It's hard for me to fathom the Wii being viable for more than 3 years [Archive] - Page 3

eric nintendo

01-04-2007, 02:40 PM

Do you know what a AAA title is? This exclusively refers to units the game can sell--and does not exclusively refer to quality. Yes, by these standards crappy games can be AAA. I don't like it much myself, but its the truth. Perfect Dark was billed as a AAA, as is Resistance. I don't like either of them, but I bet their sales numbers are WAY up there. Beyond Zelda, I don't think the Wii has anything I could qualify as a AAA today.

Everyone is treating me like a Nintendo hater. I'm far from it. I love my Wii. I'm just playing some devils advocate here guys.

Wii Sports and Zelda. There's two AAA titles by your definition. More if you want to count "good games," (Trauma Center and Excitetruck) but for system sellers, there's two right there.

How many did 360 and PS3 have? According to you, two between the both at launch. Which I'm not going to argue with, because I can't remember any other exclusive games at 360 launch beyond PDZ that created any excitement (although PDZ got tons of bashing) and we all know the PS3 situation.

I wouldn't even call Resistance an AAA title, it's more benefitting from being the only game at launch worth caring about at all. It, however, wasn't looked forward to like Zelda, or even PDZ, mediocre as it was. Nobody has bought a PS3 because it has Resistance; more, they have bought Resistance because they have a PS3.

As for the other post making fun of Wii shovelware, every single system has the same amount of crap, so it's a moot point.

I never said you were a Nintendo hater. So I'm not sure what the relevance of that comment is.

jajaja

01-04-2007, 02:41 PM

About AAA titles, i guess it depends on each person how they define that, but the only big title Wii have out right now is Zelda:TP. Maybe Wii sports too, many looked forward to that. The rest might be great games, but judging by popularity and sought after by the general crowd i cant find anyone else than Zelda:TP and Wii Sports. This year you will have Super Mario Bros Galaxies, Super Smash Brothers Brawl and Metroid Prime 3. Those will sell their shares of consoles too, especialy SMBG :)

poieo

01-04-2007, 05:32 PM

Wow, you're a very angry guy. I regards to having "a complete lack of perspective" you couldn't be further from reality. If anything, I have a great deal on actual knowledge on how the industry works. I'm not bragging--its just the facts. Remember where I said that the bottom line was install base? It doesn't matter HOW you get there. Sell crappy live games, Barbie Horse Party or Metroid Prime 3. Do you really think the corporate loonies at Microsoft or Nintendo really care what you play as long as you pay?

I think Nintendo very much does care, whereas if MS doesn't seem to. But that's besides the point for the moment.

My point was that 7 games--whether you want to admit it or not--is A LOT for Nintendo to hit in regards to AAA software in the next 12 months. Do you think they have that in development right now? I do. I really do. Do you think we're going to see all 7 by year's end? Hell no...this IS Nintendo were talking about.

If we are going to talk about perspective we need to look at this as more of a marathon--and not the horse race that everyone has made it out to be. Christmas 06 is over, and Nintendo sold a LOT of consoles as did Microsoft. Now the real race starts.

Yes and no. This is, obviously, Nintendo we're talking about. But the mitigating factor is that this isn't the hard-headed Yamauchi "rule with an iron fist and piss everyone off" Nintendo anymore. This is the "coming up with a platform that even developers are excited about the possibilities for" Nintendo. The only threat to the Wii's ability to hit that lofty mark of 7 must-haves within a year are hack developers who literally can't do anything that hasn't already been done to death before.

If we're going to talk about perspective, we're not going to look at Nintendo, starting out of the gate just recently, and act like they're on shaky ground compared to a system that launched on smoke-and-mirrors Live crap. You're absolutely right that it's a marathon as opposed to a sprint, but based on that, the Wii's launch breeds more optimism than the 360 did.

jajaja

01-04-2007, 06:00 PM

Why would Nintendo care if someone plays Zelda or Rayman as long as they sell good? A sale is a sale, they dont care what games thats being sold.

agbulls

01-04-2007, 06:03 PM

Why would Nintendo care if someone plays Zelda or Rayman as long as they sell good? A sale is a sale, they dont care what games thats being sold.

Jajaja, you're right. In fact, I said this is my long post on the last page. The bottom line IS the bottom line. And for publicly traded companies that's all that really matters. HOWEVER--with that being said--

Nintendo COULD shovel us crap Mario games and sell them.
Nintendo COULD shovel us crap Zelda games and sell them.
Nintendo COULD shovel us crap Metroid games and sell them...

At least for a lil while, like Sega has done with Sonic.

But guess what? They haven't and they won't. And in the long run, I think thats why we all like Nintendo. Reliable AAA quality--even if we have to wait for it.

chicnstu

01-04-2007, 08:32 PM

Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. The Wii has so many AAA titles. I mean just look at this list:

[...]
Chicken Little: Ace in Action
[...]

Just to name a few, lol

Actually, that's supposed to be pretty good. Maybe not AAA but definitely better than the other crap you posted.

Bronty-2

01-04-2007, 11:23 PM

Jajaja, you're right. In fact, I said this is my long post on the last page. The bottom line IS the bottom line. And for publicly traded companies that's all that really matters. HOWEVER--with that being said--

Nintendo COULD shovel us crap Mario games and sell them.
Nintendo COULD shovel us crap Zelda games and sell them.
Nintendo COULD shovel us crap Metroid games and sell them...

At least for a lil while, like Sega has done with Sonic.

But guess what? They haven't and they won't. And in the long run, I think thats why we all like Nintendo. Reliable AAA quality--even if we have to wait for it.

well said

GarrettCRW

01-05-2007, 12:04 AM

I saw someone earlier mentioned that all the weakest systems have won. First, SNES was more powerful than Genesis and SNES outsold it and Saturn lost over PSX.

I wrote that, and I'm so sorry that you, sir, are sorely mistaken. Foolish, even.

One, I said every generation except the 16-bit era, because it was pretty much a tie anyway. Two, the N64 was more powerful than the PlayStation, and it lost. Handily.

badinsults

01-05-2007, 03:18 AM

Yeah, when you think about it, the PS1 vs N64 battle was a great example of how something less powerful beats something that is significantly more powerful, all due to cost. People were more willing to pay $20 less for Madden on the PS1, even though the graphics weren't nearly as good.

Icarus Moonsight

01-05-2007, 05:45 AM

In the same line;

Master System was throttled by the NES
Genny and SNES tie!!!
PS1 trounced Saturn (better 2D than PS1) and N64 (better 3D than PS1)
PS2 stomped all kinds of ass over GC and Xbox... Dreamcast wasn't even invited. :(

So, yeah. History has shown, despite a few minor deviations in trend (ie, Genny/SNES tie and the Dreamcast's abortion), that less powerful = teh winnah!

Wii not viable? LOL

jajaja

01-05-2007, 07:03 AM

I wrote that, and I'm so sorry that you, sir, are sorely mistaken. Foolish, even.

One, I said every generation except the 16-bit era, because it was pretty much a tie anyway. Two, the N64 was more powerful than the PlayStation, and it lost. Handily.

Haha mistaken about what? All i said was that SNES won over Mega Drive and that PSX won over Saturn. Now, you say im mistaken, that would mean that one of these statements are wrong. So what your saying, since im mistaking, is that that Mega Drive or Saturn sold more than SNES and PSX. That must be it, else, where is the mistake? Btw, SNES sold millions more than Genesis so there was not a tie there.

Anyway, this wasnt my point in that post who won or not. Read it again.

Nature Boy

01-05-2007, 08:37 AM

The problem with graphics is that most game companies assume that that is what most people absolutely want.

Honestly, when it comes to shelling out money for a brand new console, it's *absolutely* what I want. I want to see the difference between the new and the old, so I feel better about justifying the expenditure. Otherwise I might as well stick with what I've got, because it's not as if there aren't *any*innovative games left for me to try on my existing machines.

Even after the veneer has worn off thenew machines, as a multi console owner, when deciding between consoles on a game purchase, graphics can totally be the deciding factor. If nothing else is different, why not get the one that looks better? The only other factor that would top it would be price in my eyes.

Ed Oscuro

01-05-2007, 08:41 AM

I can't believe this topic is viable after more than three pages.

njiska

01-05-2007, 04:38 PM

I can't believe this topic is viable after more than three pages.

It was a good topic at the start, but as the pages worn on we're seeing more and more of this:

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/050404.jpg

Anthony1

01-05-2007, 11:38 PM

I just have a couple quick points to talk about, regarding some recently discussed topics in this thread. Nothing with any major importance, just some random thoughts....

Regarding System Sellers at Launch

360 - There were two primary system sellers for the Xbox 360, and neither one was Perfect Dark Zero. Perfect Dark Zero was "supposed" to be one of the system sellers, but actually didn't really sell all that much. Same thing with Kameo. The two games for the 360 launch that sold systems were Call of Duty 2 and Project Gotham Racing 3. To a lesser extent Madden, even though it was crap, and NBA 2K6 sold the 360 to sports gamers.

PS3 - The big system seller for the PS3 actually isn't a game at all. First and foremost, it's the reputation of Sony and the Playstation brand. People are buying the PS3 on it's brand name alone, and the pedigree of previous Sony video game consoles. They are 2 for 2 so far, so people expect them to go 3 for 3. If you put a gun to somebodies head and forced them to name a system seller for the PS3 launch, then Resistance would be that game, followed very closely by the freaking Motorstorm demo! In fact, one could make an argument that the Motorstorm demo has sold more PS3 systems than anything else.

Wii - Certainly Zelda and Wii Sports are the two games that are selling the Wii. Wii Sports isn't a killer app, but being a pack in game, and being fun (at least in 15 minute bursts) has caused it to sell alot of systems. Zelda is selling the system to the Zelda diehards, although many of them are hardcore Nintendo loyalists and would have bought the Wii regardless. Maybe they wouldn't have felt compelled to get it right away, and would have been content with their GameCube, but Zelda and to a lesser extent, the delay on the GameCube version of Zelda, pushed them over the edge.

Regarding the War bewteen PS1 and N64

I'm not so sure I would say that the N64 was the more technologically advanced machine. From a pure horsepower standpoint, and looking at a spec sheet, yeah, the N64 was more powerfull, but in all practicality, the fact that it had to use cartridges instead of CD's neutralized many of those advantages if not made them completely irrelevant. The PS1 didn't have the pure horsepower that the N64 had, but man, the N64 was known as the "Blurry" 64 for a reason. The fact that it was held back by the cartridge medium and they had to re-use the same textures over and over just killed any technological edge it had.

Captain Wrong

01-06-2007, 07:23 AM

Post a provocative title, write a nine paragraph post, argue with everyone who disagrees, voila, six pages of thread.

Try any of the following:

-Sega is on the verge of a huge comeback!
-People who rent games are idiots!
-Microsoft will rule the handheld market in within 20 months!
-Katamari Damacy is more popular than Pac Man!
-Why Capcom should retire the Resident Evil series!

etc. etc.

Everyone will jump in to tell you what an idiot you are and voila...you're now one of DP's most significant contributors.

Easily the most truthful post in this whole thread. Quantity != quality.

FantasiaWHT

01-06-2007, 10:02 AM

PS3 - The big system seller for the PS3 actually isn't a game at all. First and foremost, it's the reputation of Sony and the Playstation brand. People are buying the PS3 on it's brand name alone, and the pedigree of previous Sony video game consoles. They are 2 for 2 so far, so people expect them to go 3 for 3. If you put a gun to somebodies head and forced them to name a system seller for the PS3 launch, then Resistance would be that game, followed very closely by the freaking Motorstorm demo! In fact, one could make an argument that the Motorstorm demo has sold more PS3 systems than anything else.

That's one of the best summaries of the PS3 I've read. I would add Blu-ray to the "non-game-system-seller" list.

Regarding the War bewteen PS1 and N64

I'm not so sure I would say that the N64 was the more technologically advanced machine. [/QUOTE]

I agree with this as well. It definitely was not clearly superior. To your list I would also add lower music quality and the lack of CGI (if you enjoy that kind of thing)

djbeatmongrel

01-06-2007, 01:56 PM

when it comes to system sellers i might be the minority. the 360 only has 2 games (GoW and Dead Rising) that i want right now and the lack of complete backwards compatibility, especially for the 2d fighters, has turned me off completely. And the ps3 has nothing to offer me yet until tekken 5 comes out and possibly UT2k7.

the wii was a different story. no i did not buy it for zelda, i really only like the 2d ones. but the games i bought it for have kept me playing my wii almost non stop since i bought it right after christmas. I own Red Steel, Truama center, and metal slug anthology. I am looking to pick up these games after trying them: super monkey ball banana blitz, Madden 07 (the new control is really fun), rayman raving rabbids, and elebits. hell maybe i'll get rampage to.

i think the fact that i want to own 7, possibly 8, of the systems launch/early release titles has be saying something about the future trend in the systems lineup. the wii right now is offering me more than i could have imagined from a system so early in its lifespan. if i were to buy a ps3 or 360 cause of graphics alone i'd have an expensive door stop in my house. I'm pretty sure theres enough people that would think the same way.

maybe this personal post has gone off in a odd tangent due to just awaking but i am posting it due to my effort in typing it

Lothars

01-06-2007, 10:19 PM

I do agree though that I don't think the Wii will be that viable after three years mainly because I don't really know if the games will have any substance to them, I mean it's possble that they might have a fair bit of games with substance such as Twilight Princess but it's to early to tell at the moment, , I think that most of the games will be something like Wii Sports which is good in it's own right but not enough to carry a system, I hope I am wrong but we will see.

I will own a Wii and I look forward to owning it but I would be surprised to see the Wii viable in 3 years, if it than outstanding but I dunno

Iron Draggon

01-10-2007, 05:18 PM

I think it's far more likely that the PS3 won't be a viable system within the next 3 years, especially if the price remains the same for that long, as it most surely will... nobody wants to pay $600 for a video game system...

go into any store and count the number of games on the shelf for the PS3, then count all the games for all the other systems... the PS3 and its games are gonna go the way of the UMD format... nobody is buying Sony stuff just because it's made by Sony anymore... in fact, more people are refusing to buy Sony stuff for that reason... everyone is tired of Sony's arrogance...

I'm not saying that the PS3 will fail, but when compared to the 360 and the Wii, it's gonna be a collosal failure... it's not even gonna sell as many systems as the PS1 & PS2 did... unless it's built as shoddy as the PS2 was, in which case it's "success" will be based on the fact that most people who bought one ended up buying 2 or 3 or more because they all kept breaking... that's why the PS2 was such a huge "success"... if you only counted each person who bought more than one PS2 as one PS2 sale, it wouldn't even have won the last generation hardware wars... the PS2 was only a success because of how often it broke and how many people were foolish enough to buy another one when it did... and another one when that one broke too... and so on...

I agree that comparatively the Wii's graphics suck, but that in no way will affect its sales... no one is buying the Wii or its games for the graphics... they're buying it for the gameplay, and I suspect that it's already stellar popularity will continue to increase as the problems with the wrist straps and such are resolved... the Wii is gonna dominate this generation, and it's only real competition is gonna be the 360... the 360 will probably end up winning, but not without the Wii coming in a very close second... most people will own a 360 and a Wii... few will even bother with the PS3... it's more of a BLING thing than anything else... people buy it just so they can say that they can afford to blow $600 on a video game system that they rarely even play...

agbulls

01-10-2007, 05:31 PM

I think it's far more likely that the PS3 won't be a viable system within the next 3 years, especially if the price remains the same for that long, as it most surely will... nobody wants to pay $600 for a video game system...

And to think we were probably just a few more days away from this thread finally seeing its demise. I think this is a "fun" argument in some format--but can't we just let this one go? :frustrated:

Rick Morrisey in the Chicago Tribune wrote a great column this morning entitled "Let me be the judge; you can too." It speaks directly to the steroid scandal that has plagued baseball, but works for all things--especially this topic and video game fanboyism. I think he's got it nailed. Here's a quick quote:

"My fault. I probably should have been more conscientious about handing out invitations to the swearing-in ceremony. It took place the moment I was born, when I was given, for better or worse, the capacity to form opinions. Just as all of you were at birth." So, what's the point?

The point is you're entitled to your opinion. Now let this thread fade into oblivion like it was meant to...

davepesc

01-11-2007, 01:01 AM

IMO, graphics on the GC/PS2/XB are good enough that I don't really care if they ever get better. The current generation marked the first time a new slew of consoles came out and I really couldn't tell the difference graphically between the new and old.

The Wii has lots of people interested, and the price has people buying. If they provide fun games for all ages and interests, it will remain successful.

veronica_marsfan

01-11-2007, 10:10 AM

the graphical disparity between the Wii and the PS3 and Xbox 360 is going to start to look comical.

The average consumer doesn't give a damn about graphics

- VHS won even though it was inferior graphically to Beta
- VHS still won even though Laserdiscs were twice the resolution
- CDs and now MP3s are the winners even though 5-channel surround Super Audio CDs are technically better

The consumer doesn't care about specs. The consumer doesn't care if the VHS/CD/MP3 were technically inferior to the alternatives like Beta/laserdisc/SuperCD, and therefore the Wii will still be alive and well, if it continues to provide outstanding fun.

Also there's the fact that many people don't have HDTVs. Which means an Xbox or PS3 will look no better on a Standard Def tv than a Wii does.

The only people who care about specs are engineers. NOT consumers.

:villagepeople:

esquire

01-11-2007, 12:26 PM

I think it's far more likely that the PS3 won't be a viable system within the next 3 years, especially if the price remains the same for that long, as it most surely will... nobody wants to pay $600 for a video game system...

Nobody? Funny, I recall the system being sold out for quite a while, and to a certain extent still hard to find. Amazon announces they are carrying them and they sell out in minutes. Best Buy and Walmart online get more in stock and they sell out instantly. Let's get over fanboyism please and talk rationally.

And can we stop with price bashing. The 360 premium is only $100 less than the 20 GB PS3. Is $100 going to make that much of a difference once you cross the $200 console price threshold? I don't think so. The average consumer who is going to buy a 360 (or even a PS3) over a Wii is a different kind of gamer in that they have more money to spend on a game system.

Moreover, as I've said time and again, you are getting a lot more for that $100 difference, namely in the Blu-ray player, which by itself is at least $800. Once you add the HD-DVD to the 360 Premium, which does not even play games, you are at the $600 threshold, and the PS3 version at that price gets you a 60GB HD, WiFi, and HDMI support. Adding the Wifi support for the 360 Premium puts you at $500, and you still don't have HD-DVD, HDMI or a larger hard drive. Add HD-DVD to it and you are now $100 ($700) above the price of the PS3 60GB ($600).

go into any store and count the number of games on the shelf for the PS3, then count all the games for all the other systems... the PS3 and its games are gonna go the way of the UMD format... nobody is buying Sony stuff just because it's made by Sony anymore... in fact, more people are refusing to buy Sony stuff for that reason... everyone is tired of Sony's arrogance...

More fanboyism. Funny, I go into my local Best Buy and the PS3 games sell like crazy. NHL 2K7 is hard to find around here because it comes in and sells off the shelves. Granted there lots of Maddens and NBA Live 07, but that's EA's mass producing of those games.

I'm not saying that the PS3 will fail, but when compared to the 360 and the Wii, it's gonna be a collosal failure... it's not even gonna sell as many systems as the PS1 & PS2 did... unless it's built as shoddy as the PS2 was...

The Wii has had more problems than the PS3. Mine broke down on day 2.

I agree that comparatively the Wii's graphics suck, but that in no way will affect its sales... no one is buying the Wii or its games for the graphics...

Exactly, and that is going to hurt third-party sales on console ports such as Need For Speed Carbon, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Call of Duty 3, etc. which may in turn hurt third-party software development. Why invest money in development of games that may not sell becuase of a better version is available on either the 360 or PS3?

...most people will own a 360 and a Wii... few will even bother with the PS3... it's more of a BLING thing than anything else... people buy it just so they can say that they can afford to blow $600 on a video game system that they rarely even play...

I think most people are buying the Wii as a novelty right now. Once they get bored with Wii Sports and the endless amounts of party games (Rayman, Super Monkey Ball) they'll look elsewhere for their console entertainment. The Wii is also popular with parents because its a) cheaper than the other consoles and b) has loads of kiddie games for it.

jajaja

01-11-2007, 01:35 PM

The average consumer doesn't give a damn about graphics

Not true. I think i mentioned it earlier, but i dont see why Ninteno, Sony and MS would use millions on millions of dollars on making the systems better if the average consumer didnt care about gfx. Then they could just run the same systems for 10-15 years. Thing is that people want new stuff.

Also there's the fact that many people don't have HDTVs. Which means an Xbox or PS3 will look no better on a Standard Def tv than a Wii does.

There are indeed a limitation to showing the visuals if you dont have a HDTV, but you can clearly see that PS3/360 games are much better than Wii games even if you have a "normal" TV. There are much more to a game looking good than the resolution on the screen.

Cryomancer

01-11-2007, 02:10 PM

Why invest money in development of games that may not sell becuase of a better version is available on either the 360 or PS3?

I'm not really following this thread but I gotta say here....

They did it for ps2 games all generation long.

98PaceCar

01-11-2007, 02:24 PM

Not true. I think i mentioned it earlier, but i dont see why Ninteno, Sony and MS would use millions on millions of dollars on making the systems better if the average consumer didnt care about gfx. Then they could just run the same systems for 10-15 years. Thing is that people want new stuff.

You and are I never going to agree on this, but you have to realize the reason that Sony/MS/whomever keeps pushing the graphics envelope is to sell more product. If they didn't release the current gen of hardware (PS3, 360), there would be no reason to stop support for the last gen (PS2, Xbox). Eventualy, the demand for the old system would be filled and sales would slump. If my PS2 works, why buy another one? If my PS2 does the same thing as the new PS3, why buy a new one? It's really simple business economics and it works well in the disposible society we have created.

So ultimately, all they are doing is creating a reason (new hardware) to rehash the same tired games over and over while creating a desire in the consumer to upgrade because they are on a newer and supposedly better platform. Graphics is the easiest to improve on so that's where the differnentiator comes in.

Where the Wii is different is that they have made gameplay the main reason to own the system and didn't worry about graphics as they know that their target market will not care about graphics. This target market, which once again does NOT include any part of this forum membership, is more interested in having fun on games that are not overwhelming. The Wii will succeed because they are not targeting gamers, they are targeting non-gamers (a much larger segment of the marketplace).

Give your mom a choice between any 360/PS3 game and a Wii game and see what she picks to play. I've done it with my family and the Wii won hands down over anything else I have.

98PaceCar

01-11-2007, 02:51 PM

JaJaJa, I'll even go so far as to agree with you that given the same game with the same features on all 3 consoles, that graphics would be *my* reason to select one over the other. Now having said that, how many households do you honestly think this will be an issue for? Other than the people that hang out in places like DP, I don't know anybody that is willing to pay for all of the consoles released in any generation. The bulk of the marketplace is going to choose one and that will be what they have. So again, the argument that graphics will be the determining factor is limited to a very small segment of the market as most people won't have the ability to choose without investing in a second console, which they will not do.

You have to understand that people like us do not represent the video game market in any significant numbers. We are a fringe group that do not impact the bottom line enough to make developers change anything they are doing. As much as it would be nice to think that we can sway what Sony, EA, or Microsoft is doing, they know that regardless of what they put out we will buy it and therefore do not even consider us in their business plans. As a software developer for the past 12 years, I've learned that you don't develop for people that love your stuff, you develop for people that hate it...

98PaceCar

01-11-2007, 03:13 PM

Hmm, apparently graphics and being an AAA rated title don't make that much of a difference when it comes to sales numbers...

http://wii.ign.com/articles/754/754654p1.html

1.8 million copies of Happy Feet for the Wii shipped. Didn't Gears of War just break 2 million??? How can that be? Gears of War has MUCH better graphics than Happy Feet...

Joker T

01-11-2007, 03:24 PM

98PaceCar

01-11-2007, 03:28 PM

I guess that the game being good doesn't factor much into the sales either.

Proves my point completely. A good game will sell regardless of what "true gamers" think about it and even if the graphics aren't the latest and greatest.

jajaja

01-11-2007, 03:29 PM

You have to understand that people like us do not represent the video game market in any significant numbers.

This is exactly my point too. I was actually gonna write it in my previous post hehe. Thing is, people in general DO want new stuff. They dont want to play with the same stuff over and over and over for years. Thats why they make something new. Like the DVD is good enough for people in general, hell, even VHS was, but still they come up with new and better things. Why? Because people want it :) No need to waste money making new stuff if people doesnt want it. If it was up to me they would still be making NES and SNES games.

If they didnt make new gfx, they had to make up something else new. Nintendo did that now with the controller. But try making a brand new controller every 5th year and there is not sure that people actually want a new controller. Its been proven that people want new gfx since its been constantly evolving, but the controller have basicly stayed unchanged.

GoW has afaik sold over 2 million copies. Happy Feet have shipped 1.8 million, not sold. However, it have probly sold over 1.5 million. But dont forget that Happy Feet is for:

- Gamecube
- Wii
- PC
- PS2
- DS
- GBA

PS2 have sold over 100 million consoles, GBA got around 80 million, PC (tons), Gamecube got over 20 million, Wii got some millions and DS probly got 30 - 40 million units sold. So lets say 300 million machines and 1.5 million games sold. GoW have sold over 2 million copies and 360 have sold 10 million consoles. Means that 1 of 5 that owns a 360 also owns GoW. Very impressive i must say :) I'm also impressed about the sale numbers for Happy Feet too. Any game selling over a million copies is great!

GoW would never have sold this much if it wasnt for the great gfx. Thats what made people interrested in it. And im not saying that gfx is the main factor for games selling, i'm saying that people want it. This is a common "mistake" made by many, they think they have to choose between great gfx and fun. There is nothing stopping a game from having both things.

98PaceCar

01-11-2007, 03:43 PM

This is exactly my point too. I was actually gonna write it in my previous post hehe. Thing is, people in general DO want new stuff. They dont want to play with the same stuff over and over and over for years. Thats why they make something new. Like the DVD is good enough for people in general, hell, even VHS was, but still they come up with new and better things. Why? Because people want it :) No need to waste money making new stuff if people doesnt want it.

If they didnt make new gfx, they had to make up something else new. Nintendo did that now with the controller. But try making a brand new controller every 5th year and there is not sure that people actually want a new controller. Its been proven that people want new gfx since its been constantly evolving, but the controller have basicly stayed unchanged.

GoW has afaik sold over 2 million copies. Happy Feet have shipped 1.8 million, not sold, big difference. GoW would never have sold this much if it wasnt for the great gfx. Thats what made people interrested in it. And im not saying that gfx is the main factor for games selling, i'm saying that people want it. This is a common "mistake" made by many, they think they have to choose between great gfx and fun. There is nothing stopping a game from having both things.

Wow, I was wrong. I can agree with most of what you said here. But back to the core argument in this thread, the Wii isn't going to die an early death because it's graphics are not as good as the 360/PS3. *If* it dies an early death, it will be because the games suck and not because they aren't as pretty as what's on the other systems. I pray that developers wise up and don't keep feeding people shovelware crap on the Wii and actually spend some time developing new and interesting concepts. The last thing we need is another damn Madden game or FPS with nothing new to offer.

As for the shipped/sold thing, I don't think there's a way to accurately measure sold games/movies/cds/etc sold to the end user. These are normally based on shipped numbers as sell through is almost impossible to count. I could be wrong, but I've always seen it listed as shipped numbers and not sell through. Regardless, when you consider that selling even 500,000 games is typically a success in this market, close to or over two million is good enough to count as a success on both fronts. The fact that it's a movie tie in on a supposedly weaker console makes the Happy Feet numbers that much more impressive. There was never a question Gears of War would sell well.

jajaja

01-11-2007, 03:46 PM

Check my edit about Happy Feet and some other things, did it before i saw you posted. And yes, you are right, it all comes down to the games, thats basicly what its all about :) Also depends on how good the publisher is to hype and advertise the game. There are alot of heavily underrated games because of bad marketing.

veronica_marsfan

01-11-2007, 04:37 PM

Consumers don't care about graphics.... that's why they keep selecting inferior standards like VHS, CD, or MP3 (instead of superior Beta, SuperVHS or 5-channel SuperCD).
Not true. I think i mentioned it earlier, but i dont see why Ninteno, Sony and MS would use millions on millions of dollars on making the systems better if the average consumer didnt care about gfx.

If consumers care about graphics why are the #1 consoles of each era
- Atari 2600
- NES
- PS1
- PS2

??? These are all inferior graphically to the competition, but they all came out on top. Why? :D

Answer: Consumers have higher priorities (like price or # of games) that supercede the engineering specs. The consumer consider graphics a low and/or irrelevant concern. And that's why they chose the ugly 2600, outdated and three-yr-old NES, and blocky graphics of the PS1/2 (instead of higher-resolution consoles).

- If Wii offers the lowest price
- and/or the best games
- the average in-duh-vidual won't care about its "inferior" 480p graphics.
- They'll make Wii the number one console
- just as they did with the graphically-inferior 2600, NES, PS1, PS2.

jajaja

01-11-2007, 05:28 PM

If consumers care about graphics why are the #1 consoles of each era
- Atari 2600
- NES
- PS1
- PS2

??? These are all inferior graphically to the competition, but they all came out on top. Why? :D

Answer: Consumers have higher priorities (like price or # of games) that supercede the engineering specs. The consumer consider graphics a low and/or irrelevant concern. And that's why they chose the ugly 2600, outdated and three-yr-old NES, and blocky graphics of the PS1/2 (instead of higher-resolution consoles).

- If Wii offers the lowest price
- and/or the best games
- the average in-duh-vidual won't care about its "inferior" 480p graphics.
- They'll make Wii the number one console
- just as they did with the graphically-inferior 2600, NES, PS1, PS2.

As i wrote earlier in this thread, the gap between the competitors have never been bigger than it is with Wii. SMS might have been alittle more powerful than the NES, same goes for PSX and N64, but the gap between them is very small. Also worth mentioning is that Saturn who was weaker than the PSX didnt make it. Also remember back in the days Atari 2600, NES and all that was considered state of the art.

Wii is a 6th gen console (hardware wise) in the 7th gen. This have never happend before, its a new situation, it cant really be compared directly to the previous console wars. Therefor its impossible to sit here today and say for sure if the gfx will actually matter for the Wii.

Higher priority than the gfx yes, but it doesnt mean that it doesnt matter at all. Like if i wanna buy a car my highest priorities would be safety, how comfy it is to drive, how fuel efficiant it is and price, but i would still care about how many horsepowers it had etc. Would you buy a car that used damn little fuel and safe, was comfy as hell and cheap if it could max go 40Mph? Or is it irrelevant? Just because people have higher priorities doesnt mean they doesnt care about the other stuff too.

veronica_marsfan

01-11-2007, 05:53 PM

As i wrote earlier in this thread, the gap between the competitors have never been bigger than it is with Wii. SMS might have been alittle more powerful than the NES.. .

It's like talking to a wall. O_O

- SMS had graphics that looked like 16-bit and was WAY better than NES' 8-bit.
- PS1's polygons looked okay but was WAY behind Gamecube's RE4 or Xbox's 720p high-definition graphics.
-
- The gap between Wii/Xbox2/PS3 is smaller than the gap between SMS/NES or PS1/GC/Xbox. The differences are smaller than they've ever been.

Wii is a 6th gen console (hardware wise) in the 7th gen.
Considering current PS3/Xbox2 games look like old 6th-generation games, Wii's doing okay.

And IF wii was a 6th gen (1999-2005) console, it would be the most-powerful of the lot, running circles around the cheap Celeron-powered Xbox. The Wii is no slouch in terms of power.

jajaja

01-11-2007, 06:52 PM

It's like talking to a wall. O_O

- SMS had graphics that looked like 16-bit and was WAY better than NES' 8-bit.
- PS1's polygons looked okay but was WAY behind Gamecube's RE4 or Xbox's 720p high-definition graphics.
-
- The gap between Wii/Xbox2/PS3 is smaller than the gap between SMS/NES or PS1/GC/Xbox. The differences are smaller than they've ever been.

Considering current PS3/Xbox2 games look like old 6th-generation games, Wii's doing okay.

And IF wii was a 6th gen (1999-2005) console, it would be the most-powerful of the lot, running circles around the cheap Celeron-powered Xbox. The Wii is no slouch in terms of power.

... i really dont know if you are serious or joking here, but i will answer like you are serious. You must be the first guy who say that SMS games looks like 16-bit games. Have you ever played MD and SNES? The gap between Wii and 360/PS3 is smaller than between NES/SMS? No offence, but are you really serious? You know we are talking about the gfx right?

You even read what i wrote? I said hardware wise, not how the games looks. The Wii games also look like GC games so its not any difference here.

Only a handfull of Xbox games supports 720p. I see you write PS1, but i assume you mean PS2? Its also called Xbox 360, Xbox 2 was the codename for it like 3 years ago. Yes, GC and Xbox are more powerful than PS2, but its far from the situation between the Wii and 360/PS3. Wii is about as powerful as a Xbox1, it would not run circles around the Xbox if it was out in 2002. As mentioned, Wii's hardware is as powerful as a Xbox1, which is a 6th gen console, therefor Wii's hardware is a 6th gen console in the 7th generation.

I dont mind you're disagreeing with me, but seriously, do some research before you starting with your attitude and trying to act smart. The way you act now is just embarrassing. If you cant discuss without begining with attitude please dont quote what i say or start a discussion with me.

veronica_marsfan

01-12-2007, 09:50 AM

... i really dont know if you are serious or joking here, but i will answer like you are serious. You must be the first guy who say that SMS games looks like 16-bit games.
I said "looks like early 16-bit graphics" and I stick with my statement. It's no dumber than your "Wii is a old 6th gen console." Graphically the Sega Master System ran circles around the older 1983-designed Famicom (which later became NES).

The gap between Wii and 360/PS3 is smaller than between NES/SMS? No offence, but are you really serious? Yes. I demoed all three systems in-store, and I see no signifigant difference between the Wii vs. the X360/PS3 graphics. They look near-identical to my eyes.

I said hardware wise, not how the games look. Yay for you but I was talking to Anthony, not you. My first post here was a reply to the Post #1, not you jajaja. And in Post #1 they said, "As we approach the end of 2007, and enter into 2008, the graphical disparity between the Wii and the PS3 and Xbox 360 is going to start to look comical. As fun as the Nintendo Wii might be, let's face it, the graphics absolutely suck."

GRAPHICS is the only issue I am discussing & my goal is to refute the original poster's false comment. I have no interest in changing the subject to something else.

Furthermore, even if you think Wii looks inferior, I think it's not relevant. Consumers have shown a long, long history of choosing the *graphically-inferior* product. Like VHS. Like MP3 (aurally inferior to SuperAudioCD). Like NES or PS2.

- Consumers will ignore the Wii's "inferior" graphics
if they feel the Wii offers better choices in other areas
like price, fun, variety, originality.

In fact I offer this early prediction:
- Wii will beat the Playstation3.
Despite having "inferior" graphics.

veronica_marsfan

01-12-2007, 09:58 AM

[deleted - see my next message]

jajaja

01-12-2007, 10:31 AM

I said "looks like early 16-bit graphics" and I stick with my statement. It's no dumber than your "Wii is a old 6th gen console." Graphically the Sega Master System ran circles around the older 1982-designed NES.

No, you did not say early 16-bit games, you said 16-bit games. Just scroll up and see for yourself. Anyway, please give me the name of the SMS games that looks like 16-bit games. My comment about 6th gen hardware is a fact, not one of my personal opinions.
NES was first out in 1985, not 1982. Not even the Famicom was out in 1982.

Yes. I demoed all three systems in-store, and I see no signifigant difference between the Wii vs. the X360/PS3 graphics. They look near-identical to my eyes.

What game(s) did you demo? You dont really need to demo the stuff to know which system(s) that are more powerful tho. Like i dont need to see for myself which car that is faster between a Lada and a Ferrari, i already know the answer. Everyone knows that 360 and PS3 are much more powerful than the Wii, its no secret.

Yay for you but I was talking to Anthony, not you. My first post here was a reply to the Post #1, not you jajaja. And in Post #1 they said, "As we approach the end of 2007, and enter into 2008, the graphical disparity between the Wii and the PS3 and Xbox 360 is going to start to look comical. As fun as the Nintendo Wii might be, let's face it, the graphics absolutely suck."

When you quote someone and make a reply it means you comment on the quote. You quoted something that i wrote, therefor your reply was directed to what i said, not to Anthony1. If you want to comment something he said you must quote him, not me.

veronica_marsfan

01-12-2007, 10:54 AM

I'm repeating my reply to Anthony to make clear my point:

the graphical disparity between the Wii and the PS3 and Xbox 360 is going to start to look comical.

The average [keyword - it means not us, because we're not average] ..... average consumer doesn't give a damn about graphics

- VHS won even though it was inferior graphically to Beta
- CDs and now MP3s are the winners even though 5-channel surround Super Audio CDs are technically better
- Atari2600, NES, PS2 all won their respective generations, even though they were graphically-inferior to the competition.

The consumer doesn't care about specs [how many polygons are displayed or how many pixels make the picture]. The consumer doesn't care if the VHS/MP3/PS2 were technically inferior to the alternatives like Beta/SuperCD/Xbox. Instead, the consumer picked the graphically-inferior product, because it offered other advantages that made it more attractive.

And therefore the Wii will still be alive and well in 2009, if it continues to provide outstanding fun that eclipses the X360/PS3, and does so at a low, low price. The only people who care about specs are engineers. NOT consumers.

:villagepeople:

heybtbm

01-12-2007, 11:08 AM

The average [keyword - it means not us, because we're not average] ..... average consumer doesn't give a damn about graphics

- VHS won even though it was inferior graphically to Beta
- CDs and now MP3s are the winners even though 5-channel surround Super Audio CDs are technically better
- Atari2600, NES, PS2 all won their respective generations, even though they were graphically-inferior to the competition.

The consumer doesn't care about specs [how many polygons are displayed or how many pixels make the picture]. The consumer doesn't care if the VHS/MP3/PS2 were technically inferior to the alternatives like Beta/SuperCD/Xbox. Instead, the consumer picked the graphically-inferior product, because it offered other advantages that made it more attractive.

And therefore the Wii will still be alive and well in 2009, if it continues to provide outstanding fun that eclipses the X360/PS3, and does so at a low, low price. The only people who care about specs are engineers. NOT consumers.

Complete bunk. The average consumer does care about graphics. To say otherwise is silly and naive. In fact, I would wager that it's the most important reason a majority of people buy into the "next generation" of consoles. Ask your average 13 yr. old why they want a 360 or PS3 instead of an Xbox or PS2. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I'm just pointing out reality.

veronica_marsfan

01-12-2007, 12:19 PM

Ask your average 13 yr. old Yeah I know. Been there; done that. That's why I wanted a Jaguar (ooo 64-bit; it has to be the best!). Yep; 13-yr-olds are not too bright & definitely don't represent the average consumer you find walking through Walmart or Sears.

(1) 13-yr-olds don't have the money. Parents do. (2) Ask the parents (the average non-gaming consumer) which console they chose and why. You'll probably hear reasons like "lowest price" or "Nintendo is kid-friendly" or "It looks like fun in the tv ads".

"It has best graphics" is Rarely the reason. The average consumer wouldn't know the difference between 480i and 1080p even if it's printed directly on the box. (I worked retail; never underestimate the average customer's lack-of-tech-knowledge.)

If graphics were the MAIN reason consumers bought things we would:

- Be using Betamax (best graphics)
- Followed by Laserdisc or Super Beta.
- Everyone would be playing 5.1 SuperAudioCDs.
- And the top-selling consoles would be:
-----Intellivision (not atari)
-----SMS (not nes)
-----Xbox (not ps2)

Clearly that's not what happened.

:D

jajaja

01-12-2007, 12:47 PM

No one says its the main reason, but its one reason. There are many factors that plays in for a console to be successful or not.

veronica_marsfan

01-12-2007, 01:03 PM

No one says its the main reason, but its one reason. There are many factors that plays in for a console to be successful or not.

That's what I said. AND the reason I refuted Post #1. Anthony made it sound like "poor graphics" would kill the Wii..... as if nothing else mattered except the graphics.

Clearly that's wrong.

I argue graphics are probably the *least* important factor. Consumers are not geeks or techies salivating over a bunch of numbers; the average consumer is essentially a high-school dropout, or a just-barely-graduated adult, with little understanding of what's "under the hood".

They really don't care about specs. They just want something cheap, and fun, and that gets the job done. Wii fits those goals. (As did the graphically-inferior PS2 before it.)

:image:

jajaja

01-12-2007, 01:11 PM

Well.. its impossible to say for sure :) This is just speculations. I doubt it will kill the Wii, but it might take a hit because of the hardware, especially on games thats gettin released for all 3 platforms. Question is, will the Wii controller be a substitue for the gfx? Will people prefer to play the game with less gfx and a different controller or will they prefer better gfx and a more traditional controller? These questions will be answered in time, its impossible to say it now for sure. It basicly comes down to how popular and fun the games really are tho. The price also play its part of course. But again, only speculations :)

8-bitNesMan

05-06-2009, 07:59 PM

Kid Fenris

05-06-2009, 08:15 PM

Anthony1's posts are a lot more interesting if you remember that he liked games only when he was high as fuck.

8-bitNesMan

05-06-2009, 08:17 PM

True. And the games had to be in RGB :)

Bojay1997

05-06-2009, 08:34 PM

I was looking through old threads when I came across this gem. Anthony1 is no longer with us and since he wanted to time travel to May 2009 back then to see how his doom and gloom predictions for the Wii would turn out I thought it would be funny to bump this now.

Looking back on this I have come to two conclusions:

1) Anthony1 was dead wrong about the Wii being a flop

2) There were a LOT of asshats in this thread who are now banhammered :D

Thoughts?

I don't know, his reasoning might have been all wrong, but it's not an exaggeration to say Wii sales are way down everywhere and you can finally find it easily on shelves at stores. It's probably due to the economy and the fact that everyone who ever wanted one these past three years finally got one. The fact that games like House of the Dead Overkill and MadWorld sold very poorly is confirmation that the Wii is really not a system for the serious gamer, but something that appeals to a more infrequent gamer which translates into poor sales for anyone but Nintendo. Looking back to the hours I waited in line outside of Target a month after launch to get one, it seems silly that I made the effort for a system I have probably played all of five hours since purchase.

Kid Ice

05-06-2009, 09:10 PM

I would have told you back then it's hard for me to fathom Anthony1 being viable for more than 3 years.

At least one of us was right.

Berserker

05-06-2009, 09:24 PM

Thoughts?

I think the two replies I gave him at the time ( 1 (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1110254&postcount=57) , 2 (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1110277&postcount=64) ) still seem pretty relevant, possibly even more substantiated now but who can tell.

Basically my feeling was, and is, that Anthony1 had what I would call an "Old World" view of what constitutes progress and a better game/console, which is basically that Flashier = Better, Shinier = Better, and so on. It's strictly Graphical; i.e. Graphics are the only metric used for measuring whether new games are better or worse.

It's actually less of a view and more of a defining logic; one that's followed to a fault by those who still unquestioningly subscribe to it. That's why guys like Anthony1 simply can't fathom why something like the Wii would be successful - It's not Flashier, it's not Shinier, and it doesn't have a minutely-higher polygon count... therefore it can't be better. It simply can't be.

What he and those who think like him fail to realize is that this is a School of Thought, and not a natural tendency towards thinking about things - Like no one just has a natural tendency towards measuring polygon counts your naked eye probably wouldn't even notice; you have to be conditioned to think that way. So when average people who aren't as heavily into gaming, who haven't received this conditioning ("casuals" as they're condescendingly called) step into the mix, it really throws these guys for a loop, because the "casuals" tend to gauge whether a game is better or worse in terms on how fun it is to play; which to these guys is by now some blasphemous Commie/Martian way of thinking or something.

Of course, referring to that Mid-90s-to-Early-00s way of thinking (since that was the period when it was mainly fostered) as "Old World" is really an insult to the real Old World folks; the retrogamers who actually know what great gameplay is and appreciate how it has more to do with what makes a great game than graphics do, and probably just mostly laughed at these guys when it was the norm.

Fortunately now though, thanks in-part to the Wii and I think also in part to several other smaller factors, like general attitudes and the recent economic downturn, this is no longer the norm - it's a niche, and it's a niche that will only continue to grow smaller as its main qualifying factors - X-times flashier, shinier, and faster than the last guy - become a cycle that's more and more impossible to maintain indefinitely. The norm then gravitates towards other ways to make a great game - gameplay, how fun it is to play, etc.

That's a turn that's fortunate for retrogamers(us), fortunate for "casuals"(most everyone else), and unfathomably unfortunate for guys like Anthony1.

CosmicMonkey

05-06-2009, 09:34 PM

I don't know, his reasoning might have been all wrong, but it's not an exaggeration to say Wii sales are way down everywhere and you can finally find it easily on shelves at stores. It's probably due to the economy and the fact that everyone who ever wanted one these past three years finally got one. The fact that games like House of the Dead Overkill and MadWorld sold very poorly is confirmation that the Wii is really not a system for the serious gamer, but something that appeals to a more infrequent gamer which translates into poor sales for anyone but Nintendo. Looking back to the hours I waited in line outside of Target a month after launch to get one, it seems silly that I made the effort for a system I have probably played all of five hours since purchase.

Agreed. I think the Wii has had it's time with the general public as the 'must-have' new toy. Everyone in the world seems to have gone and brought one; they're either still playing Wii Sports/Fit or it's sat there gathering dust.

There are still some interesting games coming in the near future like Conduit but, like all fads, the mainstream interest really has died down a lot. I do wonder where this is going to leave the Wii software wise though. There's been a huge quantity of shovelware released on the console since release and it's only increased as the machine has become more successful. Now that the popularity has did down, will the amount of crap that's released also be reduced? Or will it stay at the same level due to publishers not wanting to invest in any long-term Wii development projects? Similarly, are developers willing to invest in more serious 'gamers game' projects, even though sales probably aren't going to be that great?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way proclaiming OMFG t3h \^/ii iZ d3@d!!11 But it also wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo are first to release a new machine. Whether they decide to go Wii HD or a totally new console from the ground-up (the best plan) is yet to be seen though.

Icarus Moonsight

05-06-2009, 10:10 PM

Hey, isn't there some website that allows you to send yourself a email in the future? I would send myself a email in May 2009, 2 1/2 years after the Wii launched in the USA, with a link to this thread, and then I can post a reply to this old thread and revive and see if I was correct or totally off the mark. Either way, it would be worth a laugh in May 2009 to check back up on this thread.

Oh woe, be warm chocolate pudding...

Bojay1997

05-06-2009, 10:19 PM

I think the two replies I gave him at the time ( 1 (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1110254&postcount=57) , 2 (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1110277&postcount=64) ) still seem pretty relevant, possibly even more substantiated now but who can tell.

Basically my feeling was, and is, that Anthony1 had what I would call an "Old World" view of what constitutes progress and a better game/console, which is basically that Flashier = Better, Shinier = Better, and so on. It's strictly Graphical; i.e. Graphics are the only metric used for measuring whether new games are better or worse.

It's actually less of a view and more of a defining logic; one that's followed to a fault by those who still unquestioningly subscribe to it. That's why guys like Anthony1 simply can't fathom why something like the Wii would be successful - It's not Flashier, it's not Shinier, and it doesn't have a minutely-higher polygon count... therefore it can't be better. It simply can't be.

What he and those who think like him fail to realize is that this is a School of Thought, and not a natural tendency towards thinking about things - Like no one just has a natural tendency towards measuring polygon counts your naked eye probably wouldn't even notice; you have to be conditioned to think that way. So when average people who aren't as heavily into gaming, who haven't received this conditioning ("casuals" as they're condescendingly called) step into the mix, it really throws these guys for a loop, because the "casuals" tend to gauge whether a game is better or worse in terms on how fun it is to play; which to these guys is by now some blasphemous Commie/Martian way of thinking or something.

Of course, referring to that Mid-90s-to-Early-00s way of thinking (since that was the period when it was mainly fostered) as "Old World" is really an insult to the real Old World folks; the retrogamers who actually know what great gameplay is and appreciate how it has more to do with what makes a great game than graphics do, and probably just mostly laughed at these guys when it was the norm.

Fortunately now though, thanks in-part to the Wii and I think also in part to several other smaller factors, like general attitudes and the recent economic downturn, this is no longer the norm - it's a niche, and it's a niche that will only continue to grow smaller as its main qualifying factors - X-times flashier, shinier, and faster than the last guy - become a cycle that's more and more impossible to maintain indefinitely. The norm then gravitates towards other ways to make a great game - gameplay, how fun it is to play, etc.

That's a turn that's fortunate for retrogamers(us), fortunate for "casuals"(most everyone else), and unfathomably unfortunate for guys like Anthony1.

I went back and re-read your two prior posts and I don't really think this post accurately reflects your arguments back then. You were correct that the Wii appealed to people who traditionally have not been gamers, but as the financial figures for software sales on the Wii have shown this year, it's a very fickle group and they seem to have moved on. Even Nintendo has suffered a very substantial financial hit with PS3 and 360 software sales surpassing them even in Japan. I consider myself to be a retrogamer and I enjoy Nintendo's first party IPs, but I don't think that a system or game has to have below average graphics or audio to be great. In fact, the best games are the ones that take classic play concepts and blend them with the newest graphics, audio, and a high quality narrative. I have yet to play a Wii game that fits that bill unfortunately, although I will give Sega and a few other developers credit for at least trying. Obviously, I'm not alone in my thinking which is why The Conduit is so anticipated despite the fact that it really is a very traditional FPS.

Ultimately, the Wii is saddled with a gimmick that seemed exciting at first, but very quickly it became apparent to both developers and consumers just how limited it was. Maybe the new motionplus add-on will turn things around, but early reviews seem to indicate that it helps, but doesn't really improve gameplay on titles designed specifically to take advantage of it. It's just the reality that a $250 consumer device is not going to provide the same high accuracy motion tracking that systems costing hundreds of thousands of dollars do. As such, I suspect that Nintendo will pull the plug on the Wii early and either launch the Wii HD that has been rumored for years or something more on-par with the PS3 or 360 in the next few years.

heybtbm

05-06-2009, 10:20 PM

This thread is like a banned DP'ers who's who.

Oh, and...

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/image.php?u=6755&dateline=1179943693

Berserker

05-07-2009, 12:12 AM

I went back and re-read your two prior posts and I don't really think this post accurately reflects your arguments back then.

I just went back and read over them again. I'm not seeing how what I said now deviates drastically from what I said 2 years ago; my thoughts on this particular issue haven't changed drastically in the last 2 years.

You were correct that the Wii appealed to people who traditionally have not been gamers, but as the financial figures for software sales on the Wii have shown this year, it's a very fickle group and they seem to have moved on. Even Nintendo has suffered a very substantial financial hit with PS3 and 360 software sales surpassing them even in Japan

I think it just shows that they're not dedicated to gaming when times are tough, but that's to be expected. Times are tough, and you can't really expect people who don't normally play video games much to keep buying them while they're trying to buckle down, hold on to their jobs and put food on the table. All kinds of things are down this year though - I'd give it some more time before trying to draw any concrete conclusions from it.

I consider myself to be a retrogamer and I enjoy Nintendo's first party IPs, but I don't think that a system or game has to have below average graphics or audio to be great. In fact, the best games are the ones that take classic play concepts and blend them with the newest graphics, audio, and a high quality narrative.

On that first point I couldn't agree more, and incidentally this has nothing to do with anything I was saying.

Ultimately, the Wii is saddled with a gimmick that seemed exciting at first, but very quickly it became apparent to both developers and consumers just how limited it was. Maybe the new motionplus add-on will turn things around, but early reviews seem to indicate that it helps, but doesn't really improve gameplay on titles designed specifically to take advantage of it. It's just the reality that a $250 consumer device is not going to provide the same high accuracy motion tracking that systems costing hundreds of thousands of dollars do. As such, I suspect that Nintendo will pull the plug on the Wii early and either launch the Wii HD that has been rumored for years or something more on-par with the PS3 or 360 in the next few years.

Again, I wouldn't be so quick to write the obituary, but that's me. Anyway, I don't think the general shift in attitude we're seeing is necessarily joined at the hip with the Wii, and thereby doomed to sink-or-swim with it. Graphics are nice, but people want fun games, and good gameplay, and if the Wii goes or is replaced with something else, I don't see it drastically affecting that sentiment.

Bojay1997

05-07-2009, 12:58 AM

I think it just shows that they're not dedicated to gaming when times are tough, but that's to be expected. Times are tough, and you can't really expect people who don't normally play video games much to keep buying them while they're trying to buckle down, hold on to their jobs and put food on the table. All kinds of things are down this year though - I'd give it some more time before trying to draw any concrete conclusions from it.

Except for the fact that video game sales are actually up this year just as movie ticket sales have been. When times are bad, people want an escape. I think it just proves that although you can start a mass fad and get people to buy hardware and even some software when something seems exciting, these non-traditional gamers just won't stick around down the road and keep buying software. Nintendo has the advantage of actually making money off their hardware and a higher profit margin on their software which has offset what has otherwise been some dismal sales numbers on their software and an attach rate that's at the very bottom among consoles.

I agree that the non-traditional gamer market is large and potentially lucrative, but these are the same folks who may buy a couple of cell phone games, a cheap PC game or two and a couple of iPhone games and not buy any other games for five years only to buy a couple more when the next hot device comes along. Video game companies can't survive on this market and ultimately, it's what will lead Nintendo back to its core audience which are kids and families who actually buy games on a regular basis.

evil_genius

05-07-2009, 01:29 AM

j_factor

05-07-2009, 01:44 AM

Bojay1997

05-07-2009, 02:58 AM

March 2009 sales (http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/694804/Analysis-March-2009-NPD-Console-Sales---Numbers-Down-For-Everyone-Oh-Noes.html)

Nintendo Wii - 601,000
Nintendo DS - 563,000
Xbox 360 - 330,000
PlayStation 3 - 218,000
PlayStation Portable - 168,000
PlayStation 2 - 112,000

That's "way down"? Sure, it's lower compared to immediately prior months, but console sales went down across the board. It's still selling more units than the 360 and PS3 combined.

Software sales have definitely been a problem though. Wii owners keep buying the same shit -- Wii Fit, Wii Play, Mario Kart, and Guitar Hero / Rock Band. The good Wii games aren't selling. I wasn't expecting Madworld to be a phenomenon, but its sales have been worse than I thought they'd be. It only sold 41k in its first week, and it's barely reached 100k now. I remember a time when a game having sold 100k made it a hit, but that was quite some time ago.

Actually, the 360 numbers are somewhere around 60,000 units higher than March 2008 which was allegedly pre-recession and the PS3 numbers have been consistent at around 200K since launch with surges at the holidays. At its peak, the Wii was doing almost 800K units per month. The Japanese figures for the Wii in March 2009 were terrible, not even breaking 100K with the 360 selling almost 50K and the PS3 doing over 150K. Of course, these numbers are still deceptive because Nintendo is under serious pressure to keep increasing profits year after year and without software sales, that just won't happen. Wii buyers are buying less than two pieces of software per year on average while PS3 and 360 buyers are doing several times that attach rate. That's not a sustainable model long-term and developers are certainly not going to put resources into a system that can't give them the returns of the 360 or PS3 which in turn means that more serious gamers are not going to be buying Wii games at the same level they do the PS3 or 360. It's really a vicious circle. It's kind of Amazing that while Nintendo has succeeded in making its console hardware the most numerically popular in this generation, it still hasn't figured out a way to make it attractive for third parties to develop for it or found a long-term sustainable software sales model for even it's first party stuff.

Emuaust

05-07-2009, 03:28 AM

While I agree that Anthony1 was wrong I can see what his thoughts where, that there was going to be killer apps out on the more next gen consoles to blow the wii away and while people here may debate that until the cows come home the truth of the matter is this generation of games is piss weak compared to last gen's innovative great titles.

The Wii games I really enjoyed? Zack and wiki and HOTD:Overkill, nearly everything else I dont really care much for but although I have amassed a rather large ps3/360 collection there are few Id consider awesome must own titles like last gen and with the motion sensing gimmick/innovation (dependent on your view) I think the wii has been rather lucky that gaming hasnt been that great this gen.

The wii has sold amazingly well but in my view it's life maybe possibly shorter due to the aging hardware and while most people will argue that its not all about the graphics(I for one am one of these people)the truth of the matter is the greater uptake of HDTV's mean the consumer crowd will see how ugly the games are and how poorly most company's programs are compared to the higher end consoles. The wii has sold well on nearly exclusively gimmicks, Wii sport/motion sensing and then wii fit. Nintendo need a new gimmick or the train will come to a halt.

I for one keep getting proven wrong, so take this with a grain of salt.

TheRedEye

05-07-2009, 01:37 PM

Actually, the 360 numbers are somewhere around 60,000 units higher than March 2008 which was allegedly pre-recession and the PS3 numbers have been consistent at around 200K since launch with surges at the holidays. At its peak, the Wii was doing almost 800K units per month.

It's true that Wii sales were down, but it's important to note that the install base is already gargantuan, and that they haven't done a price cut yet.

Bojay1997

05-07-2009, 02:34 PM

It's true that Wii sales were down, but it's important to note that the install base is already gargantuan, and that they haven't done a price cut yet.

Ok, but nobody is arguing that they have the largest install base. They clearly do. The discussion is about whether or not it's a viable business model to go after people who don't care about high end graphics and audio or even lengthy, story driven games, but just buy the console and a couple of games over the life of owning the thing. Cutting the price may increase the install base further, but it doesn't solve the problem of people not buying games for the system.

For Nintendo, making $20 or so on each console and $20 or more on each first party game seems to be working pretty well so far, but for third party developers it's not good and frankly, even though Nintendo allegedly had a 9% increase in sales in the first quarter, they have still had a net profit drop which is probably because of the weakness of the dollar versus the Yen given that the Wii is not outselling the PS3 or even the PS2 most weeks in Japan. They have also seen slumping software sales on the Wii but nothing comparable on the DS. Given that Wii games are already $10 cheaper than their 360 and PS3 competition, that's not a healthy sign for the future.

The 1 2 P

05-07-2009, 05:46 PM

Considering that the Wii just passed 50 (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/wii-exceeds-50-million-ds-exceeds-100-million/?biz=1) million units sold worldwide in record time---I have a feeling that it's going to be a viable platform for longer than most people think.

acem77

05-07-2009, 06:01 PM

Poofta!

05-08-2009, 02:17 AM

i miss Anthony1. i really do. he had fun threads and discussions.
(i still talk to him time to time on AIM)

Sonicwolf

05-08-2009, 04:10 AM

i miss Anthony1. i really do. he had fun threads and discussions.
(i still talk to him time to time on AIM)

Why was he banned?

CelticJobber

05-08-2009, 04:42 AM

The fact that games like House of the Dead Overkill and MadWorld sold very poorly is confirmation that the Wii is really not a system for the serious gamer, but something that appeals to a more infrequent gamer which translates into poor sales for anyone but Nintendo.

I think a big (and overlooked) part of the reason Madworld sold poorly is due to its black and white graphics and the lack of promotion for it. I know it was an artistic decision to make the game black and white, but that's a big hurdle to overcome for most mainstream gamers.

Sniderman

05-08-2009, 06:18 AM

Why was he banned?

General asshattery for a looooong time.

PLUS from the FAQ

Farewell, Cruel World! Otherwise Known as Goodbye Posts
Parting can be such sweet sorrow that some people come back to do it over and over again. Maybe they want the reassurance that they're being missed; maybe they're trying to get people to convince them not to leave. Or just maybe they're being genuine about leaving, but can't resist the temptation of looking to see who said what when they were gone. Basically, all of this boils down to a lot of unnecessary drama for board members and headaches for moderators. To keep things sailing smoothly, we assist all those who announce their intentions of leaving PUBLICALLY (i.e. in a post on the forums) with their departure by banning their user names after said announcement. So if you're planning on posting a goodbye message here please consider this point as it will indeed be your last.

PLUS this post:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110602

EQUALS being shown the door.

GrandAmChandler

05-08-2009, 06:36 AM

the Wii is a repackaged game cube with a new controller.(more or less)
bottom line is the Wii is trogan horse that worked.
people ate it up.
Wow Nintendo could have released a snes in a new shell with an analog controllers and skipped the n64.

Any game that I liked on Wii always has me thinking this could be better.
Forget 99% of the cross platform games on the Wii they are a joke.
And don’t get me started on all the terrible shovel ware!
5 Minutes of education and the non-average gamers can see how bad most games are on the Wii.
A lot of people had high hopes for it at 1st most of my hard core gaming friends bought one
And now most of them sold theirs.
At this rate all the bad software will smother the fire the wii originally started.

Are you serious? There are bad games on EVERY PLATFORM.
Yes the Wii & DS constantly get hammered for their casual appeal titles or educational titles, but there are a lot of solid titles out there, and a lot of great exclusives.
With that attitude, you will miss out on a lot of titles.
Cross platform being a joke? I disagree, I have more fun playing Tiger Woods on Wii than I do on any other system ever.
There is a lot of hardcore titles on Wii, just no one ever seems to care.
Smother the fire? Are you kidding? Look at the sales numbers for every month the Wii has been out.
I hate to break it to you, but it's not going away anytime soon.
One line per thought that's what I always say.

Garry Silljo

05-08-2009, 12:38 PM

I think a big (and overlooked) part of the reason Madworld sold poorly is due to its black and white graphics and the lack of promotion for it. I know it was an artistic decision to make the game black and white, but that's a big hurdle to overcome for most mainstream gamers.

I wanted to buy it but was scared the content was too much for my young one's. My daughter is in the stage where she repeats EVERYTHING she hears, and I'm told the game has VERY colorful commentary that I wouldn't want to hear from her mouth. If that aspect weren't so over the top I would've snagged this up.

Bojay1997

05-08-2009, 01:00 PM

Are you serious? There are bad games on EVERY PLATFORM.
Yes the Wii & DS constantly get hammered for their casual appeal titles or educational titles, but there are a lot of solid titles out there, and a lot of great exclusives.
With that attitude, you will miss out on a lot of titles.
Cross platform being a joke? I disagree, I have more fun playing Tiger Woods on Wii than I do on any other system ever.
There is a lot of hardcore titles on Wii, just no one ever seems to care.
Smother the fire? Are you kidding? Look at the sales numbers for every month the Wii has been out.
I hate to break it to you, but it's not going away anytime soon.
One line per thought that's what I always say.

Yes, but if you read any of those articles a few months back that actually took the average review scores for various platforms, Wii has by far the highest ratio of crap to good followed closely by the DS. I agree that there are some solid Nintendo first party games, just as there are for every Nintendo system. There are also a handful of good third party games, but there is very little that I would call "hardcore" meaning 20 or more hours of gameplay, a great story, great on-line multiplayer, etc...Hardcore titles? Where are the hardcore FPS and RPGs? Where are the cutting edge action games and RTS games? Where is the Madden that isn't dumbed down for kids?

Sales of the console itself and certain first party titles might mean financial success for Nintendo, but it also means that Nintendo can keep ignoring those of us who actually like something a little more serious in our gaming.

I've owned every Nintendo console since the NES and frankly, I wish people would start being a little more honest about the fact that the Wii is a disappointment or at least not a good primary system choice for most experienced gamers, especially coming from a company that really launched the 3D graphics era with the N64. At the end of the day, it's a gimmicky console that is underpowered. I would love to see the next Nintendo console not only incorporate next generation motion control, but actually provide a decent stock controller for games that don't benefit from a remote and nunchuck and actually release something technically competitive with the next generation systems from Sony and Microsoft.

You might not believe that catering to the mass market can lead to failure, but as quickly as something becomes the new hip thing, it can just as quickly go away. Especially when there are no third parties and fewer and fewer hardcore gamers (i.e. people who buy new games every month) around to support it.