the past how many years? Especially on PC, how many FPSes have been selling themselves on new physics and AI? Who cares anymore?

Well, I will agree that we've been hearing about how there are going to be these great leaps and bounds in physics and A.I., but the truth of the matter is that we really haven't seen it yet. It does appear that we are actually going to finally see it though, in the next couple of years, and we are going to see it on PS3 and Xbox 360. I'll admit that I'm kinda tired of all the promises as well, but I think the promises are finally going to start to be fulfilled pretty soon in regards to dramatically improved physics and A.I. Games like Assasains Creed, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed and Lucasarts new Indiana Jones game are going to be showing off some dramatically improved physics and A.I.





SNES was never cutting edge. It used the same CPU as the Apple IIgs, which people were calling underpowered back in 1987. An improved color pallette is hardly cutting edge, especially if the only point of comparison is a console two years older that was derided for its low color pallette even back then. Mode 7 was nice, but Atari Lynx technology was no longer cutting edge in 1991. Hell, we saw hardware sprite scaling with Space Harrier back in 1985.

Well, all I know is, when I bought my Super NES back in August of 1991, I thought it was as State of the fucking art as you can get. I loved the bejesus out of that system, especially early on. When I was playing games like F-Zero and Contra 3: Alien Wars, I was totally blown away by the experience. No other console at the time could touch it. Heck, look at Donkey Kong Country. Donkey Kong Country came out in like 1994 or something, and many people thought that game looked more 32 bit than most 3DO games. I know the CPU was rather lackluster, but the amount of color it put on the screen and the incredible sound chip more than made up for it. The SNES is my all time favorite system, so I'm going to defend it to the death. I still think that pound for pound....no other system can touch the SNES period.





The media format was too big a difference to gloss over, IMO. People were saying that CD-ROMs were the future of gaming back around the time SNES was released. By the time N64 was around, they were very well-established. As for it being "vastly technologically superior", I never really got that impression. I remember playing Quake 64 and wondering why everything was so small.

Well, certainly, the cartridge choice was the wrong choice, and not a technologically advanced choice, but I think you are very much underestimating the vibe that people had with the Ultra 64 back in 1994 and 1995, and then when it was finally released in 1996. When Mario 64 first came out, and Turok, and Star Wars and Wave Race, people were totally blown away by it. It could push so many more polygons than the PS1, and it didn't have that pixel city look of the PS1. (of course it had the fog, but let's not get into that, lol) You mentioned Quake 64, but that game came out in March of 1998. So if you didn't experience the launch of the Nintendo 64, and the first 6 months or 1st year of the system, then I don't think you would have the same understanding for how cutting edge the Nintendo 64 was. I will admit that the cutting edge factor of the N64 didn't last very long, but it was definitely there. The PS1 had no answer for games like Mario 64 or Turok or Wave Race at the time. Compare Wave Race and Jet Moto. It's no contest. Jet Moto is a fun game, but WaveRace kills it in both visuals and playability. It may have been a short period of time that the Nintendo 64 seemed so Next-Gen, but that doesn't mean it wasn't super Next-Gen early on.

[goemon]

The Wii is clearly a full generation behind. If you can't at least accept that, then it's really hard to have a logical argument with you. I have no problem bantering back and forth and discussing this, because it's quite fun, but if you are going to continue with the myopic beliefs, then it makes things counterproductive.

You keep on insisting on that, but you offer absolutely no proof to back up your statement. Prove that the Wii is no better than the Gamecube or Xbox, and then you can rationally make such claims.

[Anthony1]

You keep on insisting on that, but you offer absolutely no proof to back up your statement. Prove that the Wii is no better than the Gamecube or Xbox, and then you can rationally make such claims.


Your honor, I call FarCry Wii to the witness stand. Your honor... I call Call of Duty 3 Wii to the witness stand. and so on and so forth. I mean come on. I play the Wii all the time, and I'm having alot of fun with it, but it's a freaking GameCube for Christsakes. I mean, let's call a damn spade a spade. People that even dare compare it to the first Xbox should be slapped. Do we forget Doom 3 and Chronicles of Riddick on Xbox 1? The Wii couldn't do visuals like that in a million years.

[Lothars]

You keep on insisting on that, but you offer absolutely no proof to back up your statement. Prove that the Wii is no better than the Gamecube or Xbox, and then you can rationally make such claims.


Well I would say the best proof is comparing the systems stats of the Wii to the Xbox and Gamecube, but I will look for the link about how the Wii is around the same power of an Xbox.

[NinjaJoey23]

I perused the thread that neuropolitique linked to. I found it pretty funny, but I also found some interesting quotes to pull out, mainly making speculative, and in hindsight, blatantly incorrect statements about the DS and Wii.


The DS lost already the race before it really began. I said it back then, and I say it again, the dual screen -- sold as "innovation" - - was a desperate reaction of N which realized that they cannot compete with the PSP.


Looking at the lineup of games for both systems, everything spells success for the PSP, and 'niche' for the DS. It is not the hyped multi-media abilities of the PSP which will bring success, it is the software and the power of the system. Ns franchises except for Metroid are more obstacles than big boosters for hardware sales. Show me a kid or teenager who goes nuts over a new Super Mario or Zelda handheld game. Friends of mine have an 11-year-old who has the GB and GBA, and his parents are strict with money. He saves up now for buying a PSP, the DS is not even an issue for him. Neither the price tag nor backward compatibility will save the DS.

Save the DS from what? All the money rolling in? How much more money and how many more units does the DS need to sell/make than the PSP for you to concede that it, dare I say, can compete?

This next one is about the "Revolution"

It is basically the good-bye of N from the traditional console market for the next generation. For me that is clear for months now. N looks for another market in the game industry. They are not competitive anymore in the traditional market.

Sad, but reality. This isn't speculation, no fanboy babble, it is the writing on the wall.

Hey, by "another market" do you mean "mega profits"? Now that you've gotten a laugh about the "writing on the wall" crica 2005, let's look at present "informed" speculation.

I'd like to quickly point out before you all start crying "fanboy" that I own none of the new systems, nor either of the current handhelds. Oh, here are some comments from the current thread:


(some stuff about buying previous Nintendo systems) ...but those were the days when N was still competitive...


The Wii lovers will face the same reality as the Wii-mote fanatics who fell for the marketing hype of commercials and pictures two years ago: there will be nothing left of light-saber swinging-wannabe-Jedi Knights, only the desperate and failed attempt of N to survive in the console market.

Failed attempt to survive? BTW did you know Nintendo is making like $60 on each console sold? So, I guess making money and selling more than half as many consoles in 6 months as the 360 has sold in 18 is not "competitive"?
Hate Nintendo much?

Personally, I agree with Anthony1 in his assumption about the Wii's viability in the coming years. It might not make it. But when you've sold that many consoles in such a short time, I promise you that you've penetrated more than just a "niche" market. Perhaps a "new" market, but more than a "niche." When I have the money, I'll buy a 360, hands down. But, in referring to your amazing predictions made in 2005, once again you're just spouting diarrhea, and your rigid statements of fact are ridiculous.


Despite these sales numbers N delivered with the Wii its last hurrah in the console market.

LOL at you

[WanganRunner]

Well, I will agree that we've been hearing about how there are going to be these great leaps and bounds in physics and A.I., but the truth of the matter is that we really haven't seen it yet. It does appear that we are actually going to finally see it though, in the next couple of years, and we are going to see it on PS3 and Xbox 360. I'll admit that I'm kinda tired of all the promises as well, but I think the promises are finally going to start to be fulfilled pretty soon in regards to dramatically improved physics and A.I. Games like Assasains Creed, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed and Lucasarts new Indiana Jones game are going to be showing off some dramatically improved physics and A.I.


False.

You aren't EVER going to see "dramatically improved" physics and AI. People keep holding their breaths and stroking their balls in anticipation of some kind of magical standard of realism in videogames, but it's something that is going to come into existence very GRADUALLY. Buying the next generation of hardware so that you can be wowed by the way a part falls off a dirtbike and bounces six times before stopping is absolutely retarded.

Buying games because they are visually or technologically impressive is not a good reason to buy games, buy them because they're fun.

Nintendo understands that the console game buyer demographic is VERY different from the PC demographic, given that the latter will continually shell out hundreds of dollars per year for incrementally superior hardware that is then applied to fairly derivative FPS and RTS games, while the former will tolerate no such nonsense.

At any rate, the DS is technologically inferior in every sense to the PSP (I own and enjoy both), but the DS is still unquestionably the more commercially successful of the two and it always will be, the PSP will never "catch up" at this point.

If the Wii continues to build its installed base the way it has been, you will start to see more mainline franchises appearing on it. For instance, Squaresoft will almost surely put DQX on the Wii, if the sales numbers continue as they have been (DQIX is a DS title). There are no bigger or more important franchises than Dragon Quest....

[heybtbm]

For instance, Squaresoft will almost surely put DQX on the Wii, if the sales numbers continue as they have been (DQIX is a DS title). There are no bigger or more important franchises than Dragon Quest....

I think Dragon Quest X will be on the PS3 (possibly ported to 360 for the American market). Obviously, we're both guessing at this point...but I think SquareEnix wants to push the series into something more than what the Wii can handle. I'm sure the developers want to move forward and take advantage of the new hardware out there, instead of staying with the 6 year old Gamecube/Wii tech.

Anyway, who really knows? Dragon Quest 9 will probably sell millions and millions of copies on the DS, so DQX will follow suit and ultimately be released on the DS as well (which would be a huge disappointment IMO).

[Garry Silljo]

Your honor, I call FarCry Wii to the witness stand. Your honor... I call Call of Duty 3 Wii to the witness stand. and so on and so forth. I mean come on. I play the Wii all the time, and I'm having alot of fun with it, but it's a freaking GameCube for Christsakes. I mean, let's call a damn spade a spade. People that even dare compare it to the first Xbox should be slapped. Do we forget Doom 3 and Chronicles of Riddick on Xbox 1? The Wii couldn't do visuals like that in a million years.

Your evidence is unsatifactory. The programmers could've done more with the system but didn't. If I make a game that looks like Pong on the PS3, and then make the same game look much better on the Wii, is the Wii more powerful than PS3 now? No, to claim that would be ridiculous, YOU are ridiculous.

If you want to "call a spade a spade," as you say you have to compare hardware to hardware, and not software to software. Compare a Wii to the GameCube and you will see they are NOT the same as you persist. Of course you don't want to do that because you know you are absolutely wrong.

[lendelin]

The most important thing first: for analytical purposes and justified criticism please distinguish two aspects: 1) the evaluation of the gameplay of the Wii, 2) its economic success. This two aspects are often intermingled, contribute to sidestepping, and worse, its intentional mixup is used to save unrealistic beliefs.

The control sheme of the Wii is a worthless gimmick. Looking through the contributions we all agree about that even the ones who don’t want to acknowledge it.

It speaks volumes whenever someone or me points to the shallow control scheme of the Wii-mote even defenders leave gameplay ground and switch to economic ground. No matter how often a system or a game sells, my evaluation of gameplay is independent of sales numbers.

If twenty people or two million bought the Wii, it doesn’t influence my evaluation of the actual gameplay. Enter the Matrix was and is a bad game, no matter how often it sold. Sometimes, not very often and not in the long run, but sometimes the majority falls for a short period of time for worthless gimmicks and image, so called casual gamers and so called hardcore gamers alike.

Except for the detached PR-babble which is immediately repeated by fanboys of “innovation and fun is more important than high def graphics” (a dumb and nonsensical statement), I hear nothing about the gameplay value of the Wii-mote. Wasn’t this what the “Revolution” was all about? Isn’t this the center of Wii gameplay? Isn’t this what sets the Wii apart from the two big competitors and supposedly compensates for less horsepower and a technologically outdated system?

It is nothing else than a gimmicky image which was actually successful and sold (undeservedly) a system. I have read reviews of Wii games since last November, and NONE pointed out that the control scheme is a significant contribution to gameplay. There is nothing else than image, it is an unnecessary appendix of the Wii.

No sword swinging, directing an orchestra, fishing, or swinging a racket with the Wii-mote comes close to the finesse and gameplay of the standard controls. Ah, I almost forgot...using the Wii-mote as a club in golf games. Read the most recent Tiger Woods 07 for the Wii, and you will see how inadequate, shallow, and not sensitive enough or oversensitive the Wii-mote is compared to standard controls on its own strongest ground to show off the Wii.

The most often read comment about the Wii control scheme is the expressed hope that it won't mess up gameplay for upcoming games. It doesn't contribute a thing, but it is regarded already a sucess if it doesn't mess up gameplay. What a revolutionary innovation it is indeed, and how successful PR departments can be. The success is a big incentive for the PR departments of Sony and MS to produce even more babble than they already spit out.

If someone of you prefers the gameplay (!) of Wii Golf or Wii Tennis over Top Spin, Links 2004 or Tiger Woods on other systems, your head isn’t screwed on straight.

Faced with the reality of bad gameplay, the ‘defenders’ of the Wii-mote have two reactions like bad lawyers: First give it some time, second the Wii sells well. The first is the often heard “it is only delayed”- solution based on hopes, the second makes economic success THE most important criteria of quality. I reject both excuses.

About the economic success: Anthony, when I called the Wii a failure I was referring to five years from now, and I meant both from a game design and sales numbers. Right now the Wii is a BIG success, even more so because the expectations were so low. I’d be blind and deaf if I wouldn’t acknowledge reality (or would fly in Sony or MS fanboy heaven).

I’m convinced that the Wii won’t be a success years from now, and I’m still convinced reading my comments from 2005 about the Wii and DS that the Wii is the last hurrah of N in the console market. They are unfortunately not competitive anymore with the two giants MS and Sony.

They came up with a gimmick (like the successful second screen gimmick of the DS that has the exact same image function as the Wii-mote), but 1) the standards for console games are different from handhelds, 2) how long can N save itself with gimmicks? Put on green lederhosen backwards on a system in 2010 with the technology of 2005 and stress in PR babble that games are about fun and innovation?

I wholeheartedly admit that I was wrong in my predictions about the DS (thanks NinjaJoey23 :) . Too bad I don’t have the very very old message boards anymore from 1990 when I predicted that the monochrome GameBoy would be a failure; THAT was really a feast for the most succesful system of all times still around after 17 years; but I was in good company with much better informed guys about the industry than I ever will.

The Wii will not fly. It took off like a rocket, but it won’t fly. Gimmicks can survive for a short period of time, they can distract from serious problems, but they won’t last. Gimmicks can not replace shallow gameplay and outdated technology for a long time.

The DS lives because it got great handheld games which make only tertiary use of the second screen. The Wii won’t get the equivalent games, there are no equivalents in the console market. That’s why it will be a failure despite 6 months of good sales numbers, and, NinjaJoey, despite fanboys who love a myth and repeat and believe in PR babble instead of using some god-given brain cells. :)

[NE146]

They came up with a gimmick (like the successful second screen gimmick of the DS

Dual screen is not a gimmick of the DS. It's a gimmick of the Game and Watches circa 1982. It's pure vintage Nintendo Design... even before the NES came out.

Why do you keep saying it's a DS gimimick? :p

http://www.gameandwatch.com/screen/multiscreen/oilpanic/images/oilpanic.jpg

[Nebagram]

I wholeheartedly admit that I was wrong in my predictions about the DS (thanks NinjaJoey23 :) . Too bad I don’t have the very very old message boards anymore from 1990 when I predicted that the monochrome GameBoy would be a failure; THAT was really a feast for the most succesful system of all times still around after 17 years; but I was in good company with much better informed guys about the industry than I ever will.

You never know, you may have a reverse curse when it comes to these predictions. :-)

[WanganRunner]

but I think SquareEnix wants to push the series into something more than what the Wii can handle. I'm sure the developers want to move forward and take advantage of the new hardware out there, instead of staying with the 6 year old Gamecube/Wii tech.

And I disagree.

Final Fantasy (at least since FF7) has been all about technological wizardry and flashy graphics, but Dragon Quest has been anything but.

DQVII and VIII weren't graphically advanced titles, and DQIX surely won't be either, given that it'll be on the DS. That isn't what the series is about.

I think that the mainline Final Fantasy franchise will be seen on both X360 and PS3 and that DQ will be exclusive to Nintendo's systems (either one).

[Anthony1]

this thread is fun :)

[j_factor]

Well, all I know is, when I bought my Super NES back in August of 1991, I thought it was as State of the fucking art as you can get. I loved the bejesus out of that system, especially early on. When I was playing games like F-Zero and Contra 3: Alien Wars, I was totally blown away by the experience. No other console at the time could touch it.

Super NES was a great system, you'll find no argument against that from me. But I've never seen the system as having been state of the art for the time. F-Zero had its own dedicated coprocessor in the cart, so it doesn't really say anything about the SNES hardware.


Heck, look at Donkey Kong Country. Donkey Kong Country came out in like 1994 or something, and many people thought that game looked more 32 bit than most 3DO games.

Donkey Kong Country was impressive, but it had nothing to do with the SNES itself. What DKC did was, instead of the normal process of having an artist draw the sprites by hand, they used the latest workstations to create computer-generated 3D-looking art and used those images for the sprites. On the system's end, it's nothing special.


Well, certainly, the cartridge choice was the wrong choice, and not a technologically advanced choice, but I think you are very much underestimating the vibe that people had with the Ultra 64 back in 1994 and 1995, and then when it was finally released in 1996. When Mario 64 first came out, and Turok, and Star Wars and Wave Race, people were totally blown away by it. It could push so many more polygons than the PS1, and it didn't have that pixel city look of the PS1. (of course it had the fog, but let's not get into that, lol) You mentioned Quake 64, but that game came out in March of 1998. So if you didn't experience the launch of the Nintendo 64, and the first 6 months or 1st year of the system, then I don't think you would have the same understanding for how cutting edge the Nintendo 64 was. I will admit that the cutting edge factor of the N64 didn't last very long, but it was definitely there. The PS1 had no answer for games like Mario 64 or Turok or Wave Race at the time. Compare Wave Race and Jet Moto. It's no contest. Jet Moto is a fun game, but WaveRace kills it in both visuals and playability. It may have been a short period of time that the Nintendo 64 seemed so Next-Gen, but that doesn't mean it wasn't super Next-Gen early on.

I don't know about that. I did play N64 from the beginning. Perhaps Quake 64 was a bad example. I experienced the launch, and wondered what the big deal was. I remember Nintendo's hype about the Ultra 64 was that the graphics would be as good as the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. That was decidedly not the case. In any case, the graphics weren't that much better. Yeah, they were smoother looking, but they were also blurry. Basically an even trade-off.

[j_factor]

I think a really big portion of the 3rd party games are needing to take complete advantage of the controller, It's really what the Wii is about

The controller is innovative and one of the main things the Wii has going for it but I think it will hurt the system in the long run if 3rd party games are not using the Wii Remote that much or if it's a tacked on feature to the 3rd party games.

People no longer criticize DS games if they don't really use the touch screen. It'll be the same with the Wii.


It is nothing else than a gimmicky image which was actually successful and sold (undeservedly) a system. I have read reviews of Wii games since last November, and NONE pointed out that the control scheme is a significant contribution to gameplay. There is nothing else than image, it is an unnecessary appendix of the Wii.

Wario Ware. Kororinpa. Elebits. Sonic. Rayman. Hell, even Trauma Center. The control scheme does nothing for these games?


If someone of you prefers the gameplay (!) of Wii Golf or Wii Tennis over Top Spin, Links 2004 or Tiger Woods on other systems, your head isn’t screwed on straight.

I don't think you can honestly expect the gameplay of each portion of Wii Sports to exceed that of full games dedicated to one sport. That's like bashing California Games because its skateboarding isn't as good as 720.

[goemon]

Put on green lederhosen backwards on a system in 2010 with the technology of 2005 and stress in PR babble that games are about fun and innovation?

So if games aren't about having fun, what are they about?

[Fuyukaze]

Fun left the building the moment it was all about the graphics and system numbers.


I've come to think if someone comes to a point where they dont enjoy gaming, perhaps it's time to get out of it and enjoy something else.

[djbeatmongrel]

I personally think nintendo is the only company with next gen really in mind. It seems crazy that they chose motion senseing and touch screens as new interefaces to control games with but really where has the innovation in the past when it came to controlling games? We should add more buttons, let's move move this button over here... Hardware designers were not thinking outside of the box for the final product.

I'm not going to bother bringing grpahics into this becuase at this point is there any real leaps? sure a game may look better than others but if you are looking towards just good graphics then you should save you money and just buy movies.

Nintendo was bold and seemed to risk it with the ds (remember the classic thread of the DS announcement) but it has proven a success through first and 3rd party support and has really given a fresh coat of paint on gaming.

The Wii has a quicker start especially due to 3rd party support but i say give it time for the controls to be completely soild. Developers are working with a new medium and its gonna take time for them to adapt from acrylic paints to water colors. Maybe its the game selection but i love the current wii library, hell i bought Medal of Honor and enjoy it and i despise war games normally and am picky with any FPS. The wii shows a lot of potential.

(this all being typed from a late adopter of nintendo products, starting with a gamecube)

[jajaja]

Fun left the building the moment it was all about the graphics and system numbers.

Yep, Wii wouldnt be so fun to play with if it was called Gamecube 2 :( ;) Hehe.

When have it ever been all about the gfx? I never seen a game thats only been promoted on how good it looks and not mention what the game is all about.

You're right about that sometimes its alot of focus on how good the game looks. It can then be easaly to forget what the game is really about (the story in the game etc.), but i'd say that is pretty much upto the reviewers and so on what they want to focus on.

[Melf]

And I would say that the Wii is in a somewhat similar situation. Graphical prowess really isn't an issue; who needs superior graphics? I think it's being way overestimated as to how many people really care that much about graphics. Complain all you want about how Wii can only do 480p, but only a minority of people are using sets that can do anything over 480i. Granted, that number will increase, but even then, do you really think most people are gonna be thinking "no 1080p, no sale"?

No, but I do think you're going to see many developers put their biggest and brightest franchises on the 360 and PS3 instead. The Wii may be innovative, but there are many devs out there that want to push the boundaries of technology, and that's going to be progressively more difficult on the Wii as the hardware ages.


There won't be any dumbing down for games developed for the Wii from the start, and considering its success, you better believe those games will be coming. Critical bashing aside, Sonic and the Secret Rings was a fairly "major" third party game and it didn't seem dumbed down at all. Future games like No More Heroes should be fine.

Where are the major franchises though? Mercenaries 2 was announced for everything but the Wii, and just about every highly anticipated game not made by Nintendo isn't coming to the Wii. Sonic & the Secret Rings was a better game, but sold much, much less than Sonic The Hedgehog (which was crap), so I'd hesistate to call that a major game.


If the trend continues, Wii's installed base will soon eclipse that of the 360 in North America, as it probably already has done in Japan. I expect the porting situation to reverse, with games being developed for Wii and ported to 360 with "dumbed down" controls and improved textures. Third parties would be crazy to ignore the #1 console.


Do you really think publishers are going to move all their major brands to the Wii and then port them to the other consoles? C'mon, man... We're seeing the exact opposite right now. Even Miyamoto himself is complaining about third parties putting 3rd and 4th string devs on the Wii while the best stuff is saved for the PS3 and 360. This is happening despite the Wii's massive sales. Why? Because not all devs are willing to sacrifice other features for the controller.

The 360 and PS3 haven't stopped selling since the Wii debuted, and even if it becomes the #1 console, third parties would be crazy to ignore the two platforms. The 360 alone has almost 11 million systems sold, and the PS3 will start selling once it gets its groove. When games like Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, and the main Final Fantasy are announced for the Wii at all, let alone first, then you can make that point.


How many 3rd party games really "need" to take complete advantage of the controller? I don't think that's a factor at all.

So then a larger intall base (we're assuming that sales trends continue and the Wii eclipses the 360 and stays #1) is the only reason to develop for the Wii? Then why are companies like Ubi Soft (one of the Wii's biggest supporters) and Capcom moving former Playstation exclusives to the 360 and not the Wii? RE 5 is coming to the PS3 and 360, while the Wii gets a port of part 4 and some on-rails game offshoot.


In 2009 the Wiimote will not seem innovative anymore, but if the Wii's userbase is still larger, it won't matter. DS's sales certainly haven't slouched due to its 'novelty' wearing off, so I don't expect Wii's to.

And once again, the visual and memory differences simply don't matter much.

Every time I hear someone tout the Wii, all they ever mention is sales numbers. Yes, the first five months have been spectacular, but where are the games? Even Nintendo has only released one major title (Paper Mario) since launch, unless you count collection's of mini-games as "major," and their next big game isn't scheduled to arrive until September. If sales are all anyone cares about, where's the deluge of 3rd party software?

The 360 is still selling well, and the PS3 is slowly gaining steam. Wii supporters seem to think that the only console selling is the Wii. It's not like all 10 million 360 owners and 2 million or so PS3 owners sold their consoles to buy a Wii. Those two consoles still have their user bases intact.

[Imstarryeyed]

Hoooo.. this thread is painful to read..

Hey all of you people that think you know what the future holds.. your wasting your time here! Go play the lottery, why spend time on this board when you can be making millions at the lottery and the race track?

Well seeing as NO ONE here is a millionare from making their fortune from predicting the stocks, horses and the lottery, I think we can safely say that no one here can predict the future of the Wii, PS3, Xbox 360 with any real degree of accuracy.

Ok so here is my breakdown of how I see the world:

Is the Wii innovative?
Yes.. but so are the PS3 and Xbox 360 in their own ways.

Which systems has fun games to play??....
Wii, PS3, Xbox 360.. and just about every other console that has ever existed!

Which system can play modern day technology pushing games?
Humm... yes.. but so are the PS3 and Xbox 360 in their own ways.

Which system will make fanboys rant on for hours about how their system is the best?
Humm.. yep you guessed it..Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 in their own ways.

The point here is that people can go on all day long trying to prove or disprove their nonpoint but in the end it makes no difference at all..

If you enjoy games play them.. play them all.. every one you can get your hands on.. are you hardcore... not sure.. but play everything!

Play games.. change minds.


To add some variety here are some other topics that will achieve the same results:

The best color in the world is Blue... anyone who thinks otherwise is just living in the past and has not moved on..

The best hot dog of all time is Oscar Mayer.. anyone who thinks otherwise is just living in the past and has not moved on.

The best car to drive is green one.. anyone who thinks otherwise is just living in the past and has not moved on.

The best person to date is someone with red hair.. anyone who thinks otherwise is just living in the past and has not moved on.

Yep.. sure thing.. its painful to hear those as well... same effect...

[skylark]

Hebrew National is the best hotdog. Unfortunately, its high price will always make it a niche brand catering to true hotdog enthusiasts. Oscar Meyer may be more "popular" because it's cheaper and therefore attractive to soccer moms looking for something to serve at Little Johnny's tenth birthday party, but that hardly makes it the "best." Most "casual" is more like it.

[j_factor]

No, but I do think you're going to see many developers put their biggest and brightest franchises on the 360 and PS3 instead. The Wii may be innovative, but there are many devs out there that want to push the boundaries of technology, and that's going to be progressively more difficult on the Wii as the hardware ages.

Other than PC-oriented American devs, I'm not seeing a ton of developers who put a priority on pushing the boundaries of technology. Developers didn't exactly jump all over Dreamcast or Xbox when those systems were the most technologically advanced.


Where are the major franchises though? Mercenaries 2 was announced for everything but the Wii, and just about every highly anticipated game not made by Nintendo isn't coming to the Wii. Sonic & the Secret Rings was a better game, but sold much, much less than Sonic The Hedgehog (which was crap), so I'd hesistate to call that a major game.

Do you really think publishers are going to move all their major brands to the Wii and then port them to the other consoles? C'mon, man... We're seeing the exact opposite right now. Even Miyamoto himself is complaining about third parties putting 3rd and 4th string devs on the Wii while the best stuff is saved for the PS3 and 360. This is happening despite the Wii's massive sales. Why? Because not all devs are willing to sacrifice other features for the controller.

I think game companies were expecting Wii to be another Gamecube sales-wise and got caught with their pants down. They haven't had much time to adjust their development strategies yet.

This is honestly the first message board conversation in the history of the internet where I've seen someone suggest that most developers place any sort of premium on how powerful each platform is. By your logic, nobody would've released any PS2 games last year. And how many PSX games came out in 2000? Why did all those games sacrifice potential features to be on PSX rather than come out on the much more powerful DC? We can go back through the history of gaming and find loads of examples of weaker systems getting more dev support than more powerful contemporaries.


So then a larger intall base (we're assuming that sales trends continue and the Wii eclipses the 360 and stays #1) is the only reason to develop for the Wii? Then why are companies like Ubi Soft (one of the Wii's biggest supporters) and Capcom moving former Playstation exclusives to the 360 and not the Wii? RE 5 is coming to the PS3 and 360, while the Wii gets a port of part 4 and some on-rails game offshoot.

RE5, as well as most of those other announced games, were announced for and/or began development on 360 before Wii even launched. Like I said, they weren't expecting Wii to succeed.


Every time I hear someone tout the Wii, all they ever mention is sales numbers. Yes, the first five months have been spectacular, but where are the games?

I thought our conversation was specifically relating to sales numbers. Game quality is a whole separate issue.

But since you brought it up, I've been fairly happy with the Wii game selection so far. Zelda, Rayman, Elebits, Sonic, Kororinpa, Wario Ware, Super Paper Mario, etc. have all been very enjoyable IMO.


The 360 is still selling well, and the PS3 is slowly gaining steam. Wii supporters seem to think that the only console selling is the Wii. It's not like all 10 million 360 owners and 2 million or so PS3 owners sold their consoles to buy a Wii. Those two consoles still have their user bases intact.

Yes, 360 is selling just fine, and I expect it to continue to do so. I never suggested that Wii will completely dominate this generation. All I'm saying is that Wii is selling the best right now, I expect it to continue to do well, and I'd be very surprised if there weren't a bunch of third party game announcements on the horizon. I think it's silly to claim that the Wii is a short-lived fad that will die out soon. If it was selling poorly, people would say it was doomed. But now that it's out and selling well, even outselling every other console, people are still saying it's doomed. It seems like nothing whatsoever can convince certain people that Wii isn't destined for failure.

[7th lutz]

A Dragon Quest game will not be released in the ps 3 at this moment of time. It is a series that sell the best in Japan. Ps 3 at this time looks very sad in sales. If there are more must have games on theps 3 before Dragon Quest 10, and they don't help the system sales then it will not be on the system. Square Enix only put the series on game consoles that sold the most systems tradionally.

The series is not about graphics, so it is not practical to think a Dragon Quest game will be released on the ps 3.


When Dragon quest 10 gets released, it will be on the wii in Japan, and maybe in North America. The game also could be released in the states and in Europe on the 360. This only based on sales right now and the system are selling currently. Sorry, I don't have the ability to predict the future like Ms. Cleo.