It's hard for me to fathom the Wii being viable for more than 3 years

[Anthony1]

Ok, first, let me explain what I mean by viable. By viable, I don't mean existing. I'm sure the Wii will exist at retail for longer than three years, but there is a difference between existing and being viable. Sega Saturn games were carried at stores a lot longer than the system was viable, but for all intents and purposes, the Saturn had already died in the USA, even though games were still on store shelves (albeit in a very limited and almost token selection).


The Nintendo Wii is obviously a very hot commodity right now, it was the big Christmas gift, the hot ticket, and I'm not going to deny that. I have a Wii myself, and have been having quite a bit of fun with it. So, this isn't a "Let's bash on the Wii" thread, as it's more an examining of whether or not the Wii is built to last. Can this thing outlive the Dreamcast and Saturn from a retail standpoint? Will it outlive the GameCube? 3 years is a very long time if you think about it. The Nintendo Wii was launched on November 19th, 2006. If the Wii is viable at retail for a full 3 years, that would mean that it would still be alive and kicking on November 19th, 2009. That is a long time away from now my friends. I'm just not sure the Wii will have that kinda staying power. 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. At least they suck right now. Zelda is a fun game, I'm enjoying my time with it right now, but even with component cables and 480p, the game is still pretty harsh on the eyes. Of course this is coming from a PS3 and 360 owner. I'm used to the graphical power of games like Gears of War and Motorstorm. When I play Zelda, and look at the rather bland textures and details, I wonder what Zelda would have been like if it say had the graphical polish of a game like Kameo for Xbox 360. Kameo isn't exactly a graphical powerhouse, but had Zelda had graphics up to the level of Kameo, I think the Wii could have some real staying power.

Again, I'm not going to dispute the fact that the Wii is a very hot item right now, and that Zelda is getting incredible reviews, with many 10's and 9.5's being thrown around. I know that alot of people are in love with the idea behind the Wii-mote and the breath of fresh air that Nintendo has pumped into the Industry. I'm not debating that at all. But I'm also recognzing that things can change very, very quickly. What was once the talk of the town, can be quickly forgotten. We know how things like that can happen. At one time the Nintendo GameCube seemed full of promise, and ultimately the GameCube was a tremendous dissapointment for Nintendo, from a market share standpoint. Nintendo is going to make alot of money off the Wii, regardless of whether the system only lasts 1 year, 2 years, 3 years or 6 years. They are going to make good money on it. They are making good money on it right now. Every Wii that is sold, is profit on their bottom line. Every Wii-mote and Nunchuk and Zelda that is sold is profit on their bottom line. I know that. No need to feel sorry for Nintendo if Wii ends up being more of a stop-gap product. They are going to make a killing off it regardless. But I'm just wondering if all these people that are so gung-ho for the Wii realize how short lived this all could be?

I think Nintendo made a slight mistake by making it so underpowered graphically. Gameplay over Graphics, I know, I know. But as consumers, we are very fickle, and eventually, if the graphics start to look really ordinary in comparison to the other systems, people will move on to what is more shiny and more attractive. Face it, the mass consumers are quite shallow. The same thing that is sending them in flocks toward the Wii (the fact it's "THE" hot item for Xmas), is the same thing that could send them running away in a year or two. Nintendo will of course pump out their big franchises every so often to keep everything afloat, but for how long will Nintendo Wii be reviews be front page material? At what point will the Wii reviews and previews be buried in the back pages of the magazines, getting only a few pages of coverage and a few paragraphs, much like the current coverage of GBA and GameCube and Xbox 1? Things can change quickly, and I'm just not so sure this thing has the staying power to make it past say 2 1/2 years of relevence. 2 1/2 years might actually be pushing it to be honest. 2 1/2 years from launch would be May 2009. Do you really think the Wii is going to be a big thing in gaming in May 2009? If it is, it's going to be up to the third parties to really push the envelope of the Wii, and the control scheme. If all they do is make quicky ports and cash in's ala Happy Feet and Ice Age, then the Wii is doomed to a short lifespan, regardless of Nintendo's first party efforts. However, if they really make a serious effort, and treat the Wii the same way they treat the 360 and PS3, then maybe, just maybe the Wii can last a full 3 years or more.


What's your take?

[chicnstu]

My take?

I think people here at DIGITAL PRESS need to stop talking about how graphics look dated.

[ManciGames]

I think you make some good points, but I've said it before: Nintendo is not competing on graphics. They believe that the graphics are "as good as they need to be", and when you consider that it pushes XBOX 1 level graphics, I believe that is a fair statement.

Zelda is meant to look a certain way. Red Steel looks nothing like Zelda, Raving Rabbids looks different again. And Wii Sports doesn't look like any of them. If anything, the Wii is demonstrating itself as a pretty versatile graphics generator. Think of how Okami showed that the PS2 still had some tricks left. The Wii has shown that diversity in only its first generation of games.

Games do not have to look "photo real" to look good...which is really the only advantage that the 360 and PS3 will have over the Wii. Again, I believe Okami looks "better" than just about anything out there right now, and it is the furthest thing from photo real.

All that being said, I have no idea if the system will be viable in three years time. Like I said, you make some good points. But the fact is that Nintendo is competing on a different paradigm than the other two.

If the Game Boy taught us anything, it taught us that Nintendo can make a lower end system "viable" for a very long time, regardless of what the hard core market thinks about the graphics the system is pushing.

[Damaramu]

My take?

I think people here at DIGITAL PRESS need to stop talking about how graphics look dated.

Here, here.

[poieo]

I think this is pretty much the same bullshit i heard about the DS. And 3 years is not a long time in console terms.

As far as graphics, i don't care. Nobody i listen to cares. After being a PC gamer for so long, not only am i immune to the graphical hype of new stuff, but i am completely tired of what that race does to the games themselves. The Wii won't match up to the PS3 or whatever? Fine. Maybe then developers will have something less to bitch about, since it's all this graphical crap that sucks up development time and money. Maybe they'll have to rely on talent again, like they did in the 2D 16-bit days, instead of constantly throwing more and more hardware at the problem and expecting the customer to foot the bill like they do in the PC game industry.

[Sothy]

I have a fever... and the only prescription is more RGB!

[s1lence]

Blah another one of those ZOMG the graphics on the Wii suck and look bad and are hard on the eye threads. Since when does that fucking matter around here.

Nintendo has got the hype they need to make the system "viable".
As long as they make addictive gameplay the Wii will be fine though speculating either way this early in the game is kinda of well dumb. Last time I checked, the masses still all don't have HDTV's so any benifit of the HD systems is going to be negated for a while.

Now I know you are a graphics whore Anthony1 but please, 3 years? At least give it the normal 4-5 years for a system.

[njiska]

My take?

I think people here at DIGITAL PRESS need to stop talking about how graphics look dated.

My take?

Some people need to stop being so damn ignorant and realize that presentation is a very important aspect of video gaming. Draw in has always been a problem with gaming but as we get new hardware it becomes less and less prevalent.

Another major falw i've already encountered with the wii is being able to see items of importance off in a distance, there just aren't enough pixels at 480 to draw something distingusihable.

The lack of better presentation is going to hold the Wii back with both the casual and hardcore crowd. I'm not saying it'll kill the Wii, just that it's gonna make things harder for the Wii.

Personally i think adapting traditional genre's the the new control scheme is gonna do more to limit the wii then the graphics.

[s1lence]

My take?

Some people need to stop being so damn ignorant and realize that presentation is a very important aspect of video gaming. Draw in has always been a problem with gaming but as we get new hardware it becomes less and less prevalent.

Another major falw i've already encountered with the wii is being able to see items of importance off in a distance, there just aren't enough pixels at 480 to draw something distingusihable.

The lack of better presentation is going to hold the Wii back with both the casual and hardcore crowd. I'm not saying it'll kill the Wii, just that it's gonna make things harder for the Wii.

See that follows more logic, well stated. The "casual " gamer is hard to figure out though. Remember alot of people still like the VHS format as oppose to DVDs for some odd reason.

[TurboGenesis]

Here are my observations:

Nintendo is marketing the Wii completely different than the other guys. It will work so long as they continue to bring entertaining games along the same line as Wii Sports. Last night for new years I was entertaining about 15 guests of different levels of gaming. A rundown(using alias names);

Joe - He plays games on a heavy casual level. Likes 360 and is currently playing Call of Duty 3, Gears of War, Test Drive Unlimited, and Texas Hold em. He played Wii Sports and is sold on the Wii and is shopping for one when funds become available. Bowling is his favorite and also enjoys real bowling and applied his real technique in Wii bowling and did pretty well for his first time playing.

John - slight casual player. Owns only a Gamecube with Zelda collectors pack, Madden, NBA live, and borrowing my Smash Bros. He LOVES Wii sports. He visits regularly and we always play bowling and golf. Our bowling matches go back and forth. His wife played (for the second time last night) and she enjoyed bowling and tennis. They are currently shopping for a Wii right now.

Matt - casual gamer. Has PS2 and Gamecube with a fair amount of titles ranging from GTA to Viewtiful Joe. His favorite game is Guitar Hero as he plays real guitar. Played all games in Wii sports (sans boxing) and enjoys them all. His wife (non gamer) also enjoyed Wii sports and took a liking to tennis and bowling. They are looking at purchasing a Wii after tax return.

Cliff - casual gamer. has only Dreamcast with Sega GT, Sonic Adventure, Seaman, Ready to Rumble, Mortal Kombat Gold. Of note he is anti sony as he doesn't like their products such as tv, stereo, etc. and is turned of by their consoles. He first played Wii during launch week at my home and has since bought a DS and is currently playing Metroit Prime Hunter and Mario Kart(we played about 15 races last night). He is currently shopping for a Wii.

Many more stories like this were made last night. My point is Nintendo is hitting their target market with Wii sports and needs to continue to produce these types of fun, casual games to maintain this crowd to succeed.

A major push for the Wii to my friends is the price point and the fact that their favorite game is packed in.

Also most of these people don't care about online play, virtual console, opera browser, or weather channel or the fact that you can do photos. These people want to play games for fun in the similar fashion folks played board games in the older days.

On a dark note of the future of the Wii is that fact that it may travel the same road of the N64. N64 was a HOT commodity its first Christmas season but tapered off later down the line. The Wii could suffer a similar fate.

In the end if quality games come out for it and their is heavy 3rd party support the Wii can last a long time. Lack of 3rd party support will see the Wii suffer a fate like the GCN.

sorry for long post.

[Anthony1]

I think you make some good points, but I've said it before: Nintendo is not competing on graphics. They believe that the graphics are "as good as they need to be", and when you consider that it pushes XBOX 1 level graphics, I believe that is a fair statement.


Games do not have to look "photo real" to look good...which is really the only advantage that the 360 and PS3 will have over the Wii. Again, I believe Okami looks "better" than just about anything out there right now, and it is the furthest thing from photo real.



I remember hearing that the Wii would have graphics that are slightly beyond Xbox 1. Right now, I don't even see graphics that are even close to Xbox 1, much less slightly better. Also, I never said things need to look photo real. Remember, the example that I gave was Kameo. Kameo is nowhere near photo real. If Nintendo made Mario Galaxy on the 360 or PS3 do you think they would make it photo real? I sure as heck don't. Things don't have to look photo real to look good. Viva Pinata isn't photo real. It's like a cartoon. But there is no question if you made Viva Pinata on the Wii, the graphics would look vastly different. Nintendo decided to go the way they did, and I understand that. I honestly don't think there should be any debate about the Wii's graphics capability. Obviously they have chosen fun and affordability over graphics. We all know this. The question that I'm posing, is will this be a viable "LONG TERM" strategy? Nintendo is going to make their money regardless, no question about that. But do you really think the latest game on the Nintendo Wii 3 years from now will be getting the same kind of press that the latest PS3 or Xbox 360 game will be getting?

I think the Wii is going to be an interesting stop-gap console for Nintendo, and it will serve them well and be a profitable venture, but ultimately, I think it will be rather short lived. Not because Graphics are more important than gameplay, but because the general public at large, who is currently very much behind the Wii, will eventually get bored of the old GameCube quality graphics. Hardcore gamers will play the Wii until it's last breath. Just like with the GameCube. The general public isn't really interested in the GameCube anymore, but the hardcore faithfull still care about GameCube games.

My question on viability is not so much a big graphics vs. gameplay debate, but I think dissapointing graphics will be a big part of the lack of interest in the general public 2 years to 2 1/2 years from now. I think the Wii will enjoy a solid 2 years of viability, but after that, it will kinda drift off into the background. I just can't see the Wii being a big thing in 2009. By 2009, the Xbox 360 will be extremely affordable, on it's 6th or 7th generation of software. Heck, the core system should probably be $99 by then. The PS3 will be much more affordable by then as well, and will be on it's 5th or 6th generation of software, showing off much more of the original promise of the PS3. The Wii will be the forgotten one of the 3, of course the hardcore Nintendo loyalists won't forget about it, but I'm talking about the mainstream gaming press, both online and in magazines, and in shelf space at retail and stuff like that.

I honestly don't think it's a big tradgedy if the Wii has a relatively short lifespan, because I think the control mechanism is something that will be carried over to future platforms, and the graphics for Nintendo's next system will get a much needed upgrade. So, ultimately, it's all good. I just hope that everybody that is so gung-ho on the Wii right now, doesn't think this system is going to be a powerhouse for 5 years, cause it ain't gonna happen. Comparing portable systems to home systems isn't a valid comparison, so don't bring up the monochrome gameboy.

[jajaja]

Gfx have always been a big issue. Maybe not with the first stuff like Phillips G7000 and Atari 2600, but atleast i remember it with NES and SNES. I remember when SMB 3 for NES came out and we talked about it in school that it had 1-8 levels instead of 1-4 that SMB had, stuff like that. When the SNES game, the gfx was amazing! Everyone talked about how good it looked compared to the NES etc. Same thing happend with PSX and N64 too i remember and of course the PS2.

The gfx on Wii is outdated, no secret there. The Wiimote will only have the "amazing" factor for so long before it glides into being a normal controller. It was like that with rumble feature too. In the begining it was so damn cool and something new, but after a while people got used to it and it became a normal thing, altho its still a cool thing.

So what will happend in 2-3 years when the controller is nothing new and the games looks outdated? I know many say "gameplay over gfx" and thats true, but dont forget that in many cases gfx enhance the gameplay. Would Zelda:TP still be that cool if it looked exactly like OoT? I dont think so. I dont think anyone would say no to have 360/PS3 gfx on the Wii either.

I dont think its 100% unlikely that Nintendo might have problems in the future because of this. About the DS and PSP, the DS sells more than PSP, but still the PSP is more powerful. This is alittle different since the jump from the previous handhelds to DS was big (like SNES (GBA) to N64 (DS)). The jump from 6th gen to 7th gen consoles is rather small when it comes to Wii compared to 360/PS3. People are already used to GC/Xbox gfx on consoles, they werent used to N64 gfx on handhelds.

If the gfx didnt mean anything and the so-called gameplay means everything, how come we are playing with advance 3d and realistic sound today? Why arent we still playing with 8-bit and 16-bit consoles? (i mean all people in generaly and whats being sold in the stores). I mean, the games back then was damn cool and entertaining, but why are they constantly improving gfx and sound if the gameplay is what its all about?

[njiska]

See that follows more logic, well stated. The "casual " gamer is hard to figure out though. Remember alot of people still like the VHS format as oppose to DVDs for some odd reason.

I'd say the best way to gauge the average man is to look at the trends and right now HDTV sales are rising and the rate at which they're selling is rising as well. So while i don't think the HD is apect is a major seller with the common man i do think it's at least taken into account as a futre consideration. i.e. futureproofing their purchase.

[98PaceCar]

So what you are saying is that because the graphics aren't as good as the 360/PS3, it's going to die a quicker death than it would have if it had the best graphics? Have you ever played a 2600 game? They prove that GAMEPLAY is king and graphics are secondary. Who cares if you can see individual pores on the face of a soldier while zoomed in with a 12X sniper scope through a coudy window in a building when the sun is in your face. It doesn't add a single meaningful thing to the game other than a second of going 'wow, that looks nice'. True, there is a certain amount of value added when a game has the ability to render more objects, but just because the graphics are better does not make a game good. Good games are the ones that have the best design, which will take into account any limitations of the hardware.

The simple fact is this.. Nintendo has been smart enough to make games that are fun and accessible to the casual gamer and even non gamers. Once again, the common misconception surfaces that the average DP member represents the market that the big 3 are after. As hardcore gamers, we are not even on their radar. They know we will buy whatever is put in front of us for the few strong titles that they put out. Now, if you can get people that haven't played games before or in many years back into a system, you have something. To do that, you have to have good gameplay and easy to pick up games, not games that require a phd to figure out the controls. If a game is frustrating or looks overwhelming, a casual gamer won't even try it. Put a simple control scheme with a fun game out there and people will buy it. The success of the DS proves this completely. Nobody can argue that the PSP has better graphics than the DS and yet, the DS outsells it at every turn. Why? Because it's fun and easy to pick up and play.

Anthony, I respect your ability to take all of the crap that's thrown your way, but man, you bring it on yourself with statements like this. Ok, everybody knows you value graphics over everything else. But it's getting old. Why are you worrying about whether the Wii will be viable in 2009 when it's just now 2007 and it's a brand new system. Enjoy what's available now and if it brings you some happiness until the time it dies, then it was worth the investment.

[KingCobra]

To early to make predictions, but..

Price point may be a major factor in initial sales, but it's gonna really depend on the software this round IMO. If this console ends up with another N64/Cube line-up then the big N is gonna be in deep shit. Casuals will want mainstream 3rd party suport + the big N classic titles, if Nintendo can't get that within 2 years, then bye-bye baby.

I wouldn't worry about graphics!? Sony's Playstation and PS2 is shit in the console departments and it crushed everything in it path, Later Sega, slapp'd Cube around and if it wasen't for MS's deep pockets the Xbox woulda been outta the big picture and there wouldn't even be a 360.

We'll see by next X-mas if the Hype dies or not.

[TurboGenesis]

out of all my guest last night only one was not sold on the Wii because of the graphics. I've known him for over 15 years and he is a heavy casual gamer and places graphics as top priority even at the expense of game styles he enjoys. During high school he was pro SNES and his favorite games are RPG's and sports. SNES offered plenty well on the RPG front and sports titles were fair enough for him (though I felt Genesis did sports games better). He currently has Xbox and always complains that there are no (J)RPG's and I always mention that PS2 offers tons of them but he scoffs and says but Xbox is a better system. He is currently debating on whether he should get a 360 or PS3 but he leans toward PS3 because of its specs.

In the end I think it is likely that wannabe casual gamers who only care about how a game looks graphically (and they exist in droves - like many of the people I work with) will shun away from the Wii with out ever playing one. Also these same people know the Playstation brand and by sheer mention of the word are automatically partial to it. 360 is carving its name in the mainstream but still far behind when compared to Playstation. Another thing that hurts the Wii especially for these types like the people at my work is they put the Nintendo name with "kiddie" games. Just my $.06.

[jajaja]

Have you ever played a 2600 game? They prove that GAMEPLAY is king and graphics are secondary.

How come i cant go into any stores today and buy a new Atari 2600? Why dont they still sell 2600 if its king of gameplay? Back in the days 2600 was the best thing you could get as a home console. In the first years they didnt have a choice between the 2600 and another console that was 5 times more powerful.

[Ed Oscuro]

MY PREDICTION: Nintendo will continue making piles of money by squeaking through the door with affordable systems they can made profits off of.

THE END

[Arcade Antics]

How come i cant go into any stores today and buy a new Atari 2600? Why dont they still sell 2600 if its king of gameplay?
Because you're shopping in the wrong stores. :D I can find 75% of any Atari 2600 titles in lots of stores (on and offline) and they're dirt cheap to boot.

[KingCobra]

MY PREDICTION: Nintendo will continue making piles of money by squeaking through the door with affordable systems they can made profits off of.

THE END

I thought we're disscussing if it's "viable" or not? as in gaming total domination? LOL!

Nintendo always makes $$$$$$$$

[jajaja]

Because you're shopping in the wrong stores. :D I can find 75% of any Atari 2600 titles in lots of stores (on and offline) and they're dirt cheap to boot.

Hehe nah, i mean new units and games in stores like Wal-Mart and BestBuy, not used consoles and games in special gameshops. Question is, why dont they still produce and sell Atari 2600 as a amazing and fun console today?

[98PaceCar]

How come i cant go into any stores today and buy a new Atari 2600? Why dont they still sell 2600 if its king of gameplay? Back in the days 2600 was the best thing you could get as a home console. In the first years they didnt have a choice between the 2600 and another console that was 5 times more powerful.

You can't go buy a new 2600 for the same reason you can't go buy a new black and white tv or 8 track player, technology advances. It always has and always will. It certainly doesn't mean the new technology is better than the old (though in most cases it can, but look at how many people refuse to buy CD's over vinyl...). I won't argue for a minute that if the new technology is used well, it can be a better experience than the old stuff. But just because you have newer technology does not inherently make a product better. Look at how many truly pretty games have been released lately that are crap to play. Nice graphics is just a shine on a product. If the game sucks to play, it doesn't matter how it looks. Take a game like Rez. It's a blast to play even though it has somewhat minimalistic graphics compared to what the PS2 can do. Proof that a good game does not have to utilize every single bit of graphics power available. Hell, the Dreamcast has better graphics than the PS2 in many cases (Soul Calibur for example), yet the PS2 outsold the Dreamcast by a huge factor. Why??? More games that were fun to play and that appealed to a larger audience.

Given the long life of the 2600, it did compete with other systems that were graphically superior. For example, the Colecovision and if you want to get really technical, Atari's own 5200 and 7800. Why do these 3 systems, all of which are vastly superior to the 2600, have options to play 2600 games? Because they represent what the consumer wanted. Games that are fun to play and the 2600 has a huge library of fun games. Simple as that.

My argument is that Nintendo is poised to bring gameplay back into the spotlight over the number of polygons that a chipset can render and that's a good thing. I would gladly give up half of the graphic power that either the 360 or PS3 has to have a truly fun game to play (and yes, I do have all 3 hooked up to a nice HDTV, so I know what they look like). Too many people spend all of their time 'bench racing' their consoles and comparing specs. The proof is in which console has the games that are the most fun to play as ultimately, fun to play is what it's all about.

[KingCobra]

Ummm... they do kinda, Flashback consoles sell out alot

[8bitnes]

Nintendo is going to make alot of money off the Wii, regardless of whether the system only lasts 1 year, 2 years, 3 years or 6 years. They are going to make good money on it. They are making good money on it right now. Every Wii that is sold, is profit on their bottom line. Every Wii-mote and Nunchuk and Zelda that is sold is profit on their bottom line. I know that. No need to feel sorry for Nintendo if Wii ends up being more of a stop-gap product. They are going to make a killing off it regardless. But I'm just wondering if all these people that are so gung-ho for the Wii realize how short lived this all could be?

What's your take?

Just so people are aware, system developers do not make money on their systems, its the software and the licensing that goes with it, the controllers and the memory cards. Nintendo is practically giving away Nintendo Wii systems and are certainly taking a big loss on the console directly, but at that price, they will have them in far more homes than Sony PS3 will be in ... at least initially. Then, the Nintendo software machine of Mario this and that, etc ... will pump out title after title. More homes with their systems will mean more of their games sold and Nintendo created software makes up at least 1/3 of all their sales. Same goes for controllers and memory cards.

My other take is that people are excited about the Wii. I am a high school teacher and I have heard people talking about owning or wanting a Wii at probably a 5-to-1 ratio. A very similar ratio is among my recently graduated college friends. It seems that the very important 15-25 age bracket is really sold on the Wii and that will ultimately carry a product much further than actual performance.

The next key will certainly be quality game availability. For example, I never bought an N64 because I was a fan of RPGs and their was an overwhelming lack of availability. Instead I had a Saturn and then when it died, I went to a PSX.

My overall opinion is, great start, now get the software going and be sure to address the diversity of all gamers.

[98PaceCar]

Hehe nah, i mean new units and games in stores like Wal-Mart and BestBuy, not used consoles and games in special gameshops. Question is, why dont they still produce and sell Atari 2600 as a amazing and fun console today?

You do realize that you can go buy a Flashback unit or even a plug and play joystick with Atari 2600 games at Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc right?

[jajaja]

You can't go buy a new 2600 for the same reason you can't go buy a new black and white tv or 8 track player, technology advances. It always has and always will. It certainly doesn't mean the new technology is better than the old (though in most cases it can, but look at how many people refuse to buy CD's over vinyl...). I won't argue for a minute that if the new technology is used well, it can be a better experience than the old stuff. But just because you have newer technology does not inherently make a product better.

"Better" is such a broad word so it needs to be defined in this case. The reason why people stop to produce old stuff and make newer things is simple, people want new things. It is as simple as that.

You're looking beyond the big picture here. No one says that a game must have incredible gfx to be fun. There are tons of examples on this like CS and WoW, 2 of the most popular games in the world and the gfx is outdated years ago. Still, people make more and more amazing games (gfx wise) like Crysis, Unreal 3 and Gears of War. Again, people want new things.



You do realize that you can go buy a Flashback unit or even a plug and play joystick with Atari 2600 games at Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc right?

Yes, and are you aware of that you can still buy newly produced multicarts for Famicom in Asia and Brazil + you have all those NES on-a-chip "consoles" + they release old collections of i.e Atari and Sega games for newer consoles? This doesnt have anything to do with my question, my question is; why do we move on if the old things are so incredible good? Why do we need new things?

[xfrumx]

technology advances. It always has and always will.

Exactly, and Nintendo decided to go a different way with the technology they made a completley new idea for gaming instead of updating graphics and the controller slightly like every other console.

Wii also has a great list of games in under a month and a half
Rayman, I wouldnt wanna be playing the PS2 version of this, it wouldn't be close to as much fun.

Metal Slug, people complain about the controls but it is just as good as the PS2 version IMO.

Trauma Center, a Wii exclusive is great and dosn't need amazing graphics to show its a great game.

Elebits, another great game I doubt we will ever see on another one of the current gen systems(excluding handhelds)

Zelda, of course everyone has heard about this

and still many more, PS3 has actually been out a few days longer than Wii and there still arent many very good games for it.

Plus the backward compatabilty I have no reports of non-working GCN games yet.

I have a XBox, PS2, GCN and Wii. I plan on getting a 360 before the end of the year, I want to see what problems arise with the PS3 first and see if the price drops/better games come out and choose my system later this year.

I think the only thing that will hurt Wii sales will be the lack of HD movie playback or movie playback at all, every system is going to have its slow slups that hurt them but the other 2 have the playback features Wii dosn't.

I think Wii, PS3 and 360 will last at least 5 years each and all be very close races, but I guess we will wait and see.

[ManciGames]

Comparing portable systems to home systems isn't a valid comparison, so don't bring up the monochrome gameboy.

Can you explain why you would say that? I'm guessing you are going to say something about how the Game Boy was really the domain of 10 year olds and casual gamers. I believe the Wii is aiming at the same market.

I think that comparing something like the PS3 to the Game Boy means nothing. But the Wii is a pretty fair comparison due to the circumstances. If you don't agree, please explain.

[TurboGenesis]

Yes, and are you aware of that you can still buy newly produced multicarts for Famicom in Asia and Brazil + you have all those NES on-a-chip "consoles" + they release old collections of i.e Atari and Sega games for newer consoles? This doesnt have anything to do with my question, my question is; why do we move on if the old was so incredible good? Why do we need new things?

Why do we need HDTV, Compact Discs, DVDs, when CRT tv's, cassette, and VHS are already there?

[jajaja]

Why do we need HDTV, Compact Discs, DVDs, when CRT tv's, cassette, and VHS are already there?

It was a retorical question. People say that gfx doesnt mean anything, therefor i ask them "why do they make new stuff if the old is so great?". But your question also shows the same as me :) Back in the days VHS was great and our TV worked out just fine. So why did someone suddently come and makes HDTVs and DVDs when the old things were working just fine.

[Imstarryeyed]

I think of Nintendo the way I see it.. a crowbar. The crowbar that opens the very tight closed cases of the elusive casual gamer.

Every adult over 30 I have showed Wii Sports too from early 30's to late 50's has either fallen in love or has rediscovered their love of gaming they used to have.

The biggest challenge for Nintendo is going to be just getting that controller in that crowd and giving them 15 minutes to play it. The good thing is that many people are including mom, dad and the grandparents in by some coaxing and then realizing that the system is for everyone.

I have to think that if they can keep bringing out great experiences for everyone their market will only get bigger.

It is my opinion that the "hardcore" gamer is a dying breed, the teens and college folks that spend wayyy to time to play their games with no exercise, dating or real person interaction. It is only a matter of time when they grow up and realize that going out with the opposite sex is a good and fun thing.

I don't really think that group is going to experience any growth explosion; since the allure of the "pretty shiny" graphics with the same old derivative game play will continue to put off the preteens as we see more and more today.

It is really nice to see gamers wise up and not accept something like the PSP with its promise of graphics and flash and no real substance. I can remember when the DS and PSP were being debated and how people said Nintendo is crazy for the DS and there is no way it will survive against the mighty PSP... well we all know how well that worked out.. poor PSP.

[ManciGames]

Someone else has already mentioned that most people here are tainted by their views on games. They believe their view translates to the public at large, and that is just not true.

Go show your Mom, girlfriend or wife Zelda on the Wii, and then go show her Kameo on the 360. I can guarantee you that 90% of you will get a <shoulder shrug> as a response. The literally DO NOT see a difference. Sure, if you press them, they'll acknowledge that Kameo "looks a little better" (they aren't blind), but in the end, they'll just give you a shrug and say something like, "I don't really see the difference here. They both look pretty good."

THAT is the market Nintendo is aiming at. Not you, or me, or anyone else posting on this board. Sure, they want us to buy the games too (hence, the existence of Zelda on Wii), but they are trying to expand the market. If they got your Mom, your wife, and your sister, but lost you along the way...do you think they would care? They are making more money off of those three than they did with you alone.

[98PaceCar]

You're looking beyond the big picture here. No one says that a game must have incredible gfx to be fun. There are tons of examples on this like CS and WoW, 2 of the most popular games in the world and the gfx is outdated years ago. Still, people make more and more amazing games (gfx wise) like Crysis, Unreal 3 and Gears of War. Again, people want new things.

Yes, and are you aware of that you can still buy newly produced multicarts for Famicom in Asia and Brazil + you have all those NES on-a-chip "consoles" + they release old collections of i.e Atari and Sega games for newer consoles? This doesnt have anything to do with my question, my question is; why do we move on if the old things are so incredible good? Why do we need new things?


Umm, actually, the original post of this thread insinuates that the Wii is going to have a shorter lifespan than the 360/PS3 because it's graphics are not as good. So yes, in the context of this thread, that's what we are discussing.

Now, do I think that a game has to have good graphics to be good, hell no. If a game is good, it's good no matter what it looks like. I've spent as much time on the older games that have crappy graphics as I have modern games that do have good graphics. Probably more actually given that I'm old enough to have had a 2600 when it was new. I've played pretty much every US console available from the Odyssey on. For me, gameplay is king and looks are secondary. Always have been and always will. I think that anybody that places graphics over gameplay is going to miss out on a lot of great games.

Now, yes you are correct. There are a lot of good games coming out that are visually stunning and that's great! But to say that the Wii is going to die an early death because it can't render a game that looks like Gears of War is asinine. Truth is, the Wii is aimed at a different audience than the 360/PS3 and I think it's going to succeed wildly because of it.

Do we need new things? No. Do we *want* new things? Yes! Technology advances because people want to try new things. Ask any engineer, it's a creative process and creative people are going to drive technology into newer and more powerful places. It's a natural progression. Why are there cars avaiable that can do 160+ now? Because it makes people feel better about them (a sad commentary on our society, but that's for another argument).

But who's to say that if we didn't have the cell processor and 60gb hard drives in consoles that the games would be crap? The games created are going to adapt to the technology available. If they can manage to make a fun game and still have enough processor power to make it look pretty, then there is no excuse for not doing it unless the design of the game calls for it. But the core arguement here, that a lesser powered console is going to die sooner than a more powerful console is inherently flawed. If the games on the Wii are good, it's going to have a full and happy life. If the games are no fun to play, people won't buy them and it will die early regardless of how good they look.

[Anthony1]

Just so people are aware, system developers do not make money on their systems, its the software and the licensing that goes with it, the controllers and the memory cards. Nintendo is practically giving away Nintendo Wii systems and are certainly taking a big loss on the console directly


Wow. I guess you don't read news articles too much, lol.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/wii/wii-autopsy-discovers-manufacturing-cost-221736.php


They estimate that Nintendo is walking away with $40 profit in the clear on each system, and that includes the cost of actually bringing it to market. I actually think it's closer to $60 profit per system, but the bottom line is that Nintendo is making boatloads full of money selling the Wii system. They are making an even greater killing on the Wii-mote. I read that it costs Nintendo about $4.85 to put a Wii-mote on stores shelves, but it sells for $39.99. Nintendo is making money hand over fist with the Wii right now, but this really doesn't have anything to do with this argument.

[njiska]

Can you explain why you would say that? I'm guessing you are going to say something about how the Game Boy was really the domain of 10 year olds and casual gamers. I believe the Wii is aiming at the same market.

I think that comparing something like the PS3 to the Game Boy means nothing. But the Wii is a pretty fair comparison due to the circumstances. If you don't agree, please explain.

You cannot compare them because they are completely different markets. Handhelds are based solely around the ability to pick, play and put down after 5-10 minutes. They're designed as a time killer for lectures and long bus rides.

Consoles are designed around a deeper at home experience where you'll be able to sit down play and relax. They're a compltely different beast with a completely different purpose. Because of this it is not fair to cite any handheld as proof of how the console market will go nor is it fair to beleive it will work the other way.

That's why the gameboy was on top for so long. Companies figured players wanted experiences like they had at home mbut what they actually wanted was something they could play that didn't die after 2 hours of use.

[Anthony1]

Can you explain why you would say that? I'm guessing you are going to say something about how the Game Boy was really the domain of 10 year olds and casual gamers. I believe the Wii is aiming at the same market.

I think that comparing something like the PS3 to the Game Boy means nothing. But the Wii is a pretty fair comparison due to the circumstances. If you don't agree, please explain.


Comparing portable gaming to home gaming is comparing mango's to tangerines. Making these types of comparisons sounds good at first, but the bottom line is that the home console market and the handheld market are two distintive beasts altogether and have very little to do with each other.

[diskoboy]

Anthony does bring up one good point - what will the shelf life of the Wii be? Since it is technically a slightly upgraded gamecube?

I think Nintendo released the Wii as an experiment in game controls and interactivity with video games. Remember - they kept saying this will not be a console to compete with the 360 and PS3...

[xfrumx]

I play tons of handhelds for hours sitting on my bed or couch!


Comparing Wii to the other current gen consoles makes no since if you beleive comparing gameboy makes no since.


Wii is a new idea totally different and geared toward a different audince I think most gamers will want a Wii and another system.

My friend is waiting to find out what does the best emulation and then he is getting what can have a huge hardrive and emulate anything(like xbox1) and buying a Wii no matter what.

[njiska]

Someone else has already mentioned that most people here are tainted by their views on games. They believe their view translates to the public at large, and that is just not true.

Go show your Mom, girlfriend or wife Zelda on the Wii, and then go show her Kameo on the 360. I can guarantee you that 90% of you will get a <shoulder shrug> as a response. The literally DO NOT see a difference. Sure, if you press them, they'll acknowledge that Kameo "looks a little better" (they aren't blind), but in the end, they'll just give you a shrug and say something like, "I don't really see the difference here. They both look pretty good."

THAT is the market Nintendo is aiming at. Not you, or me, or anyone else posting on this board. Sure, they want us to buy the games too (hence, the existence of Zelda on Wii), but they are trying to expand the market. If they got your Mom, your wife, and your sister, but lost you along the way...do you think they would care? They are making more money off of those three than they did with you alone.

But Manci there's still the issue of whether or not either one of them would buy either system and i don't making them pick. The key to success is to make people who would never buy a game buy the console.

Everyone seems to have a story about someone being impressed about WiiSports, but are they excited about anything else? I've tried numerous games from Red Steel to Trauma Center to Super Monkey Ball and none of them produce that same gleeful effect as Wii Sports. There in lies Nintendo's greatest problem.

[xfrumx]

My girlfriends mom has been into ddr and thats is it.

We recently showed her Twilight Princess, Truama Center and Wii sports and she is in love.


My mom also got back into gaming from Trauma Center on the DS and really wants to play the newest Wii version.

[tonyvortex]

at the used place i work every hour we have anywhere from five to ten people looking for a NES or a SNES,there are so many people out there that arent interested in getting something complicated.people always come in and want good games that they remember and games that arent that complex.there are parents that want to replay mario or just want something fun again but dont want a ps3 or 360 .i can see the wii being a great system for casual america.as someone earlier said we dont really count,i think we lose sight of the millions of people around us that arent on a videogame board.

[Ed Oscuro]

Go show your Mom, girlfriend or wife Zelda on the Wii, and then go show her Kameo on the 360.
But there artistry is the determining factor, not the system's capabilities. I think your point stands, but the big test for many people is how well the system is used, not what its basic capabilities are.

[TurboGenesis]

Everyone seems to have a story about someone being impressed about WiiSports, but are they excited about anything else? I've tried numerous games from Red Steel to Trauma Center to Super Monkey Ball and none of them produce that same gleeful effect as Wii Sports. There in lies Nintendo's greatest problem.

This is true and I believe Nintendo will have to bring many more games like Wii Sports to hold its ground with the demographic that I have witnessed leaning toward the Wii. Of all the games I have showcased on the Wii(Trauma Center, Excite Truck, Zelda, Metal Slug, Elebits, Wii Sports), Excite Truck is the only other title that has generated any slight "excitement" and its with those who like driving games in general. Zelda has shown fanfare in my sect but largely because it IS Zelda but then this title is readily available on last gen hardware(GCN).



It was a retorical question. People say that gfx doesnt mean anything, therefor i ask them "why do they make new stuff if the old is so great?". But your question also shows the same as me :) Back in the days VHS was great and our TV worked out just fine. So why did someone suddently come and makes HDTVs and DVDs when the old things were working just fine.

I do beleive that this is one of those timeless questions that arise when new technology comes out. My current big question is 'whats the point of Blu-ray and HD-DVD when we have DVDs' that I personally think are fine. I honestly think this whole high def thing is overrated but then I guess I have poor eyes as I really can't see significant differences or I don't pay that close attention to detail of things like the blades of grass in a movie.

[Bojay1997]

I actually got into the same discussion with my friends the other day when one of them asked what I thought about my Wii compared to my Xbox 360 and PS3. The reality is that Microsoft has already reduced the historical 5+ year console cycle down to four years (2001 and 2005 as the launch dates for Xbox and Xbox 360) and I could imagine Nintendo falling in line with this and just releasing newer versions of Wii-like systems every few years.

I have to admit that as a fan of first person shooters, the Wii is not an ideal system. Sure, the control is interesting for about 10 minutes, but I would much rather have the speed and raw graphics power of a 360 or PS3 for that type of gaming. I believe most A-list developers aren't going to continue releasing Wii ports of multiplatform games simply because it's going to become harder and harder to port them down to a much lower level of system. That's not to say that there won't be ports, but they will probably be DS ports similar to Trauma Center and Cooking Mama. For someone like myself who plays and also collects unusual games, and really doesn't like portable gaming systems, that's a great situation. For the general gaming public, I'm not so sure.

I feel like most of the third party titles on the upcoming release list for the Wii are generally pretty gimmickey and probably not the kinds of games even casual players will be happy playing long term. The first party stuff sounds great, but I don't agree that gameplay can necessarily overcome graphical limitations. After all, wasn't it Nintendo that really tried to push the 3d graphics envelope with games like Mario 64? It seems ridiculous to now argue that the game play in Mario Galaxy is going to overcome the fact that the graphics are well below the current standards. I could be wrong, but I've never bought into this "gameplay is everything" mantra. It's the most important thing, but most of us like a pretty package to go with it.

[omnedon]

I haven't cared about graphics for years.

As a result, the Wii has put more real smiles on my face than any other console has in a very long time (I'm 36). My 360 is OK and all, but it's about FUN for me. GoW was fun. Wii Sports is FUN.

A buddy of mine wanted me to try GRAW online with him on the 360. 5 minutes into the training and I was DONE. That HUD was so crowded, and each button was being used in complex sequences, depending on situation context. After 5 minutes of that, I decided the tuition to play that game was waaaayyy too high for my limited entertainment time.

It made me wish we could play together on the Wii. Hopefully, soon we will be able to.

I'm sure GRAW is a great game, if you like using all of your fingers on the controller at the same time. I no longer care enough about the games to bother with that kind of effort. I just want to play for awhile and have some fun.

That's why I like my Wii!

[ManciGames]

But there artistry is the determining factor, not the system's capabilities. I think your point stands, but the big test for many people is how well the system is used, not what its basic capabilities are.

I think that's actually the gist of my entire point of view.

[ManciGames]

You cannot compare them because they are completely different markets. Handhelds are based solely around the ability to pick, play and put down after 5-10 minutes. They're designed as a time killer for lectures and long bus rides.

Again, you are basing your opinion on your point of view. There are lots of folks (myself included) who sit with a DS on the couch or in bed for an hour or so at a time...

[ManciGames]

I haven't cared about graphics for years.

As a result, the Wii has put more real smiles on my face than any other console has in a very long time (I'm 36). My 360 is OK and all, but it's about FUN for me. GoW was fun. Wii Sports is FUN.

A buddy of mine wanted me to try GRAW online with him on the 360. 5 minutes into the training and I was DONE. That HUD was so crowded, and each button was being used in complex sequences, depending on situation context. After 5 minutes of that, I decided the tuition to play that game was waaaayyy too high for my limited entertainment time.

It made me wish we could play together on the Wii. Hopefully, soon we will be able to.

I'm sure GRAW is a great game, if you like using all of your fingers on the controller at the same time. I no longer care enough about the games to bother with that kind of effort. I just want to play for awhile and have some fun.

That's why I like my Wii!

Omnedon, I could have wrote this. You just summarized my personal feelings on the Wii to a "t".

[djbeatmongrel]

Without skewing from past posts in this thread I'll try to illustrate how I see it. I was never a big Nintendo fan until I bought a Gamecube so fanboyism is not a factor (personally I think sega was the preverbial shit when it came to hardware).

I, and most of the people around the world and especially on these very boards laughed at the announcement of the DS. Once it was unleashed unto the masses, views were quickly flipped around. Now look at the DS and its library, its outselling the PSP by an unimaginable margin and its software, first and 3rd party, has either innovation or just plain fun on its side. Although the the PSP is a great piece of hardware, the DS has shown us that games can offer new experiences by changing the control medium a little and making it highly affordable.

I see the Wii in the same light. while the ps3 is a beautiful machine (no worthwhile games for it though) and the 360 has shown itself to be a worthy first true next gen console with its yr+ time to establish itself, the Wii has already drawn gamers and nongamers from all walks of life into its grasps providing innovative gameplay out the box with easily accessible controls.

As long as the 3rd party support is there and nintendo manages to get its mainstay licenses out for the wii atleast by summer its going to be hard for microsoft and sony to compete against the systems level of demand and price.

As for its graphical capabilities, i'll say that it appears higher graphically than the xbox from what i've seen at home. i have both systems running on component putting out a standard 480i signal. If i can swing it soon i may try to sign out a copy of call of duy 3 for both systems to try to make some comparisons (digital camera but its better than nothing.) Maybe its just Red Steel but i think that already looks better than any of the later xbox titles i have played.

[njiska]

Again, you are basing your opinion on your point of view. There are lots of folks (myself included) who sit with a DS on the couch or in bed for an hour or so at a time...

See that's where you're wrong. I don't actually do the 5-10 minute thing i too mostly play my portable games on the couch or in bed. But what i do and what you do doesn't matter, it's all about the overall marketplace.

Comparing console and portable gaming markets is like comparing Desktops and Laptops. They're very similar, but they are not the same and the trends in one do not directly carry over to the other.

[poieo]

I do beleive that this is one of those timeless questions that arise when new technology comes out. My current big question is 'whats the point of Blu-ray and HD-DVD when we have DVDs' that I personally think are fine. I honestly think this whole high def thing is overrated but then I guess I have poor eyes as I really can't see significant differences or I don't pay that close attention to detail of things like the blades of grass in a movie.

Even some videophiles are not too keen on Blu-ray and HD-DVD. Part of it is the format split and lack of cheap dual-format players (which, realistically, are going to be the only players worth buying for this nonsense), part of it is that there's just not enough of a difference between the new formats and DVD, and part of it is that people probably just got their collections to a pretty decent size with DVDs after switching from VCR. I'd wager that people really don't want to get stuck in a cycle of constantly re-buying shit they already have for such a minor improvement in quality, especially when it just looks like the only reason we even have these new formats is because some company or another wants to muscle their way into having a new cash cow.

I also think these factors are a lot like the ones the console scene is seeing right now. Up until now, the leap in graphics have been a lot more noticible than they are now -- frankly, i cared about how awesome Soul Calibur looked compared to Tekken 3. Yet now, i don't care how MotorStorm looks compared to ExciteTruck, even though i spent half an hour watching them both play side-by-side.

Isn't it ridiculous? Everyone's always like "Oh, those stupid review sites always gay out over graphics while ignoring the games themselves". This is what we, the hardcore say, isn't it? And here we are at a point in gaming where gameplay really does matter more than how many polys you can push. So screw this notion that there's a difference where the hardcore give a shit about this while the "casual" gamer can't tell.

[swlovinist]

The Wii is going to last more than 3 years...period. In that time, we will see a price drop under $175, more pack ins(like classic games maybe even a "zapper") more features, and more games. The dam thing has been out a whole whopping two months, and people are quick to judge how short the life span of the thing is because Nintendo didnt make a graphics hoar system. Right now, Nintendo is laughing at the PS3s sitting in stores becuase nobody give a shit about PLAYING them. I have seen more people care about the Wii and getting into gaming due to simplicity and price. hell, if they made ten sequels to Wii sports alone, the system would be viable for 5 years. yes, the system is not perfect on controls, but give it time. They will make cool stuff for their system. They will have classics that everyone can download and remember. They will have something for everyone that wants to have fun. While I am a fan of all three companies, the Wii is exactly what the game industry needed. Creativity, more affordable development costs, affordable system, family fun. The Wii will last because the game indsustry has forgotten about the true "casual gamer".

[Anthony1]

There are a lot of good games coming out that are visually stunning and that's great! But to say that the Wii is going to die an early death because it can't render a game that looks like Gears of War is asinine.



I'm not saying the Wii is going to have a shortened lifespan solely because of it's graphical capabilities, but I think in the long run, that will likely be the biggest factor in it's demise on retail shelves. Again, I must point out that Nintendo is going to make a killing off the Wii regardless of how long it lasts on retail shelves. When I'm talking about viability, I'm talking about it being a "real" factor in the gaming marketplace in 2009. I think the thing that everybody is forgetting is the fact that 2009 is quite a ways away from now. Sure, technically, it's only 24 months, but in video game time, 24 months can be an eternity. A lot of things can happen in the span of 24 months. Everybody has this love affair right now with the Wii, myself included, but I can step back from it all, and wonder to myself just how long this thing is going to last. That's basically what this thread is all about. I'm wondering out loud, how long the Wii is really going to last in the grand scheme of things.

Again, people hear me talking about something in a somewhat negative context, and I think often times it's very easy to jump to conclusions and write my opinions off as the misguided rumblings of a graphics whore and Nintendo Wii hater. Fact is, I've spent well over $300 on Nintendo and the Wii. I bought a Wii system, ($270 with tax), and I also paid about $40 for the component cables (after tax and shipping). I'm currently renting Zelda and Red Steel. I've been playing Wii Sports with my kids every day, and we've been making Mii's and having lots of fun. No question about it. I definitely can understand the appeal of the Wii right now. Wii Sports can be extremely intoxicating in 20 minute bursts, and Zelda is a very nice game.

So if I thought the Nintendo Wii was a total dud, there is no way on God's green Earth that I would pay over $300 for the deal, and be enjoying the heck out of it,....because I am. I'm very much enjoying it. It definitely has a very unique flavor all it's own. I have to hand it to Nintendo, they definitely have their mind set on a certain way of doing things, and I can appreciate that. So this post isn't some secret method for me to bash Nintendo and the Wii. I'm simply trying to examine the possibilities of how the Wii will perform at retail from a long term standpoint. And yes, a big part of my belief on that has to do with the graphics.


Ok, regarding the graphics, I'm just going to come flat out and say what I think alot of people are afraid to say, because they fear the backlash, and they fear their gamer card being revoked. The Wii has absolutely horrible graphics. Ok, I said it. Even Zelda looks horrible. When I mean horrible, I'm talking in comparison to the other 2 consoles out there. I have all three of them, and I play all 3 of them as much as I can. With PS3, I'm playing mostly the Motorstorm import right now. With 360, I'm playing Gears and NBA 2K7. With Wii, I'm playing Zelda and Wii Sports. Zelda and Wii Sports are very fun, but very fugly. There is no way to get around it. I got the component cables, and while they help a wii bit, they don't help all that much. In Wii Sports, it's not so much that the graphics are downright ugly or anything, but it's the backgrounds. The backgrounds have like nothing going on at all. Sure, some things look cute, like when you're playing Tennis, and the players kick up some grass from the tennis court and stuff like that, but the bottom line is the Wii is definitely showing some pretty horrible graphics right now. I just don't think things are going to change too dramatcially over the forseeable future, and I think eventually the novelty of the controller and the control mechanism is going to wear off. PS3 is going to have some games that are going to blow people away, and the 360 is going to continue to impress, while the prices for both of those systems are going to continuously fall. The Wii will lower it's price as well, but basically the main gist of what I'm trying to say is that the horrible graphics on the Wii are going to end up prematurely shortening it's lifespan when we head into 2009. Things will be absolutely fine for the Wii during 2007. I think the hype will dramatically taper off, over the Summer and into Fall, and the Wii will lose it's status as the hottest Xmas present, but I think it will still do quite well in 2007. In early 2008, I think it will continue to do relatively well. But I think as we get to mid 2008 and late 2008, it will start to slip dramatically. Sales will really start to slide. The novelty of the controller and control mechanism will have completely worn off by that time, and nobody will be giving all the games free passes anymore. A mediocre at best game like Excite Truck will be judged on it's merits straight up. Not through the rose colored glasses of a euphoric launch and honeymoon period. The graphics will look even worse in comparison to the latest next-gen efforts on 360 and PS3.


Now this may sound like a bunch of gloom and doom, but it's really not. Just cause the Wii will have a shortened lifespan, I don't think it's any reason to panic. Hell, I've just spent $310 on a system that I think isn't going to be viable in just 2 1/2 short years. Why the hell would I do that? Well, I think I will get my $310 worth of enjoyment out of it before then, and I'll be very much looking forward to Nintendo's follow up to the Wii. I'm hoping they can make the control scheme even more accurate and detailed, and I'm hoping they can bring the graphics into the 21st century. It will be a match made in heaven. In the meanwhile, I'll continue to play Wii-Sports with my kids and look forward to Mario Galaxy and Metroid, but I'm just saying I think people should temper their enthusiasm a Wii bit. :)

[Richter Belmount]

I think of Nintendo the way I see it.. a crowbar. The crowbar that opens the very tight closed cases of the elusive casual gamer.

Every adult over 30 I have showed Wii Sports too from early 30's to late 50's has either fallen in love or has rediscovered their love of gaming they used to have.

The biggest challenge for Nintendo is going to be just getting that controller in that crowd and giving them 15 minutes to play it. The good thing is that many people are including mom, dad and the grandparents in by some coaxing and then realizing that the system is for everyone.

I have to think that if they can keep bringing out great experiences for everyone their market will only get bigger.

It is my opinion that the "hardcore" gamer is a dying breed, the teens and college folks that spend wayyy to time to play their games with no exercise, dating or real person interaction. It is only a matter of time when they grow up and realize that going out with the opposite sex is a good and fun thing.

I don't really think that group is going to experience any growth explosion; since the allure of the "pretty shiny" graphics with the same old derivative game play will continue to put off the preteens as we see more and more today.

It is really nice to see gamers wise up and not accept something like the PSP with its promise of graphics and flash and no real substance. I can remember when the DS and PSP were being debated and how people said Nintendo is crazy for the DS and there is no way it will survive against the mighty PSP... well we all know how well that worked out.. poor PSP.

For some reason this post made me laugh (with not at) good job.

[suckerpunch5]

Again, you are basing your opinion on your point of view. There are lots of folks (myself included) who sit with a DS on the couch or in bed for an hour or so at a time...

/raises hand

[esquire]

I think it will depend on the 3rd party developed games released over the next 12 months. Sure Nintendo will release their usual Mario, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Metroid, Super Smash Bros., and other franchise releases, but what about the games by third party developers? As gamers on the 360 and PS3 will be playing Halo 3, Assassin's Creed, Lost Planet, Time Shift, Lair, and Heavenly Sword, what will be comparable to play on the Wii? And I don't necessarily mean graphics wise, but of course with games like that they do play a factor. It appears that Red Steel was a bust. Far Cry Vengeance as well. Yes Rayman, Super Monkey Ball and Trauma Center are very good games, but can the "gimmick" of the Wii remote last? Remember the early DS games that simply used the touch screen as a gimmick, rather than truly incorporate it into gameplay such as in later games like Advance Wars Dual Strike? Case in point with the Wii launches of GT Pro Series and Monster 4x4 World Circuit, essentially Gamecube rehashes. Neither of these games stand up to even the same old Ridge Racer games released at launch on both the 360 or PS3.

So the question is, will the lack of processor power (resulting in lower grade graphics) and lack of hi-definition support be the Achilles Heel just like the Gamecube's lack of online play? While there are many detractors here in this forum, I believe the average gamer may feel otherwise.

While the uniqueness of the Wii remote is all new to us now, how many times will developers be able to incorporate the same "gimmicky" gameplay over and over before the average gamer either gets tired or bored with it? At some point, the Wii gamer may end up just like the character "Oliver Twist" uttering the classic line "Please, sir, I want some more."

Where this will be truly evident is with 3rd party ports, such as current releases Call of Duty 3, Need for Speed Carbon and Marvel Ultimate Alliance. These games weren't developed specifically for the Wii. Why should gamers buy those games for the Wii over the PS3 or 360 versions? The Wii will have to offer something truly special to convince gamers to buy that version (other than the $10 price difference) as that version will be already behind the PS3 and 360 versions graphic wise. Eventually the graphics may hurt the Wii in that regards, and in turn hurt 3rd party development, at least with the console ports.

Given a choice, I will play Call of Duty 3 on either the PS3 or 360. Also, I will take Resistance over Red Steel. This isn't meant as a bash of the Wii. In fact I love mine, especially for party games like Wii Sports, Super Monkey Ball and Rayman. I want the Wii to succeed. But at the end of the day, if I want to jump into a FPS, Sports or Racing game, I'm going over to either my 360 or PS3, and these types of games help sell consoles (Halo, Madden, Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo) and get third party developers on board (Rockstar, Insomniac, Bioware, Raven, Naughty Dog, etc.). I don't want to see the Wii follow the path of the Gamecube in that regard.

[Berserker]

I think the main flaw in your argument Anthony1, is that it hinges on the idea that everyone else cares about graphics to(or even near) the extent that you do. While this may be true certainly in some circles, mainly the next-gen hardcore gaming sector, my feeling is that this is a huge overestimation on yours, and Sonys, and Microsofts, and most of the modern game development houses parts.

My point is that with the Wii, Nintendo is attempting to capitalize on the huge majority of people who don't care about every last polygon and pixel-shader, and that is a relatively new thing. This is a HUGE untapped market of people who don't really play games, and whose only observation from seeing the PS2 next to the PS3 might be that the latter looks "more real". They will not be won by graphics power alone, or else they would've been already, since this has been the running trend for years and years now. You might be able to reel 'em in with some purely fun games however, with somewhat comparable graphics to the eyes of the average non-gamer. Nintendo realizes this, and this is also good I think for most of us gamers -- we need more fun games.

In my estimation, this industry is quickly spiraling out of control. Multi-million-dollar budgeted games that are as such just to remain viable for you to play on expensive consoles sold at a loss. And they're already pushing for more, faster, prettier, snazzier, more, more, and more, still, always. At the rate this is happening, I just can't see it lasting indefinitely. It's a house of cards, and it's getting shakier as they stack onto it still, more cards. An ever-increasing bloated machine, massively resource consuming, and completely unsustainable as-is.

And of course the greatest illusion of all is that this is what they need to do to sell millions of video games. The truth is that this is all they really know how to do anymore.

[lendelin]

About the evergreen gameplay vs. graphics and the silliness to look at it as a zero-sum-game:

Graphics ARE gameplay and vice versa, let it be photorealism or cartoonish mood settings. System capabilities are very important for the 'artistic' use of graphics; they are merely tools and shouldn't be admired as such like a paint brush or a new kind of paint or a canvas shouldn't be admired for themselves; but every painter knows that the kind of paint, brush and canvas you use determines what you can do and therefore sets the frame for the endproduct. The only other limits are set by the brain of game developers working within that frame set. Mere tools have important gameplay implications! There were things Miyamoto couldn't do in the first Zelda game compared to the the SNES A Link to the Past.

It is just plain silly to assume that a Miyamoto or every other game developer would prefer systems which gives them less choices and opportunities. Nintendo chose this route out of economic necessity and not because they developed a heart for the true gamer and innovation, that is PR-babble.

Neither is the the statement "graphics aren't everything" an answer to the concerns of the OP, nor is "gameplay comes first" an intelligent statement. Both statements are obviously true, but they don't say a thing.

"Classic" timeless gameplay works within past frame sets. It cannot be repeated although very basic gameplay rules are very similar or even identical. Innovative ideas work within limits. A Pitfall or a Galaga cannot and should not be repeated today. It were an abomination, the extreme opposite of innovative, and rightfully not a commercial success.

Graphics and therefore system capabilities are important gameplay elements; racers (from sims to arcade racers) live from draw distance, adventure games and RPGs use textures, colors, details for mood settings. I'd certainly prefer to play Zelda TP on the 360. All other things being equal, it were a better game, no doubt; and better resolutions for Okami wouldn't hurt, maybe even more processing power would have given developers more gameplay ideas which could be implemented, the game would certainly not be worse on a 360 or PS3. I played tonight MotoGP3 on the Xbox, and then a demo version of MotoGP 06 on the 360. Gameplay (control, feel for speed) is roughly the same, I prefer the newer version; and playing Zelda TP on the Cube and seeing graphics of the game on the Wii, I thought about Kameo and regret that Nintendo isn't able to compete with MS and Sony anymore.

About the Wii and its prospects: The Wii is certainly from an aspect of system capabilities outdated before it even launched. It is a console system worthy to be released four years ago. The Q is will it last.

I agree with Anthony that everything depends on the appeal and success of the new control scheme. Graphically, the thing looks bad and outrun already.

I was very skeptical about the DS and said that the dual screen is a gimmick (which I still believe it is), the stylus and touch screen aren't to such an extent. Nonethless, it was enough for N to produce a new cool image for a system which dominates and has great games whose majority could also play on a new powerful version of the Gameboy w/o dual screens and touch screen.

The strategy of the image driven sucess of the 'less powerful, but innovative system' will probably not work for consoles despite Ns aim for the casual gamer and demographics that didn't play at all or very little. The handheld games live from and are suited for 2D games by their gameplay nature, at least for now. Short, simple, party-like games, and 16bit classics, or remakes, or new "old" games like RPGs as a niche for the hardcore gamer. It works becasue they are 'different' from the console games and therefore offer important variety to the 'big' games. Time stood still and stagnated for handheld games or gave us great, innovative game ideas for the very short gaming sessions.

All of the above might be said about the Wii, and N banks on the replication of this strategy. In all likelihood it will not work. Expectations about a big console are different, face direct comepetition, and if the same 3D-games are offered on different platforms and the Wii-games look just plain bad with the Wii-motions as tagged on gimmicks, they will be recognized as such as it is already the case for some games. I cannot imagine even casual gamers accepting a console as a party-machine in their living rooms or for short 2D-games no matter how much the controller looks like an ordinary remote and therefore people will put it on the living room table and not hide it. (as Miyamoto pointed out long before the Wii-mote was made public) It won't sell as console and it won't sell games for the console to an extent that N wins lost market shares back in the console industry.

When the newness-factor of the Wii wears off, it will be very tough for N to make a stand. It all depends on the creation of new, bigger versions of handheld games, and crucial will be third-party support for these type of games. It is a huge gamble, and I hope N will succeed as a niche company to the big two. What I read so far about the control scheme of the Wii-mote makes me much more skeptical than I ever was.

I think we've seen the last traditional Zelda game, and we won't see a traditional Mario. With the Wii N took a step towards the territory where its most economic success was in the last decade and which offers the biggest prospects of economic survival: the handheld game industry.

The introduction of the Wii is the last step for Nintendo to become a handheld-gaming company, and the Wii will become a console for modern handheld games. Only as such, as a non-direct-competitor to MS and Sony, can it survive.

Ns market shares in the console business will be reduced further, the trend of the last decade will continue.

Anthony, you are right and wrong: as a console the Wii will have less marketshares than the GC and its viability prospects as a console look dim; however, the Wii as a new branch of N as a handheld-gaming company will survive and will increase Ns marketshares in the handheld business. There will be games for the Wii for five years at least -- with lower expectations and new gameplay character, something N fanboys can hardly accept. They don't want to see that if they look for the equivalent of Resident Evil 4 on the Cube they will not find such a game anymore on the Wii; they will have to play these games on a 360 or PS3.

(note about a dumb misconception: marketshares are more important on a larger
scale than profit margins; a single used gamestore can have fantastic profit margins and makes his owner wealthy; however, the marketshares and financial power of a chain like GS/EBgames make him look like an ant and certainly a non-competitor.)

[jajaja]

Now, yes you are correct. There are a lot of good games coming out that are visually stunning and that's great! But to say that the Wii is going to die an early death because it can't render a game that looks like Gears of War is asinine. Truth is, the Wii is aimed at a different audience than the 360/PS3 and I think it's going to succeed wildly because of it.

Do we need new things? No. Do we *want* new things? Yes! Technology advances because people want to try new things. Ask any engineer, it's a creative process and creative people are going to drive technology into newer and more powerful places. It's a natural progression. Why are there cars avaiable that can do 160+ now? Because it makes people feel better about them (a sad commentary on our society, but that's for another argument).

But who's to say that if we didn't have the cell processor and 60gb hard drives in consoles that the games would be crap? The games created are going to adapt to the technology available. If they can manage to make a fun game and still have enough processor power to make it look pretty, then there is no excuse for not doing it unless the design of the game calls for it. But the core arguement here, that a lesser powered console is going to die sooner than a more powerful console is inherently flawed. If the games on the Wii are good, it's going to have a full and happy life. If the games are no fun to play, people won't buy them and it will die early regardless of how good they look.

Well.. the only things we need are clothes, food and a roof over our heads :P All the other stuff is just things we want, but i think u know what i ment.

But ye, it all comes down to the games. My example earlier was that, would Wii make it today if it was just like the Atari 2600? If the so-called gameplay is the only thing that matters why wont we just stay with 2600 games? Why improve the games visualy? Also, would people pay $249 for something that looks 30 years old? Back then this was damn cool and state of the art, but will people pay the price today who have no connections or memory to Atari 2600? I hardly doubt so.

Its no secret that good gfx sells. Gears of War would imo never sell as good if it had "normal" gfx. Then it would have been just another game in the line. It would still sell, but people wouldnt talk about it as much as they do today. People also say that N64 gfx sux, but back in the days this was the best thing avalible. What would happend if someone made a really funny game today that looks just like a N64 game, would it sell big? Some games also gets ruined by the gfx, like Farcry Predator for Wii. The Farcry series have always been about looking great visualy, but this fails on the Wii which actually have resulted in bad critics. The game can still be fun, but if it had the real Farcry gfx it would most likely be even cooler to play.

Many people think that they have to choose between gameplay and gfx, something thats complete wrong. Its full possible to have both (look at GoW and HalfLife 2 i.e.). They also dont relize that gfx is actually a big part of the gameplay. Have you ever played Oblivion? Its a beautiful game and its much fun to play. Now, would the game be just as fun if you had to go from full settings and resolusion to 640*480 and on the lowest settings? I hardly doubt so. One of the things that makes Oblivion so great is the way how everything looks. Also, watching a movie on a 50" HDTV and BR/HD-DVD with 5.1 DD sound will give you a better experience than watching the same movie on a 14" black and white TV and VHS with mono sound. My point is, visuals do matters in many cases.

Over the years developers have been trying to make games look as good as possible, visualy. Gears of War would never have given the same experience of gaming if it wasnt for the great gfx. Try making a FPS game today that looks like CS and sell it. I'd bet my hat on it that the salesnumbers would be low. The so-called gameplay can only get you so far today. I mean, how well did Fifa 2005 for PSX sell?

No, the Wii will not die because of this, but there IS a possibility that it might have problems keeping up with 360/PS3 in the years to come. Its no secret that good gfx sells (again, look at GoW) and compared to the standard on how games will look in 2-3 years the Wii will be far behind due to weak hardware. Will the controller be enough? No one is right or wrong here, its just wild speculations.

[Anthony1]

I think the main flaw in your argument Anthony1, is that it hinges on the idea that everyone else cares about graphics to(or even near) the extent that you do. While this may be true certainly in some circles, mainly the next-gen hardcore gaming sector, my feeling is that this is a huge overestimation on yours, and Sonys, and Microsofts, and most of the modern game development houses parts.

My point is that with the Wii, Nintendo is attempting to capitalize on the huge majority of people who don't care about every last polygon and pixel-shader, and that is a relatively new thing. This is a HUGE untapped market of people who don't really play games


I think your average Joe Sixpack, casual gamer does care about graphics. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think we are all of a sudden going to be seeing Grandmas and Grampas at the local GameStops buying games for themselves. Everybody is always talking about how they showed the Wii to their Aunt, or their Uncle or whoever, and that the person just fell in love with it immediately, and that this is going to be some big sensation of all these non gamers rushing out and buying Wii systems and games. DREAM ON! It ain't gonna happen. I'm sorry, but I've showed the Wii to many non-gamers, and while they thought it was mildly interesting, they have no plans to visit any GameStops or EB's in the future. They will never own a Wii, despite Nintendo's hopes. The Wii is going to live and die with the support of actual video gamers. Whether it be hardcore gamers or casuals. And whether it will be viable in 2009 or not will depend on the casuals.

Which leads me back to Joe Sixpack. Joe Sixpack, the guy at Best Buy looking at the LCD screen in the gaming area and checking out Wii Sports or Motorstorm or Viva Pinata. Right now, the Joe Sixpacks that have already bought the Wii, have primarily purchased it based on all the hype surrounding the Wii as one of the hottest items of Xmas. I'm sure they are enjoying Wii Sports and Zelda, and maybe they even like the very mediocre Excite Truck. The problem is, Joe Sixpack's moods change with the winds. As quickly as they are to follow one trend, they are just as quick to move onto another one. And starting in late 2008, the trend is going to be to move away from the Wii, and to get either a super hot 360 or PS3 which should be enjoying some nice price drops at that point. The Wii will be very affordable too at that time, but it will be old news, old hype, with a control mechanism that was very awesome in late 2006 and early 2007, but is kinda played out in late 2008. I'm sorry, but this Joe Sixpack consumer is going to look at the graphics of the latest Whiz bang PS3 game, or 360 game, and then they are going to look at what they have on the Wii, and guess what is going to happen?

The Wii is going to get packaged up, and taken into GameStop as trade-in towards a $99 Xbox 360 core system for Xmas of 2008 with a brand new $65 copy of Gears of War 3.

[GarrettCRW]

The point of this thread seems to be that Anthony1 is a graphics whore and pissed off because the Wii isn't feeding that obsession, followed by bitching over what he said.

:sigh:

Here's the deal: graphics improve with every generation. It's a constant, and nothing is going to change that. But, within each generation, it's the games that keep a system alive. Other than the 16-bit era (which was essentially a tie), the winning system was not the one with the best graphics. What the winning system had was games, and they all fulfilled their potential (graphical and otherwise) to a greater extent than their competing consoles.

Besides, what the hell is this mess about Nintendo not being viable for an extended period of time? They are already making a profit on the Wii. Sony damn sure isn't making a profit on the PS3, and Microsoft is just starting to make inroads towards profits on the systems themselves. The last time I checked, making a profit is preferable to taking a loss, unless strategically advantageous. Microsoft is on their second system, so profitability is the ultimate goal, and Sony needs to be in the black stat. Viability, true viability, for a business is defined by how much money you make, and Nintendo has been at or near the top of that measure in each console generation they've participated.

[Zadoc]

What's your take?


I agree with you completely... I think that you should also consider that the Wii will eventually suffer from lack of 3rd party support in the comming months and years.

Why?

When a developer makes a game, such as Virtua Fighter 5 or NFL 2K7, for example, a game that is designed for the PS3/X360, it is going to become an extra expense to "dumb the game down" for the Nintendo Wii.

Wii, as you predicted, will have a small and niche userbase. It's not going to be worth the time and money of developers to make a different version of a game for Wii that will be successful on PS3 and Xbox 360. The latest Tony Hawk game is an example of this. So is Madden.

[Zadoc]

what the hell is this mess about Nintendo not being viable for an extended period of time? They are already making a profit on the Wii.

Profitability of hardware has absolutely nothing to do with the viability of a video game console in the market.

[Berserker]

I think your average Joe Sixpack, casual gamer does care about graphics. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think we are all of a sudden going to be seeing Grandmas and Grampas at the local GameStops buying games for themselves. Everybody is always talking about how they showed the Wii to their Aunt, or their Uncle or whoever, and that the person just fell in love with it immediately, and that this is going to be some big sensation of all these non gamers rushing out and buying Wii systems and games. DREAM ON! It ain't gonna happen. I'm sorry, but I've showed the Wii to many non-gamers, and while they thought it was mildly interesting, they have no plans to visit any GameStops or EB's in the future. They will never own a Wii, despite Nintendo's hopes. The Wii is going to live and die with the support of actual video gamers. Whether it be hardcore gamers or casuals. And whether it will be viable in 2009 or not will depend on the casuals.

Which leads me back to Joe Sixpack. Joe Sixpack, the guy at Best Buy looking at the LCD screen in the gaming area and checking out Wii Sports or Motorstorm or Viva Pinata. Right now, the Joe Sixpacks that have already bought the Wii, have primarily purchased it based on all the hype surrounding the Wii as one of the hottest items of Xmas. I'm sure they are enjoying Wii Sports and Zelda, and maybe they even like the very mediocre Excite Truck. The problem is, Joe Sixpack's moods change with the winds. As quickly as they are to follow one trend, they are just as quick to move onto another one. And starting in late 2008, the trend is going to be to move away from the Wii, and to get either a super hot 360 or PS3 which should be enjoying some nice price drops at that point. The Wii will be very affordable too at that time, but it will be old news, old hype, with a control mechanism that was very awesome in late 2006 and early 2007, but is kinda played out in late 2008. I'm sorry, but this Joe Sixpack consumer is going to look at the graphics of the latest Whiz bang PS3 game, or 360 game, and then they are going to look at what they have on the Wii, and guess what is going to happen?

The Wii is going to get packaged up, and taken into GameStop as trade-in towards a $99 Xbox 360 core system for Xmas of 2008 with a brand new $65 copy of Gears of War 3.

Ok, but you're still just talking about people who already play video games. The majority of people are not grandmas and grandpas. They're just normal people with families who don't want to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars to play Motorstorm or yes, even Gears of War.

"Joe Sixpack" is not your average person, he's just your average video gamer. You're too conditioned into thinking what the average gamer is going for, versus the average person. The average person does not want to shoot people with a pulse cannon in quasi-futuristic epic immersive environments. They'd probably just settle for a game of bowling with their spouse or kids.

I'm sure I'm not going to convince you that a significant number of non-gamers might buy video games if the current trend was broken. That's ok, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that with the Wii there is now, for the first time in a good while, a chance of that happening. And I for one feel much better about resting the hope of future gaming on that rather than on you, the ultra-niche graphics connoisseur, or Joe Sixpack, the Madden-playing master of ingame headshots.

It's something to hope for.

[Emuaust]

proof of this is showing with companies like EA for example making a Medal of Honor
for PS3/360 then a PS2/Wii version, all third parties see it as is a updated current
gen console, what my question is wht do they do when the PS2 isnt viable?
its worth doing for the time being as even if the Wii version of said game flops
they havent lost all as the PS2 should recoup dev costs.

As funny as it sounds my honest opinion is that the Wii will only be viable while
the current gen consoles are, Do I like that fact? hell no, although I can see it happening.

[Zadoc]

proof of this is showing with companies like EA for example making a Medal of Honor
for PS3/360 then a PS2/Wii version, all third parties see it as is a updated current
gen console, what my question is wht do they do when the PS2 isnt viable?
its worth doing for the time being as even if the Wii version of said game flops
they havent lost all as the PS2 should recoup dev costs.

As funny as it sounds my honest opinion is that the Wii will only be viable while
the current gen consoles are, Do I like that fact? hell no, although I can see it happening.


And you are probably right!

I personally think that the PS2 will be viable well into 2008.

[Anthony1]

The point of this thread seems to be that Anthony1 is a graphics whore and pissed off because the Wii isn't feeding that obsession, followed by bitching over what he said.

:sigh:



Besides, what the hell is this mess about Nintendo not being viable for an extended period of time? They are already making a profit on the Wii. Sony damn sure isn't making a profit on the PS3, and Microsoft is just starting to make inroads towards profits on the systems themselves. The last time I checked, making a profit is preferable to taking a loss, unless strategically advantageous.

Oh God, here we go again. Anthony1 is the resident graphics whore on DP, blah, blah, blah. Come on, come with something more than just this. The calling out of the whole graphics whore thing. How can I be a graphics whore when one of my favorite games of all time is Cybermorph for Jaguar? I thought Cybermorph sucked graphically? Ha ha.

Also, I said a number of times that Nintendo is going to be making money hand over fist on the Wii, and they will make good profits on the whole Wii thing regardless of how long it remains one of the big parts of next-gen gaming. When I was talking viability, I specifically said that it was related to viability of market share, measured by things like amount of shelf space devoted to, rentals at Blockbuster, reviews in magazines and previews in magazines, things like this. Nintendo made decent money off the GameCube as well, but from a marketshare standpoint the Cube was a huge dissapointment.

Picture this, it's the June 2009 issue of EGM. How much coverage will anything Wii related get compared to PS3 and 360? My guess is the coverage will be minimal at best. I'm talking like one or two pages devoted to the Wii, and that's about it. A couple of mini-previews, and a couple of mini-reviews, if their lucky. While at the same time, the 360 and PS3 will get tons of coverage all thru the mag. That's my measure of viability. Right now the Wii is getting huge coverage in all the mags and is all the rage, it's not going to last. That's my prediction. By mid 2009, the Wii is going to be as well covered in the press as the GameCube was in 2005 or 2006, which means hardly covered at all and almost forgotten. Does this mean I hate the Cube, err Wii and I'm a total graphics whore? Of course it does, lol. Dumbass.

I don't buy products I hate. I've played the Nintendo Wii every single day it's been in my house and will continue to do so, but it doesn't mean I'm so Nintendo centric that I can't look into the future and see the Wii being a relative flash in the pan in the grand scheme of things. The Wii is a stop-gap system plain and simple, that's my take and I'm sticking to it. Check back in 2009 and see who's prediction is more accurate.

[poieo]

About the evergreen gameplay vs. graphics and the silliness to look at it as a zero-sum-game:

Graphics ARE gameplay and vice versa, let it be photorealism or cartoonish mood settings. System capabilities are very important for the 'artistic' use of graphics; they are merely tools and shouldn't be admired as such like a paint brush or a new kind of paint or a canvas shouldn't be admired for themselves; but every painter knows that the kind of paint, brush and canvas you use determines what you can do and therefore sets the frame for the endproduct. The only other limits are set by the brain of game developers working within that frame set. Mere tools have important gameplay implications! There were things Miyamoto couldn't do in the first Zelda game compared to the the SNES A Link to the Past.

It is just plain silly to assume that a Miyamoto or every other game developer would prefer systems which gives them less choices and opportunities. Nintendo chose this route out of economic necessity and not because they developed a heart for the true gamer and innovation, that is PR-babble.

There's a lot to digest on this page, but this is something that immediately stuck in my head.

The thing is, Nintendo DIDN'T choose this route out of economic necessity. Have you not been paying attention to the standings? Nintendo is the one company of the 3 that has continually managed to make a profit off of just about every aspect of what they've done. They are the one company that has actually built a TON of bank up over the years.

So, i say potayto, you say potahto. You say "it's out of economic necessity", i say "what you just said is fucking retarded".

[poieo]

The calling out of the whole graphics whore thing. How can I be a graphics whore when one of my favorite games of all time is Cybermorph for Jaguar?

That's what you chose to defend your credibility with? That right there?

[jajaja]

There's a lot to digest on this page, but this is something that immediately stuck in my head.

The thing is, Nintendo DIDN'T choose this route out of economic necessity. Have you not been paying attention to the standings? Nintendo is the one company of the 3 that has continually managed to make a profit off of just about every aspect of what they've done. They are the one company that has actually built a TON of bank up over the years.

So, i say potayto, you say potahto. You say "it's out of economic necessity", i say "what you just said is fucking retarded".

Depends on how you look at it. True, Nintendo have more than enough money so its not that they couldnt make a better console because they couldnt afford it, but they made the Wii as cheap as possible with removing stuff here and there so most people can afford it. This is economic for the consumers. Eventho Nintendo made profit on the GC it didnt go as well as they hoped for. The same thing can happend with Wii too, its not sure that it will be as big as Nintendo hopes for. GC is probly Nintendo's biggest "failure" besides Virtual Boy.

Sup with your last sentence btw? You cant disagree with someone without starting with insults?

[vertikalgrind]

Hi there,
I'm a 31 yr old Australian Gamer currently enjoying the Wii. I too think it only has legs for two years, but i think it's an intentional move by Nintendo. You see, they needed to get a foothold back into the console market and a graphic powerhorse machine would have been a risky option with their paltry console market share.

As they learnt from the DS, innovation means a new crowd of gamers as well as Ninty followers making the DS huge despite it's N64 graphical abilities. A year or so into the DS they released the DS lite, absolutely whooping the competition... but where to go from here? Dual touchscreens, bigger screens? No, i believe the next incarnation of the DS will see a graphical boost to almost Gamecube standard, keeping it the reigning champion in the handheld market from years to come. And i believe 2 years into the Wii, we will see a Wii 2.0 with the same kind of upgrade.

See, being a 34 billion dollar company Ninty are far from short-sighted. They in all honesty know that in a couple of years the novelty will not be novelty anymore and that like many Ninty controllers before it it will be copied and become standard. Nintendo have already made mention they expect that to happen, so how will they combat it? Nintendo have always started working on the next console before the current one is released and i believe they are planning to bring out another $399 (aussie dollars) machine in 2 1/2 years that will have HD support (something Ninty have also hinted at for their next console, once HD adoption rates make it cheaper to do so) and comparable graphics to their rivals.... but you see in 2 1/2 years tech will be cheaper, efficient and smaller to pull off the same graphics (or close to it) as the 360 but still retaining the size of the wii.... and i don't think people will mind paying the same amount again in that time to have better graphics for their HD sets. Nintendo know this - get people addicted them offer them a better version of the same thing.

Of course their are old rumours of Nintendo doing something with VR helmets. Imagine if that was also included instead of a controller because the Wii controllers would still work with Wii 2.0. That rumour could be pushing it, but i think we will definately see a Wii 2.0 in 2 1/2 yrs, without a doubt. Nintendo arent stupid... Wii was a risk and by lowering costs by reducing graphical abilities was a clever move because what is the most owned console on the planet right now? 100 million ps2's and counting. People are still happy with their ps2's and they are still selling at a rapid rate... so Ninty know that the Wii is still a cheap upgrade option for ps2 owners and that a majority aren't expecting HD graphics yet, at least for the next couple of years, allowing Ninty to snag a percentage of Sony's dominating market share and then in two years when the ps3 price drops... Wii 2.0 is launched with HD graphics and just like the DS lite evryone will be willing to replace their Wii with a newer model to make use of their standard HD set (it will be standard in 2 years with laser TV's hitting the market place). Nintendo know the value in giving people the demo unit first. Example? GBA > GBA SP DS > DS LITE
One developer interview i read said they were shocked when the DS Phat came out because it was the same ugly oversized machines they were using for devkits... and they were told they were just devkits, nothing more... "lets rush it out and get that adoption rate happening, then release the real unit!"

That is part of the reason Nintendo has survived... roping people in with innovation then giving them the whole picture later on. I totally believe Ninty had the DS Lite ready from the beginning. It's how they work. Even the expansion pack for the 64 was a similar tactic. Money and survival.

I love Nintendo, but i can still see how they operate and i accept that because i want them to survive. So what do you guys think? Sound viable?
I think it's a given that they HAVE to do this to keep the market share they will have garnered this round. Because once each console has adopted a similar Wiimote idea, Ninty will have to do this to keep that share.

There were recent rumours of a new Zelda already well into development... hmmmm. Getting ready for that 2009 launch perhaps?

Vertikal
wiicode - 3606 2894 6985 3521

[vertikalgrind]

Depends on how you look at it. True, Nintendo have more than enough money so its not that they couldnt make a better console because they couldnt afford it, but they made the Wii as cheap as possible with removing stuff here and there so most people can afford it. This is economic for the consumers. Eventho Nintendo made profit on the GC it didnt go as well as they hoped for. The same thing can happend with Wii too, its not sure that it will be as big as Nintendo hopes for. GC is probly Nintendo's biggest "failure" besides Virtual Boy.

Sup with your last sentence btw? You cant disagree with someone without starting with insults?
No that award would have to go to the badly selling Gameboy micro.

[jajaja]

No that award would have to go to the badly selling Gameboy micro.

Might be that the Micro is selling low, but it goes under GBA, its not a system of its own. GBA have sold like 80 million units worldwide :)

[slip81]

I'm not saying the Wii is going to have a shortened lifespan solely because of it's graphical capabilities, but I think in the long run, that will likely be the biggest factor in it's demise on retail shelves.


but basically the main gist of what I'm trying to say is that the horrible graphics on the Wii are going to end up prematurely shortening it's lifespan when we head into 2009.

so what are you saying will end the Wii's lifespan then? You talk about how graphics isn't the only thing, yet you've ONLY talked about graphics.

And Tony, really, why the hell do you care so much? You seem like your old enough to have lived though and remember most of the videogame time line, so shouldn't you know by know that everything will pretty much stay at a constant and never change?

Stop worrying about it and making giant repetitive posts, we know you think gaming sucks, so why not flush your inferior Wii and ditch your 360 and PS3 because you don't like downloading stuff and play your classics that you claim to love so much.

Otherwise know this, in about 5 years all three companies will release a new system, you'll buy all three, and then proceed to bitch about all of them.

[djbeatmongrel]

bah i fucking give up reading this thread. i am going to be cliche and predict another videogame industry crash.

OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!