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. 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? !

Nintendo always makes $$$$$$$$