Is Wii the Next Atari?
- Thread starter ccesarano
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You should have said WiiPlay was bought for a controller, instead of calling the whole thing a controller.ccesarano said:
Yeah, people bought the thing for the controller, but that doesn't mean people didn't people didn't pop in the game once or twice, and it fer sure doesn't mean the nobody liked it.
BTW: Bought WiiPlay for controller, and Tanks. Then again, I'm not everybody.
The bottom line is that all sales figures from companies are innaccurate as they are skewed to project the image of success for shareholders, potential buyers and...well...message board junkies.
It's not hard to come to the simple comclusion, Wii is outselling PS3 and 360, possibly outselling them combined.
None-the-less, there are plenty of 'shovel' games as you call them on the Wii, Dewey's Adventure? Playground? My Sims? What a load of crap!
But what do you call Earth Defense Force? Dirt? And even mainline titles like Jericho and ANY Tom Clancy games? How are these cookie cutter run-of-the mill button mashing action games better somehow? There seems to be this stigma and stereotype that the so-called 'hardcore' hardcore gamer has a PS3 and 360, like saying real men don't eat salad. Well in this case, the salad is a fresh chicken ceaser salad with dumplings...and steak is...well...have you ever read 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair? Pretty much that.
That's a bad analogy, but the Wii is better and has better games, Smash Brothers is better than Dead or Alive, Metroid Prime is better than Call of Duty 4 and Trauma Center is...hmm, what compares to Trauma Center on 360?
Listen, it's basically just clear that you jokers are 360 and PS3 fanboys who can't stand that the Wii is an honest evolution and true NEXT generation of gaming, not just a graphics upgrade. And it has a already long list of amazing games, 360 and PS3 have significant titles, but I'm a pragmatist and always have been. Playstation was better than N64, Gamecube and PS2 were about equal and Wii is just better than 360 and PS3. The Wii isn't a gimmick, it's popular because it has better games and nintendo has a better business model. Sony and Microsoft want fanboys and message board wars...Nintendo wants sales, and they got it.
Everyone wants to find chinks in the Wii armor, but it's nothing that doesn't exist in the PS3 and 360 in different ways. And when it comes to the companies bottom line, Nintendo's DS sword will always keep them, ultimately, on top.
Resident Evil 4 is better than Call of Duty 4, word.
It's not hard to come to the simple comclusion, Wii is outselling PS3 and 360, possibly outselling them combined.
None-the-less, there are plenty of 'shovel' games as you call them on the Wii, Dewey's Adventure? Playground? My Sims? What a load of crap!
But what do you call Earth Defense Force? Dirt? And even mainline titles like Jericho and ANY Tom Clancy games? How are these cookie cutter run-of-the mill button mashing action games better somehow? There seems to be this stigma and stereotype that the so-called 'hardcore' hardcore gamer has a PS3 and 360, like saying real men don't eat salad. Well in this case, the salad is a fresh chicken ceaser salad with dumplings...and steak is...well...have you ever read 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair? Pretty much that.
That's a bad analogy, but the Wii is better and has better games, Smash Brothers is better than Dead or Alive, Metroid Prime is better than Call of Duty 4 and Trauma Center is...hmm, what compares to Trauma Center on 360?
Listen, it's basically just clear that you jokers are 360 and PS3 fanboys who can't stand that the Wii is an honest evolution and true NEXT generation of gaming, not just a graphics upgrade. And it has a already long list of amazing games, 360 and PS3 have significant titles, but I'm a pragmatist and always have been. Playstation was better than N64, Gamecube and PS2 were about equal and Wii is just better than 360 and PS3. The Wii isn't a gimmick, it's popular because it has better games and nintendo has a better business model. Sony and Microsoft want fanboys and message board wars...Nintendo wants sales, and they got it.
Everyone wants to find chinks in the Wii armor, but it's nothing that doesn't exist in the PS3 and 360 in different ways. And when it comes to the companies bottom line, Nintendo's DS sword will always keep them, ultimately, on top.
Resident Evil 4 is better than Call of Duty 4, word.
No, that would get them in trouble with people like SEC. Lying about performance to manipulate the stock market is Naughty, and tends to lead to legal trouble.SanitysRequiem said:
Outselling both yes, both combined, not outside of Japan.
The key difference is that shovelware crap on the other platforms doesn't tend to have broken controls because the developers couldn't get to grips with the Wii remote.
No, the Wii has a very short list of amazing games, and quite a long list of mediocre or crap ones. It's not popular because it has better games, and you can tell that because the game sales are dismal whilst hardware sales skyrocket. It's popular because of it's controller, and only Wii Sports gets people really using that so far.
Well, if we're going to ignore the point of contention to talk about "bottom line", we could mention the Microsoft Server and Office divisions, which is where they make money. So much money, in fact, that they can lose a billion a quarter on the Xbox and not even feel it.
It's also a gamecube game with bare improvements for the Wii. Not the "Next Generation" of interaction with the gameworld. Metroid Prime is the best use of the Wii controls in a proper game so far, it's just a shame they had to break Metroid Prime's format of roamable worlds with a sense of freedom to explore to do it.
Well a quater billion doesn't really cover it, they've lost about $7 billion on the Xbox project so far and expect to lose another $1 billion after extending the warrenties of the 360's out there. They were hoping to start breaking even late this year or early next but that probably got thrown out the window cos of the warrenty thing.GloatingSwine said:
But yeah, MS can afford to just keep throwing money at the Xbox until they get the market that they want thanks to their other divisions propping it up which you could argue is unfair to Sony and Nintendo but fair doesn't come into business does it?
On topic, I can't really add anything that hasn't already been said now. The market is a different animal to what it was in the early 80's and a crash of that sort is extremely unlikely, if it were to happen it would be because the developers and console makers practically forced it upon the market.
He didn't say $250,000,000 he said $1,000,000,000 every 3 months.Darkong said:
So when did the 360 come out? According to wiki the Xbox 360 was released on November 22, 2005, in the United States. Thats 2 years ago, less 12 days... So we are talking 8 billion USD. Which interestingly is your estimate of their costs.
---------
My take on the whole argument on which is better is this:
For 'hardcore' games the PC lords it over ANY console. For different and fun games the Wii seems to be in the lead. Sure theres not many of them right now but this is changing over time. I can afford to wait as i am primarily a PC gamer.
However i think the Wii makesa alot of sence as an additional platform for a 'hardcore' gamer. As i have said i think the PC is the best for 'hardcore' games but the Wii is fun and different.
I don't know how long a console game lasts - not played any since the N64. Say its about the same as a PC game - 20 hours (including multi player games which will be played more). Say 5 decent games and you hit 100 hours. Say £240 for the console and the first 3 games (its a deal i saw the other day) and 30 each for the next 2. So thats £3/hour based on 100 hours from 5 games - this is probably conservative.
Next how long does 100 hours last when you play PC games too? Say 2 hours per day, 4 days a week, thats over 3 months gaming. For £300? Bargain! To be honest i would probably not play them all at once. I think i might play on everage 4 hours a week so thats even longer than 3 months.
Now just how expensive is that? I'm know that to someone without a job £300 is quite alot of money - but i am talking about the Wii as an additional platform so i assume there is disposable income available.
Too look at it another say: Smoking. Plenty of people afford to smoke and still afford everything else. My parents at my age smoked 20 per day - say £5.23 for 20 cigarette. Thats 2 months of smoking to pay for a Wii... Not exactly expensive is it? Interestingly its only 4 months of smoking to pay for a pretty top spec PC...
So what do people think? One hardcore platform and a Wii to play occasionally when the real gems come out?
Sanity Requiem: I do not think any one is turning this into a console wars debate. My whole original post is that with the advent of the Wii, there seems to be room for more than one type of console. So the Atari comparison is no longer valid.
" Wii isn't a gimmick, it's popular because it has better games and Nintendo has a better business model."
Nintendo's business model is freaking amazing. I do not think any one would ever argue that point. But as i pointed out before, it is the opposite of the other companies who make money on liscensing for games. Nintendo does not need to make good games to make money, since they make money off of system sales, where as the other companies, MS and Sony, do. Publishers obviously want to put games out on the console that had the most user base since there potential sales are much higher. Obviously you can not sell more copies of a game than the amount of systems that are sold. So publishers release quick games to get out to the "Wii rush" and turn a profit. Now, this same phenomenon happens on other consoles as well, but beside a few 3rd party games, the AAA titles are mostly first party games by nintendo.
If you are saying that Wii is selling because of an evolutionary new way to make games innovating and fun, then I agree. But there are still only a few games that capture this innovation, and a lot more that capitalize on the hardware selling point.
I really really want a wii, and will probably get one once SSB: Brawl comes out.
If any thing i would be PC fan boy since it is the only way i play games now, but PC are totally different than consoles. If i had the money, i would buy all the consoles. I would rather have MS, Sony and Nintendo combine to make one super system, so then i could spend less money and miss less games. I never got to play a bunch of really good Xbox games since I never had one.
" Wii isn't a gimmick, it's popular because it has better games and Nintendo has a better business model."
Nintendo's business model is freaking amazing. I do not think any one would ever argue that point. But as i pointed out before, it is the opposite of the other companies who make money on liscensing for games. Nintendo does not need to make good games to make money, since they make money off of system sales, where as the other companies, MS and Sony, do. Publishers obviously want to put games out on the console that had the most user base since there potential sales are much higher. Obviously you can not sell more copies of a game than the amount of systems that are sold. So publishers release quick games to get out to the "Wii rush" and turn a profit. Now, this same phenomenon happens on other consoles as well, but beside a few 3rd party games, the AAA titles are mostly first party games by nintendo.
If you are saying that Wii is selling because of an evolutionary new way to make games innovating and fun, then I agree. But there are still only a few games that capture this innovation, and a lot more that capitalize on the hardware selling point.
I really really want a wii, and will probably get one once SSB: Brawl comes out.
If any thing i would be PC fan boy since it is the only way i play games now, but PC are totally different than consoles. If i had the money, i would buy all the consoles. I would rather have MS, Sony and Nintendo combine to make one super system, so then i could spend less money and miss less games. I never got to play a bunch of really good Xbox games since I never had one.
I'm with you on this one, ccesarano. When the Wii came out, everyone was drooling over the motion controller; nobody noticed that besides the Zelda port, there wasn't much of anything coming out for it for some months. Now we're about a year past the launch, and finally the Marios and Metroids are startling to trickle out of Nintendo. Third party games...well if you know of any, let me know. It's all giving me deja vu for the Gamecube, which suffered from precisely the same problem.
Being the bastard that I am, I would love to see Nintendo fail miserably for distracting us with their Wiimote while not doing anything about the biggest problem the last Nintendo console had. But will they? I don't know. Everyone seems to like the Wii despite its lack of games. I'm wondering if there's some kind of pleasure slot somewhere I don't know about.
Being the bastard that I am, I would love to see Nintendo fail miserably for distracting us with their Wiimote while not doing anything about the biggest problem the last Nintendo console had. But will they? I don't know. Everyone seems to like the Wii despite its lack of games. I'm wondering if there's some kind of pleasure slot somewhere I don't know about.
You may spot similarities between the Wii and the GC, but the differences tend to make me think that where the GC failed, the Wii Won't.
Wii Won't. ¬_¬ *sigh*
Nintendo's business machine made sure to sell a lot of consoles, and to make it feel like it's new. It's also leading some sort of new market. If Nintendo gets great third party titles, then they're in. And I mean, fresh ones, not reduxes of previous hits (RE4, Okami, etc.).
Wii Won't. ¬_¬ *sigh*
Nintendo's business machine made sure to sell a lot of consoles, and to make it feel like it's new. It's also leading some sort of new market. If Nintendo gets great third party titles, then they're in. And I mean, fresh ones, not reduxes of previous hits (RE4, Okami, etc.).
i think overall, for nintendo to survive after the wii, their gonna have to create some sort of 21+ naughty things, or even try and adapt for plugging games into the optic nerve, so you dont have to have good eyes.
I don't understand the relation actually. Wii the next Atari as in the last BIG console by Nintendo since it's downhill from here? Please make up your point.
My point is more that, if Nintendo doesn't pull something even more shiny and new out of their ass, they will likely not be as successful next time.
Jesus Christ, people can't stop looking at "Atari" and take in the deeper meanings of things. How can anyone in here write a fucking term paper for anything if all you do is take shit at face value instead of cutting into the deeper idea? I mean, Christ on a corn dog.
Jesus Christ, people can't stop looking at "Atari" and take in the deeper meanings of things. How can anyone in here write a fucking term paper for anything if all you do is take shit at face value instead of cutting into the deeper idea? I mean, Christ on a corn dog.
College and opinions on videogames are two separate things.ccesarano said:
I think we may have to wait until their next machine to give an opinion don't we? If you say "Atari" and "Wii" you're already not making sense, since "Atari" itself was never a machine, but a company.
Like I said earlier, the comparisons you use for your arguments actually matter, and you choose to go with Atari, instead of say, the PS2 (very succesful console whose descendent seems to be having problems.)
In a general sense, whether Nintendo's next console will be "more succesful" or "as succesful" is unknowable. After all, who would have predicted the current run of this generation back in the days were the Gamecube was dying, the original Xbox was kind of "meh" and PS2 had something like 90% market share? A console generation is a long time.
That being said, any argument that posits that "Nintendo must come out with something with a wow factor to succeed next time" ignores to a certain extent, at least a significant part of the current NIntendo strategy, which seems based around appealing to non-hardcore gamers, who are more price and convenience sensitive and don't care so much about "killer apps."
Any analysis that fails to take this into account cannot help but be inaccurate.
In a general sense, whether Nintendo's next console will be "more succesful" or "as succesful" is unknowable. After all, who would have predicted the current run of this generation back in the days were the Gamecube was dying, the original Xbox was kind of "meh" and PS2 had something like 90% market share? A console generation is a long time.
That being said, any argument that posits that "Nintendo must come out with something with a wow factor to succeed next time" ignores to a certain extent, at least a significant part of the current NIntendo strategy, which seems based around appealing to non-hardcore gamers, who are more price and convenience sensitive and don't care so much about "killer apps."
Any analysis that fails to take this into account cannot help but be inaccurate.
I think we will see plenty of new and good titles for the Nintendo wii in the coming future. Simple fact is, third party developers didn't expect it to do well so they jumped on the Sony/Micro$oft bandwagon. But now that the wii is doing so well, most of the developers just threw out whatever they could to cash in, I imagine all the good games that will really make wii owners happy will come out in 08. Because they probably hadn't even been a gleam in Mario's eye when the wii was released, but given some time for development I think there will be plenty to keep the hardcore gamers busy. Just assume all the good games went into development about 4-6 months after the wii was released and expect the good games to start coming out with that in mind. Most of the 'killer apps' for xbox 360 had been in development long before the system ever hit store shelves.
I doubt it, since the collapse happened for a lot of reasons, most prominently were a flood of new consoles many very similar to the previous generation, and a flood of high cost, low quality games.
Right now it's just three big console makers, and PC's basically (considering the Hand-held market another beast), and really one of the complaints about the current consoles is that there are not enough titles of them. I do agree though that a lot of quality is lacking at present, but also don't feel that it's severe enough to think a crash is coming.
Will there be another crash sometime in the future? That's very possible, I really hope not, since it will hurt everyone. I think it's possible to happen when graphics start to slow down their advance as they get closer to photo-realism and the uncanny valley starts to bug people, while at the same time there isn't much gameplay innovation (graphics and gameplay are the two major selling points of most games, after all). But I think we're fine for now.
Right now it's just three big console makers, and PC's basically (considering the Hand-held market another beast), and really one of the complaints about the current consoles is that there are not enough titles of them. I do agree though that a lot of quality is lacking at present, but also don't feel that it's severe enough to think a crash is coming.
Will there be another crash sometime in the future? That's very possible, I really hope not, since it will hurt everyone. I think it's possible to happen when graphics start to slow down their advance as they get closer to photo-realism and the uncanny valley starts to bug people, while at the same time there isn't much gameplay innovation (graphics and gameplay are the two major selling points of most games, after all). But I think we're fine for now.
If that does happen, chances are good that the gaming industry will come back even stronger, just like back then. Additionally, the majority of the gaming industry (call me on this if it's wrong) was based around arcades. The reason there was a huge collapse back then was that the arcade machines became less profitable due to players increased skill on the games. Also, the demand for machines declined because all the venues had been filled to capacity.
So while I do whole-heartedly agree that the originality of many games (and movies for that matter) are dwindling, the current market model is based on buying the newest piece of tech, pretty much regardless of quality or novelty.
So while I do whole-heartedly agree that the originality of many games (and movies for that matter) are dwindling, the current market model is based on buying the newest piece of tech, pretty much regardless of quality or novelty.