• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Alpha_ProgDes

Is it really worth getting a Wii 2?

50 posts in this topic

In terms of hardware sales, yeah the Wii is number one. In terms of software sales, is the Wii still crushing the competition? How about 3rd party support? What's the number of sales between Nintendo first party sales and third party sales?
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1303860274' post='4803277']
Having worked on a bunch of systems and architectures over the years, I don't believe the Wii itself is too difficult for development. Some of their implementation requirements are quirky (why didn't they make the home menu part of the firmware, making us pay such a huge memory cost to keep it resident at all times?!) but this type of issue comes with the territory.
[/quote]
Quirky is a good way to put it on thinking about it more.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1303860447' post='4803281']
In terms of hardware sales, yeah the Wii is number one. In terms of software sales, is the Wii still crushing the competition? How about 3rd party support? What's the number of sales between Nintendo first party sales and third party sales?
[/quote]
It really depends on the game. Wii's big games actually sell amazingly well.
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote] In terms of hardware sales, yeah the Wii is number one. In terms of software sales, is the Wii still crushing the competition? How about 3rd party support? What's the number of sales between Nintendo first party sales and third party sales? [/quote]

First off, im not a dev or a programmer at all. But before the current gen began I had a thought on how things would turn out. And as I see, it became fact. Most people have either a 360 or a PS3 and a Wii.
The Wii brought a new way to play games, it would sell just because of that. But last gen 'hardcore' gamers and after the failure of the GC(in my eyes) they would move more towards MS and Sony.
So most people bought a Wii just for the experience, but also bought a 360 or a PS3 for their main gaming.

What destroys Nintendo is third party support. Like that gun and sword game for the Wii that came out a week or so before the WiiMotionPlus thing, it was perfect for it. Why wasnt it supported on the game?
Thats an example from my 'gamer' point of view. Nintendo does not care. They should have cared ALOT after what happened with the GameCube. Buy Nintendo console's if you STILL want to play Nintendo games.
Honestly I havent played Zelda or Mario on the Wii, but im tired of seeing them. They might be great games, I might like em, heck...I might even love them as I did when I first had them in 3D on the N64, but After Sunshine? And the art of Wind Waker? Sorry, cant anymore. Handhelds tho...the DS was awesome. Not sure about the 3DS. Looks good but it just came out, no games.

If Nintendo supports Indie's better...or at all AND releases a powerful console this or next year. And by powerful I mean much higher than the 360. They might have a good chance. If not, I see a ''Sega'' happening soon. And by the looks of it, Indie support is out of the question. I honestly think the Wii was their last breath or a way to get money.

Microsoft has a better hand of things, Hope the 720 has C# support too. If not, they will be comiting suicide. Sony should stick with Cell CPU's, would be stupid not to. I think they ''messed up'' their handheld strategy tho. NGP should have been what its Acronym standed for, Next Gen Handheld. A PSP/IPhone killer, atleast thats what I was hoping for...Not two seperate products.

I think smartphones will clear out Sony and Nintendo. I also think NVIDIA should make a game studio >.> Kal-el, anyone? *Drools*
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]People said that the Wii wouldn't do well before it came out, too. But Nintendo generated a large base of customers who weren't gamers before-- they really grew the market, and held that segment for a long time because they offered something different from the other consoles.[/quote]

True, JUST that!

[quote]The Wii 2 could be exactly the same[/quote]

Same idea wont work twice. Sony and MS did add to the way you play also. And the demographic Nintendo generated wont probably buy something similar. Or anything at all. Most Wii gamers dont even game much on the Wii... actually who really does? Kinda funny really.

[quote]launching before those two companies pulls them out of direct competition with them.[/quote]

This is why they need to go big! And cater for the hardcore. They already made the money, spend some on better hardware bring back the old gamers, open up to third parties more.

[quote]Not to mention that I think we're nearing a limit of what we can do with a 2D display and controller-based input.[/quote]

We are...? Right...

[quote]Graphics can get better, sure, but are we going to get Mario 64 moment, where everything about gaming is different from that point on?[/quote]

Don't you notice the difference from ps2 to ps3 or xbox to 360? And the other one is coming, with next gen console hardware, since they, the dev's, actually push the hardware.

[quote]how much better resolution can we get[/quote]

That's not a real question, right? Right?

[quote]and what's the marginal return on gameplay/quality/immersion?[/quote]

Three completely different things... Gameplay? Well thats a design thing. Quality? You need to be more specific. Immersion? Isn't that more of a psychological topic?

[quote]Can the use of a 10 button, 2 stick, single D-pad controller give us more and better ways to interact with our games?[/quote]

Its practical, it works as it should, it fits practically most genres except maybe an RTS. Why ruin something that is pretty much, perfect? Id add 2 more buttons, just in case!

[quote]If not, the increased power of consoles will offer a limited return to gamers versus what we've already got. Game worlds might get bigger, or deeper, but the majority of play styles and options will be very similar to what we've had for the last 2 1/2 console generations anyways. The next watershed of gaming could very well come from Nintendo, the less-horsepower but more-experimentation company.[/quote]

In those 2 1/2 generations alot has happened...we went from a 33Mhz Playstation to a 295Mhz Playstation 2 to a 3.2Ghz multi core Playstation 3. Go play some games, see the changes, everywhere.

But the question is, what is wrong with the play style? What is so bad about using a control/gamepad to play games? Are you really happy, good and ''immersed'' with Wii, Kinect or Move?

[quote] I question your business acumen, Reaper. [/quote]

Not very direct, are we?
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1303862001' post='4803292']
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1303860447' post='4803281']
In terms of hardware sales, yeah the Wii is number one. In terms of software sales, is the Wii still crushing the competition? How about 3rd party support? What's the number of sales between Nintendo first party sales and third party sales?
[/quote]
It really depends on the game. Wii's big games actually sell amazingly well.
[/quote]
True. But most of the time, those are first party games. Nintendo-made. I don't know of any third party game (on the Wii) that sold anywhere as well as SMB or Zelda on the Wii. But for a next-gen console, again, I was hoping for the next evolution of the Wiimote (ie. Power Glove + awesome). But I guess we'll see.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1303860447' post='4803281']
In terms of hardware sales, yeah the Wii is number one. In terms of software sales, is the Wii still crushing the competition? How about 3rd party support? What's the number of sales between Nintendo first party sales and third party sales?
[/quote]

Alpha_ProgDes, your original post was talking only about the console, not the games.

Yes, Nintendo's own games have topped the charts. In fact, some of their games stayed in the top ten across all consoles game sales for multiple [i]years[/i], compared to X360 or PS3 games that stay up for a few weeks or months at most. That is a lot of sales.

The fact that third party games have not done so well is not really Nintendo's fault. Nintendo knows their target market very well. They focus on them. They have shown by their own example that games CAN be good and generate tens of millions of sales, and they can reach and stay a the top the charts across (even compared against all platforms) for extended periods of time.

A few third-party Wii games have done very well in the marketplace, but many did not. The ones that succeed aren't FPS games, but rather are very polished cute, cuddly, or casual games that feel like toys. I know all of them from my studio have been rather profitable; they were very cute games focused on a part of the Wii demographic. But none were blockbusters nor did they target the full Wii demographics, and I believe these are related. The fact that the other publishers haven't competed well is mostly based on the issues with those developers not understanding the market.

I don't blame low third-party sales on Nintendo.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1303920663' post='4803590']
The fact that third party games have not done so well is not really Nintendo's fault. Nintendo knows their target market very well. They focus on them. They have shown by their own example that games CAN be good and generate tens of millions of sales, and they can reach and stay a the top the charts across (even compared against all platforms) for extended periods of time.
[/quote]

That may not be entirely true. M$ and Sony both seem to do a much better job of publicizing their third party games above and beyond what the game's publishers do. Whenever I watch Nintendo press stuff it's always first party nintendo stuff with very little mention of any third party stuff, but Sony and Microsoft press announcements are full of third party promotion.

They also do a much better job of promoting their digital distribution services. I'm not sure if I've heard of anything selling remotely well on WiiWare, which has some pretty strict restrictions also.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reaper, my point was that with you at the helm, I don't think that Nintendo would have launched the Wii. They would have made the Gamecube 2. You are focused on the way that games have been for a long time, which can be a successful strategy-- it's certainly worked for MS and Sony. But it's one where Nintendo was lagging, and badly. Even if they launched a current-gen console with comparable hardware to the other two consoles, how much of the market could they have gained? They'd be in a three way fight with nothing unique to offer, especially as games are increasingly cross-platform.

Nintendo went a different route. They introduced a novel experience, and were extremely successful with gamers and non-gamers alike. It was noted above that a lot of people who have an Xbox or PS3 [i]also[/i] have a Wii, and that's a win for Nintendo. It doesn't matter how much people play the Wii, or if they have other consoles. All that matters is that they have the Wii, and buy new games for it.

Of course I noticed the difference between PS2 and 3, and Xbox and 360. The new consoles are better. But are they better to the same degree that the PS2 was to the PS1? As the Nintendo 64 to the Super Nintendo? Will these improvements bring in new gamers? It's likely that owners of current gen consoles will buy next gen as well, regardless of improvements, because that's where the new games will be.

My point about the controller/2D screen combo is that the games will be very similar to what has come before. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to attract new people to video games. If you liked Metal Gear Solid, you'll probably like Metal Gear Solid 4 and the latest Splinter Cell game. The majority of the gameplay is a repetition of what you've already had, except for a gimmick or two and the fact that it's prettier. A lot of people bought a Wii because it offered something new, and not the same old thing with fancier paint. Even if the games themselves are largely shallow experiences, Nintendo still sold a crapload of units, which is what their business actually relies on. You say that this strategy won't work twice. If that's the case, why would offering no innovation work a 3rd time (at least) for the other consoles?

You say that the increased power of new consoles will allow for better games, and then write off the actual factors those games might employ to utilize that increased power as unrelated to a console's success. If you don't see the relationship between games themselves and the success of a console in attracting peopel to buy it, then I'll do more than question your business skills.

If next gen consoles are all similarly powerful, and have largely the same library of games, why would a consumer buy one over the other? Especially if they all offer the same types of play experience? Catering to the hard core slices off the entire demographic that Nintendo built over the current console generation in order to compete in a crowded marketplace without much to disinguish themselves from the competition.

I think that your views are heavily colored by your own preferences in gaming. You seem to think that because the Wii didn't really offer the experiences you personally wanted, with the horsepower you found exciting, that it was a "last breath", despite outselling every other company and making more money per unit anyhow. You think that if Nintendo doesn't draw you personally in on their next console, that it can't be successful, even though the Wii was successful largely because it focused on something other than gamers like you. There are definitely places where Nintendo could improve, like 3rd party support and offering something to more hardcore gamers. But that doesn't mean that their business is doomed unless they jump back into a fight where they were in 3rd place for a long, long time.

Even if Nintendo can't duplicate the level of success with the Wii 2 that they had with the Wii, they can still stay in the game and not go the Sega route. And it may not take much innovation to keep the market segment that Nintendo created and cultivated-- we don't know anything about their long-term video game purchasing trends. You assert that innovation isn't really an important factor and that new innovations won't be effective, and that the only way for a console to be successful is to push more polygons. That's Sega-hardware thinking, and it fizzled on them. Not Wii-thinking, which was successful beyond the estimations of every analyst.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1303924585' post='4803620']
That may not be entirely true. M$ and Sony both seem to do a much better job of publicizing their third party games above and beyond what the game's publishers do. Whenever I watch Nintendo press stuff it's always first party nintendo stuff with very little mention of any third party stuff, but Sony and Microsoft press announcements are full of third party promotion.
[/quote]

The publishers pay for it, and it is expensive. They generally pay directly and negotiate cross-marketing deals.

A short marketing campaign across North America costs multiple millions of dollars. Games releasing in multiple territories can easily reach tens of millions for advertising.


Publishers don't think the Wii games will make a big profit, so they skimp on advertising. Less advertising results in lower sales. Lower sales results in lower profit, so companies are less willing to invest money. Wash and repeat.

The publishers who do understand the target market and who advertise appropriately tend to sell very well. At least, the four Wii games I've done we have done rather well, but I believe each involved a $3M-$5M advertising blitz. Our blitz focused on cute and cuddly targeting little girls and also targeting the of grown-up women-oriented community sites that were frequently covered in mismatched sparkling animated gifs and lots of animals with huge eyes. It is scary how many of those exist. We got high click-through and lots of positive feedback about our ads being super cute from a huge number of non-traditional gamers.


When publishers did spend the money they tended to focus on the wrong demographic for the Wii. They didn't understand their market. Again, I don't believe that is Nintendo's fault. The major publishers struggled to understand the demographic and lost a lot of money in the process. Then they reduced investments because they lost money. Consequently they did not do well.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1303930924' post='4803672']
The publishers pay for it, and it is expensive. They generally pay directly and negotiate cross-marketing deals.

A short marketing campaign across North America costs multiple millions of dollars. Games releasing in multiple territories can easily reach tens of millions for advertising.
[/quote]

I am talking about stuff like E3 press conferences or the tweets that M$ and Sony send out every day or the weekly blog posts they put out or the holiday season montages microsoft and sony put out or the promotion of betas and demos to get more people interested in games on their systems.

I very specifically avoided saying advertising for a reason.

A good example would be all the Kinect games shown at E3. I wasn't remotely interested in kinect, but microsoft showed 2 awesome looking third party games in Dance Central and Ubisoft's Your Shape Fitness that got me very interested. Then, I went out and told my family, "Yea there's a lot of gimmicky things, but check out these two games because they look AMAZING." The same for Children of Eden.

edit: the same for children of eden in that I told my family, not in that microsoft showed it.
-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1303932825' post='4803684']
I am talking about stuff like E3 press conferences or the tweets that M$ and Sony send out every day or the weekly blog posts they put out or the holiday season montages microsoft and sony put out or the promotion of betas and demos to get more people interested in games on their systems.[/quote]
Microsoft and Sony (the latter especially) have weak first party studios. They need the third party studios and titles to validate their platforms in a way that Nintendo never has. The issue of third party titles is overblown by the "core" gamer audience and the bloggers that cater to them. I'm not sure it's a useful barometer of the overall health of the system at all.

Nintendo has been consistently profitable with its gaming products in ways that neither Microsoft nor Sony ever have been, and has had very few strategic miscues. If asked to bet on one of the system hardware vendors, I'd take Big N.
That said, this thread seems like a lot of speculation and conjecture over a system that hasn't been announced and nothing concrete is known about. Wait until E3 in June, [i]then[/i] start the carping. [img]http://public.gamedev.net/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Oluseyi' timestamp='1303942643' post='4803737']
That said, this thread seems like a lot of speculation and conjecture over a system that hasn't been announced and nothing concrete is known about. Wait until E3 in June, [i]then[/i] start the carping. [img]http://public.gamedev.net/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]
[/quote]
First. You're alive! Good to see you.
Second. Yeah, but if we did that, it'd be no fun talking about [i]rumors[/i].
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Reaper, my point was that with you at the helm, I don't think that Nintendo would have launched the Wii. They would have made the Gamecube 2. You are focused on the way that games have been for a long time, which can be a successful strategy-- it's certainly worked for MS and Sony. But it's one where Nintendo was lagging, and badly. Even if they launched a current-gen console with comparable hardware to the other two consoles, how much of the market could they have gained? They'd be in a three way fight with nothing unique to offer, especially as games are increasingly cross-platform.[/quote]

It is more like a Gamecube 1.5. But I agree with you. Im not sure if I actually disagreed before but ok.

[quote]Nintendo went a different route. They introduced a novel experience, and were extremely successful with gamers and non-gamers alike. It was noted above that a lot of people who have an Xbox or PS3 [i]also[/i] have a Wii, and that's a win for Nintendo. It doesn't matter how much people play the Wii, or if they have other consoles. All that matters is that they have the Wii, and buy new games for it.[/quote]

A novel, im not sure if you mean acceptable by that. Thats how I felt about the Wii. It was different, unique but not good and nowhere near great. Which also bring me too ask, why not have the MotionPlus tech right from the start? I dont think im the only one who asked that. Kinda how with the Nintendo 64 you could add 4MB of ''extra'' RAM. If it was possible from the beggining, why not? A marketing strategy that I really didnt like. Maybe it was ''just'' me who questioned it. Maybe. I dont question Nintendo's succeses, im well aware of it. It could have been better tho. Much better. They pretty much revived there own games. If you look at their sales from the SNES>N64>GC they where are going down. Wii broght sells back up. But maybe the reason for that is...gamer parents with kids? Its a broad topic. But, I know that in the future if I had kids, id like them to experience Mario.

[quote]Of course I noticed the difference between PS2 and 3, and Xbox and 360. The new consoles are better. But are they better to the same degree that the PS2 was to the PS1? As the Nintendo 64 to the Super Nintendo? Will these improvements bring in new gamers? It's likely that owners of current gen consoles will buy next gen as well, regardless of improvements, because that's where the new games will be.[/quote]

Yes, I belive each next gen is way better than the rest. Its not all about graphics, but what you can do in the game, how it feels, how it can react. I personally dont see a limit at all for games. Games will bring or make new gamers. Gamers are defined different now, almost everyone plays games. That's why some differentiate gamers as ''hardcore'' or ''casual''. Might not be accurate, but it works.

[quote]My point about the controller/2D screen combo is that the games will be very similar to what has come before. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to attract new people to video games. If you liked Metal Gear Solid, you'll probably like Metal Gear Solid 4 and the latest Splinter Cell game. The majority of the gameplay is a repetition of what you've already had, except for a gimmick or two and the fact that it's prettier. A lot of people bought a Wii because it offered something new, and not the same old thing with fancier paint. Even if the games themselves are largely shallow experiences, Nintendo still sold a crapload of units, which is what their business actually relies on. You say that this strategy won't work twice. If that's the case, why would offering no innovation work a 3rd time (at least) for the other consoles?[/quote]

The main reason that I said that it woudnt work twice is because of the demographic that it has AND what MS and Sony now brought to the table. You want better graphics and stuff but with motion? Get a PS3 or stay with the one you already own. Want no controls at all? 360 got you covered. We shall see what Nintendo brings, but if its anything like the Wii, I dont think their customers will care much about it. And why would it work for MS and Sony? Their demographic. The gamepad works on all most all genres, why change that? They want more graphics, more physics, more A.I more everything. And they will pay for it. Can the majority Nintendo's customers really ask for that? Or more like, more games for the kids and us to play with, for awhile. Ofcourse, this is just my opinion.

[quote]You say that the increased power of new consoles will allow for better games, and then write off the actual factors those games might employ to utilize that increased power as unrelated to a console's success. If you don't see the relationship between games themselves and the success of a console in attracting peopel to buy it, then I'll do more than question your business skills.[/quote]

Gameplay-> Its a design thing. Depends on the game, but yes hardware can mostly help. Quality-> Of graphics? Yeah, HW. Immersion-> This is purely psychological. Again, a design thing.

[quote]If next gen consoles are all similarly powerful, and have largely the same library of games, why would a consumer buy one over the other? Especially if they all offer the same types of play experience? Catering to the hard core slices off the entire demographic that Nintendo built over the current console generation in order to compete in a crowded marketplace without much to disinguish themselves from the competition.[/quote]

Last gen really changed things up, it used to be about first party games. Now it still kinda is. But console features are a big push id think, now. We all know the pros and cons of the current gen. I wont state them here.


[quote]I think that your views are heavily colored by your own preferences in gaming. You seem to think that because the Wii didn't really offer the experiences you personally wanted, with the horsepower you found exciting, that it was a "last breath", despite outselling every other company and making more money per unit anyhow. You think that if Nintendo doesn't draw you personally in on their next console, that it can't be successful, even though the Wii was successful largely because it focused on something other than gamers like you. There are definitely places where Nintendo could improve, like 3rd party support and offering something to more hardcore gamers. But that doesn't mean that their business is doomed unless they jump back into a fight where they were in 3rd place for a long, long time.[/quote]

In my opinion yeah it was a last breath of sorts. If they just released a better GC and kept there business model the same, I seriously belive that they would have hit rock bottom. They decided to make a ''new'' way to play, to probably grab the people that they lost and expand the market. It worked, good job. Now what? We have to see what they bring now. but think what the competition brought also. I actually have an idea of what ''Caffe'' might be, and I dont think it will work.

[quote]Even if Nintendo can't duplicate the level of success with the Wii 2 that they had with the Wii, they can still stay in the game and not go the Sega route. And it may not take much innovation to keep the market segment that Nintendo created and cultivated-- we don't know anything about their long-term video game purchasing trends. You assert that innovation isn't really an important factor and that new innovations won't be effective, and that the only way for a console to be successful is to push more polygons. That's Sega-hardware thinking, and it fizzled on them. Not Wii-thinking, which was successful beyond the estimations of every analyst.[/quote]

It wont, im sure. Ill even bet on it. Nintendo's way of business unless it changes and starts working/helping or for god's sakes ATLEAST letting their third party dev's know of new features for there console will do a circle that I like to call an ''Endless Waltz''. Hardware pushing and 1stParty games made the SNES, it was ok for the N64 it was plain bad for the GC, they lost sales on there games each generation. With the Wii it brought only inovation, comapared to the HW of MS and Sony, which pushed sells back up. I think a decline is about to come again. But we shall see. I dont loose or gain anything if Nintendo sells or fails. I just dont like how they do things. Im very excited to learn what they will announce.

...I got rated down -.-'' Great! Now no one will help me on the forums...

(EDIT: If your going to rate down, ATLEAST comment something!)
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='xDxReaper' timestamp='1303951266' post='4803779']
Thats how I felt about the Wii. It was different, unique but not good and nowhere near great. Which also bring me too ask, why not have the MotionPlus tech right from the start? I dont think im the only one who asked that. Kinda how with the Nintendo 64 you could add 4MB of ''extra'' RAM. If it was possible from the beggining, why not? A marketing strategy that I really didnt like. ... I dont question Nintendo's succeses, im well aware of it. It could have been better tho. Much better.[/quote]

They probably didn't do it because there was no perceived need. Only after many developers cited the need did they bring out the hardware. It would have increased their per-unit costs.

Considering the hardware sales estimates it would have cost them roughly a half billion dollars, but had minimal impact on sales. That would have been a poor investment.

[quote]Its not all about graphics, but what you can do in the game, how it feels, how it can react. I personally dont see a limit at all for games. Games will bring or make new gamers. Gamers are defined different now, almost everyone plays games. That's why some differentiate gamers as ''hardcore'' or ''casual''. Might not be accurate, but it works.[/quote]

That is a false choice and a severely limiting attitude. Few successful business people had that attitude. It's like defining all automobiles as either sports cars or minivans. There are many different markets, and within each market there are sub-markets. People cross the lines between markets all the time. Your classification fails horribly, especially considering people can play "hardcore" games, and follow it up immediately with a "casual" game.

So no, it is not accurate, it also doesn't work.


[quote]The main reason that I said that it woudnt work twice is because of the demographic that it has AND what MS and Sony now brought to the table. You want better graphics and stuff but with motion? Get a PS3 or stay with the one you already own. Want no controls at all? 360 got you covered. We shall see what Nintendo brings, but if its anything like the Wii, I dont think their customers will care much about it. And why would it work for MS and Sony? Their demographic. The gamepad works on all most all genres, why change that? They want more graphics, more physics, more A.I more everything. And they will pay for it. Can the majority Nintendo's customers really ask for that? Or more like, more games for the kids and us to play with, for awhile. Ofcourse, this is just my opinion.[/quote]

Again, that's a false choice. You are assuming mutually exclusive or limited options where none exists. Look at the huge number of people who own multiple consoles.

The gamepad certainly does not work "on all most all genres". Music games? Dance games? Motion games? Racing games? Flight games? Sports games? All have custom controllers.

Many genres have been crying out for new controllers for years, and I know I've been among them. Many games like puzzle games and local multiplayer games can see great benefits from a private display. Not to mention that a novel interface allows for new genres to be created.

[quote]In my opinion yeah it was a last breath of sorts. If they just released a better GC and kept there business model the same, I seriously belive that they would have hit rock bottom. They decided to make a ''new'' way to play, to probably grab the people that they lost and expand the market. It worked, good job. Now what? We have to see what they bring now. but think what the competition brought also. I actually have an idea of what ''Caffe'' might be, and I dont think it will work.

It wont, im sure. Ill even bet on it. Nintendo's way of business unless it changes and starts working/helping or for god's sakes ATLEAST letting their third party dev's know of new features for there console will do a circle that I like to call an ''Endless Waltz''. Hardware pushing and 1stParty games made the SNES, it was ok for the N64 it was plain bad for the GC, they lost sales on there games each generation. With the Wii it brought only inovation, comapared to the HW of MS and Sony, which pushed sells back up. I think a decline is about to come again. But we shall see. I dont loose or gain anything if Nintendo sells or fails. I just dont like how they do things. Im very excited to learn what they will announce.[/quote]


They DID just release a better GC. The hardware was only marginally better than the GC. Many analysts had exactly your same attitude, and they were very wrong.

The assessments of the historical industry are misleading. Your statements are an incomplete assessment of the industry generally. You cannot look at just one system in a vacuum.



You said you would bet against it succeeding. That is a very odd thing to bet on. I wouldn't. If anything I'd be tempted to bet the other way. Nintendo has a very solid track record. They know their audiences. They know them very well. They have consistently delivered products that perform very well in the market. No other game company, and very few companies generally, can boast of such solid records.

I think your mixed attitude is funny. On the one hand you are excited about it, but on the other had you think it will fail. That's a very interesting attitude to take. If people are excited that as often all it takes to succeed.

[quote]...I got rated down -.-'' Great! Now no one will help me on the forums...[/quote]

The sky is falling! I got a -1 post. Oh teh noes!

More likely you were rated down because of a combative attitude and a hardline stance against those who presented alternate views.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]That is a false choice and a severely limiting attitude. Few successful business people had that attitude. It's like defining all automobiles as either sports cars or minivans. There are many different markets, and within each market there are sub-markets. People cross the lines between markets all the time. Your classification fails horribly, especially considering people can play "hardcore" games, and follow it up immediately with a "casual" game.

So no, it is not accurate, it also doesn't work.[/quote]

I think I came out wrong on how I said it. Gamers are a mix of both now, have been for awhile. It wasnt like this on last gen. ''Hardcore'' gamers can and will probably do as you said, thats why I said that most people would have a Wii too. To try the experience. But the ones who bought the Wii, the non-gamers that Nintendo wanted to atract, and did well doing so, probably wont be playing those ''hardcore'' games or any other game that doesent have Nintendo on its title or made by Nintendo, for that matter.

Just Dance 2 sold 5 mil, all other third party games are below 2mil. I dont know if what im sayin makes much sence to everyone. Ill just put it like this, There's 85Million+ Wii's in households worldwide. But only 1% to 6% of the customers actually buy anything not related to Nintendo, as in, third party games. The numbers are good, but not when the total of people that might buy your game is from 0.1% to 6% of all Wii console owners worldwide. Nintendo knows its market, we all know its market. Casual gamers. Make something cute and slightly entertaining and youl get buyers. The same as the smartphone and browser markets which, Nintendo is afraid of. And Sony should too. Why get a 3DS or an NGP when I can do everything on my phone? And soon from my phone to my HDTV. For a fraction of the cost.


[quote]Again, that's a false choice. You are assuming mutually exclusive or limited options where none exists. Look at the huge number of people who own multiple consoles.[/quote]

Im saying why get something similar and new when A) You already have a console on your house with the capabilities or B) Theres a console already on the market with a gamepad and Motion controls, atleast thats what I was refering too...

[quote]The gamepad certainly does not work "on all most all genres". Music games? Dance games? Motion games? Racing games? Flight games? Sports games? All have custom controllers.[/quote]

Almost* My bad. Music? Parapa the Rapper. Dance, ofcourse not. Wiimote? lol... Racing? Erm...Gran Turismo 1-5? Forza 1-3? Im pretty sure the games where great with the gamepad. Flight? PS3 got that covered in Warhawk I think. Sports? We have played sport games for decades now...whats wrong with the gamepad? You have to think about the people, the user. Some games are good for the whole motion thing but others are horrible. A gamepad allows many options and support for almost all games. Its unique, its innovative but is it good?

[quote]Many genres have been crying out for new controllers for years, and I know I've been among them. Many games like puzzle games and local multiplayer games can see great benefits from a private display. Not to mention that a novel interface allows for new genres to be created.[/quote]

True. Id like another Steel Battalion(Xbox1 Mech game, huge controler) myself. Sadly tho, the sequel is going to use Kinect...

[quote]You said you would bet against it succeeding. That is a very odd thing to bet on. I wouldn't. If anything I'd be tempted to bet the other way. Nintendo has a very solid track record. They know their audiences. They know them very well. They have consistently delivered products that perform very well in the market. No other game company, and very few companies generally, can boast of such solid records.I think your mixed attitude is funny. On the one hand you are excited about it, but on the other had you think it will fail. That's a very interesting attitude to take. If people are excited that as often all it takes to succeed.
[/quote]

Yes, I bet it wont be succeeding. I dont question Nintendo's Wii success or its handheld market. Other than now with the 3DS, but I still belive what I have said above. If you are not Nintendo, you dont have a % of 85M customers, more like a % of 5Million. The Wii is more like a Casual Console, take out Mario and some of the MAIN franchises, and thats what your left with. It has its glory but I also remember a survey talking about how much time do people really spend playing with their consoles. Wii had the lowest. And what more can we innovate? We have the usual gamepad, with have motion controls and motion sensing ''controls''. We also have touch based controls. This is what makes it exciting for me. What will Nintendo do and will it work? Someone said something about a PowerGlove type thing, but is that really innovating? Sounds like what the Wiimote and PSMove is. Maybe its innovation will be more on how the console works instead of how we play the games in it. This is my guess, my speculation. Maybe it will be some sort of tablet where you just ''stream'' the content into the screen, Like what the ''superphone's'' will do in the soon to be future. Will something like that work for the demographic that they brought with the Wii?

[quote]The sky is falling! I got a -1 post. Oh teh noes!
More likely you were rated down because of a combative attitude and a hardline stance against those who presented alternate views.[/quote]

Probably because I am a combatant lol...I spoke my mind, gave my opinion and I acknowledged everyones opinion. This is an opinion thread, I dont see why my or anyones ''reputation'' should be lowered or raised, based on this. And much less when you just get rated down with no comment. Rate me badly is I tell someone to start programming with Assembly or BASIC. Or if I or anyone gives a bad suggestion. But for an opinion? In a non-technical thread? But whatever, I for one feel like I have had bad luck here(GD.net) since my first thread and for no reason. And that this might make it worse, if thats possible lol

.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Khaiy' timestamp='1303929309' post='4803657']
Reaper, my point was that with you at the helm, I don't think that Nintendo would have launched the Wii. They would have made the Gamecube 2.[/quote]

[quote name='xDxReaper' timestamp='1303951266' post='4803779']
It is more like a Gamecube 1.5. But I agree with you. Im not sure if I actually disagreed before but ok.
[/quote]

[quote name='xDxReaper' timestamp='1303951266' post='4803779']
In my opinion yeah it was a last breath of sorts. If they just released a better GC and kept there business model the same, I seriously belive that they would have hit rock bottom. They decided to make a ''new'' way to play, to probably grab the people that they lost and expand the market. It worked, good job. Now what? We have to see what they bring now. but think what the competition brought also. I actually have an idea of what ''Caffe'' might be, and I dont think it will work.[/quote]

This set of quotes alone makes me view your position much more skeptically. You've stated that Nintendo would not have released their insanely successful Wii if you were in charge, but rather would have made a more traditional Gamecube follow-up. Then you say that this move would have brought them to rock bottom. Then you agree that what Nintendo did worked via their innovation, and go on to predict their new strategy (which I assume from your posts is not the "back to basics" approach you advocate), as well as predicting failure for that strategy. This combination does not bode well for your business analysis skills.

[quote name='xDxReaper' timestamp='1304014782' post='4804072']
I think I came out wrong on how I said it. Gamers are a mix of both now, have been for awhile. It wasnt like this on last gen. ''Hardcore'' gamers can and will probably do as you said, thats why I said that most people would have a Wii too. To try the experience. But the ones who bought the Wii, the non-gamers that Nintendo wanted to atract, and did well doing so, probably wont be playing those ''hardcore'' games or any other game that doesent have Nintendo on its title or made by Nintendo, for that matter.

Just Dance 2 sold 5 mil, all other third party games are below 2mil. I dont know if what im sayin makes much sence to everyone. Ill just put it like this, There's 85Million+ Wii's in households worldwide. But only 1% to 6% of the customers actually buy anything not related to Nintendo, as in, third party games. The numbers are good, but not when the total of people that might buy your game is from 0.1% to 6% of all Wii console owners worldwide. Nintendo knows its market, we all know its market. Casual gamers. Make something cute and slightly entertaining and youl get buyers. The same as the smartphone and browser markets which, Nintendo is afraid of. And Sony should too. Why get a 3DS or an NGP when I can do everything on my phone? And soon from my phone to my HDTV. For a fraction of the cost.[/quote]

While 3rd party support can be very important (and is extremely important for companies with weaker 1st party studios, like Sony and MS), what you're describing is huge success for Nintendo regardless of 3rd party support. While Nintendo would have a stronger console with more studios making more games, Nintendo will make plenty of money selling Wii 2's and Nintendo brand games.

85 million plus units sold, with 94-99% of those consumers going on to buy additional Nintendo products (by your estimation) means incredible income for Nintendo (especially since they never sold Wiis at a loss). If they can pull that off, they don't [i]need[/i] 3rd party support in the same way or to the same degree that the other console makers do. And even then, sales as a percentage of consoles sold aren't as important as the number of sales. Selling ~2 million copies isn't so bad, even if it's not a huge portion of the potential market. And developing for the Wii (or Wii 2) will give you potential access to that 85 million member market, so even without unbridled success developers will still be willing to try.

Your argument seems (to me) to be that Nintendo can't count on having many people buy the Wii 2. But I just don't see much justification for that, aside from your assumption of what the Wii 2 will bring to the table. And, as I mentioned above, your business analytical skills do not appear sound enough for me to take your word for it that your predictions will be right. You [i]might be[/i] right in your predictions. But you have not made a persuasive case to me.

[quote name='xDxReaper']
Probably because I am a combatant lol...I spoke my mind, gave my opinion and I acknowledged everyones opinion. This is an opinion thread, I dont see why my or anyones ''reputation'' should be lowered or raised, based on this. And much less when you just get rated down with no comment. Rate me badly is I tell someone to start programming with Assembly or BASIC. Or if I or anyone gives a bad suggestion. But for an opinion? In a non-technical thread? But whatever, I for one feel like I have had bad luck here(GD.net) since my first thread and for no reason. And that this might make it worse, if thats possible lol
[/quote]

The rep system is imperfect in many ways. I'm sorry you had to find out like this.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1303946443' post='4803759']First. You're alive! Good to see you.[/quote]
/me waves :)
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1303946443' post='4803759']Second. Yeah, but if we did that, it'd be no fun talking about [i]rumors[/i].[/quote]
Heh. I'm not a fan of rumors because I consider them and speculating over them a huge waste of time. Wait a bit, doing something better (in terms of time utilization) in the meanwhile, and then you get official announcements. [b]*shrug*[/b] Then again, I [i]have[/i] moved away from technology enthusiasm...
[quote name='xDxReaper' timestamp='1304014782' post='4804072'][quote name='frob']The gamepad certainly does not work "on all most all genres". Music games? Dance games? Motion games? Racing games? Flight games? Sports games? All have custom controllers.[/quote]

Almost* My bad. Music? Parapa the Rapper. Dance, ofcourse not. Wiimote? lol... Racing? Erm...Gran Turismo 1-5? Forza 1-3? Im pretty sure the games where great with the gamepad. Flight? PS3 got that covered in Warhawk I think. Sports? We have played sport games for decades now...whats wrong with the gamepad?[/quote]
You missed his point. The gamepad is a compromise for all of these genres, which is why dedicated input devices like the DDR dance mat, a plethora of racing wheels and pedals, joysticks and throttles and more exist. Do you actually play sports games? The control schemes continue to get more and more byzantine in an attempt to reflect the nuance of the games - the shot stick, FreeStyle™ control in EA Sports games, icon passing... It's a mess that favors long-time gamers and makes games harder for novices to approach.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote] Your argument seems (to me) to be that Nintendo can't count on having many people buy the Wii 2. But I just don't see much justification for that [/quote]

My argument is that people bought the Wii because what it brought. Easier way to play and different. The mass market appeal. And most games are pretty casual, easy to play and dont take much to finish. In a way, its like the overall casual game market that you find now, in the millions, in phones and browsers. This worked on 2006, pre Iphone/Android time. But will something similar to the Wii work again? I doubt it. Why? Because of the same reason most people dont update their browsers. It does pretty much the same thing, right? Why do it? And not only that, we have Kinect and Sony's Move. And smartphones and Ipod's and Tablets. Their competition, Nintendo's, is more challenging now. Sony and MS dont have this problem. They know their market and it will remain the same till who knows what. Nintendo's market is huge now. But can they maintain it? Thats my question. And my answer, as you already know is, I think not. Not at all. (EDIT: Forgot to mention that it depends on what they do. Can they really innovate something better than what is out there?)



[quote]You missed his point. The gamepad is a compromise for all of these genres, which is why dedicated input devices like the DDR dance mat, a plethora of racing wheels and pedals, joysticks and throttles and more exist. Do you actually play sports games? The control schemes continue to get more and more byzantine in an attempt to reflect the nuance of the games - the shot stick, FreeStyle™ control in EA Sports games, icon passing... It's a mess that favors long-time gamers and makes games harder for novices to approach.[/quote]

I think I did. I thought we were talking more about the Wiimote and Gamepad's. As in the market for each console. Dedicated Input Devices are great, but its not mass market as in this case. A gamepad or a wiimote. But if you had to choose one to play most genres what would you go for? Personally I belive that the gamepad fits most games well. Having a wiimote type device alone, I belive, limits the games that the devs can develop. Not all games are suited for motion controls, I belive. But this is a design decision. And makes my view and everyones, mute. No? Because the Wii has that support, even tho I dont like the GC control much. But to end this, there will never be a perfect ''control'' that fits every game. Options are a great thing to have, from the start. Dev's just have to use them. This is why I like what Sony and MS did now. Good gamepad + motion stuff. They hit almost every angle and very well. I dont play sport games, but I have, on the PS3. It felt good, ''normal'', like they used to. It was a basketball game. How does a basketball game feel on the Wii?
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='xDxReaper' timestamp='1304034738' post='4804204']
[quote]You missed his point. The gamepad is a compromise .... It's a mess that favors long-time gamers and makes games harder for novices to approach.[/quote]

I dont play sport games, but I have, on the PS3. It felt good, ''normal'', like they used to. It was a basketball game. How does a basketball game feel on the Wii?
[/quote]

Apparently you missed it again. Your last statement about how it feels on the Wii is like pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. That is EXACTLY the point, yet you completely missed it.

Active sports games were specifically called out on page 1 of the discussion by people who DO play the games as something that could see a huge benefit from a touch-screen controller.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1304040345' post='4804233']
[quote name='xDxReaper' timestamp='1304034738' post='4804204']
[quote]You missed his point. The gamepad is a compromise .... It's a mess that favors long-time gamers and makes games harder for novices to approach.[/quote]

I dont play sport games, but I have, on the PS3. It felt good, ''normal'', like they used to. It was a basketball game. How does a basketball game feel on the Wii?
[/quote]

Apparently you missed it again. Your last statement about how it feels on the Wii is like pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. That is EXACTLY the point, yet you completely missed it.

Active sports games were specifically called out on page 1 of the discussion by people who DO play the games as something that could see a huge benefit from a touch-screen controller.
[/quote]
I actually don't enjoy sports games on most consoles but have a lot of fun playing them on the wii. The ones that don't try to play to families and actually try to be good sports games I find to be a lot closer to what a sports game should be; not a sports game made for shooter gamers. That's probably on account of having to redesign them with new interface. I'm hearing a lot of really good things about the next madden wii too.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't this far too early to be saying whether a system is worth it due to some speculation on specs and the controller? To me buying a console is about 2 things, the games for it and the feel of the control. The rumors abound for the Wii 2 don't address either of these

also I think Nintendo shouldn't just increase it by one, but pull another Nintendo 64, but instead of naming it after anything specific they should just pick an arbitrary number, how's the Wii 243 sound to you guys?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='eedok' timestamp='1304055383' post='4804303']
Isn't this far too early to be saying whether a system is worth it due to some speculation on specs and the controller?
[/quote]
The Playstation 9 is some sort of snortable drug. ([url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdh4TqWFfX4"]source[/url])

Your thoughts?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are better motion sensing controls out there, there are touch based controls out there. My argument is simply, what will Nintendo do thats worth it? The Wii's controls arent exacly accurate thats why I personaly didnt get one. It was a false idea, all marketing. I played and I was left wanting more, it was interesting but not enough. Maybe thats why most people dont even use their Wii's? It was great for Nintendo ofcourse, but like I said. Will it work again? Now, with all the offerings out there already and to the ones to come. We arent in 2006.



And a thought about the rumored ''control''. Its supposed to have a touch screen...is it really a control? How much would this baby cost? Maybe its the console itself? What about multiplayer? Will see in E3. Opinions?
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='eedok' timestamp='1304055383' post='4804303']
also I think Nintendo shouldn't just increase it by one, but pull another Nintendo 64, but instead of naming it after anything specific they should just pick an arbitrary number, how's the Wii 243 sound to you guys?
[/quote]
Only if Master Chief is handing out Wiis at launch ;)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0