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

[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.