Long Live Nintendo

[Gadfly2317]

Rare is the article that begs me to post the whole thing. . . but this goes to the core of the things we talk about here regarding the big three console makers, and also which will "pull a sega."

Really great read, and thanks to Rob Fahey for writing it:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21708

The Nintendo Difference
--Rob Fahey 16:44 14/12/2006

No company frustrates the soothsayers quite as much as Nintendo. Across the land, divining rods are being snapped, crystal balls are being smashed and tea leaves are being stamped on in fury - as the firm whose death has been predicted countless times reveals itself once again to be in rude good health and ready to take on the world.

I refer, of course, to the launch of the Wii in Europe, which saw the firm clocking up a record breaking 325,000 sales over the weekend; but even more astonishing, and more laudable, is the stunning success of the Nintendo DS in the same week. Over half a million units of the handheld were sold in Europe last week, and the installed base now tops 8.5 million units in this territory alone. If this is an indication of how the Wii's sales will go, then Nintendo's risky gamble with the motion sensing Wiimote could actually turn out to be the stroke of genius which hands dominance of the console space back to its one-time master.

As the Kyoto-based firm continues to confound the doom-mongers who have gleefully predicted its demise for the best part of a decade, it's worth pausing for a moment to think about the other common prediction which is associated with Nintendo - namely that the company will (or at least, should) abandon the hardware market entirely, and instead focus on bringing its unique range of IPs and franchises to other platforms. Going third-party - or "doing a Sega", as industry slang would have it.

The most common argument for this strategy is that while Nintendo may be hugely profitable, the company's home consoles are in distant second or even third place behind those of the market leader - so in theory, by moving franchises like Mario and Zelda to the PlayStation and the Xbox, the firm would have a much larger target market, would sell more units, and would ultimately be much more successful. This is particularly relevant now, proponents of this model argue, because the astonishing cost of the new generation of consoles has forced Nintendo out of the arms race, leaving its games confined to an innovative but underpowered system.

On the face of it, it's a compelling argument - and it certainly worked for Sega, which has turned around its fortunes since bailing out of the Dreamcast (aided, admittedly, by being acquired by wealthy Japanese gambling firm Sammy) and is now one of the most influential third-party publishers in the industry. Why shouldn't Nintendo follow Sega's example, then, and leave the CPU and GPU arms race to the multinational giants with cash to burn?

The simple answer is because "The Nintendo Difference" isn't just a cunning marketing slogan; Nintendo genuinely is different. Its structure and business model are a radical departure from how every other company in the interactive entertainment industry works, and the comparisons between Nintendo and Sega are merely skin deep. Sega left hardware because it had no choice; the failure of the Dreamcast was a nail in the coffin, and the structure of its internal studios was perfect for transplanting into a third party publisher. Nintendo stays in hardware because it, too, has no choice in the matter.

Of course, on a very simple level, if Nintendo was to leave hardware then it would lose a major revenue stream, because the company notoriously designs and prices its consoles such that hardware is a profit-making enterprise. Making up for that lost revenue would also be tougher than it looks, because as a third-party publisher, Nintendo would be forced to pay a significant license fee on each game it sold, so its profit margin from software would be reduced. As such, the company would have to vastly increase its software sales in order to make up both for reduced margins and for the loss of the hardware revenue stream - an incredibly daunting task, even for a firm with franchises like Mario and Zelda. Bear in mind that those franchises already sell millions of copies, and have an astonishingly high attach rate with Nintendo hardware - even on a system with five times the installed base, achieving higher sales would be a challenge.

Even more important, though, is the change which would have to be made to Nintendo's entire culture, to its business and creative models, if it were to abandon the hardware market. Considering this gives an insight into the workings of one of the most fascinating companies in the videogames market - a firm which is quite unlike its competitors, with an approach which owes more to that of a toy company than to the videogame publishing model.

Nintendo's entire philosophy is focused on the platform - not on hardware or software as separate entities or businesses, but as the platform as a whole. Unlike Sony and Microsoft, where it's apparent that Chinese walls have been erected between the designers of the hardware and the creators of first-party software, Nintendo actually places its top software designers at the helm of hardware design. Consoles are designed to suit the game concepts which will run on them - a working model which is apparent in the design of both the Nintendo DS and the Wii, and which allows the company to create early first-party titles which really showcase the hardware.

This top-down approach, which creates consoles based on the games which will run on them, is the antithesis of Microsoft and Sony's approach, which designs from the bottom up - first creating a console and then worrying about what games will run on it. It gives Nintendo an enormous competitive advantage which would not be evident if it were a third-party publisher, and allows its top first-party software to innovate and evolve in ways which would be impossible on another company's hardware. It's also the approach which has informed the decision to restrain the specifications of the Wii - and indeed the DS - to a manageable level, which allows development to take place faster and less expensively than on rival consoles.

These factors combine to make Nintendo into the company it is today - a company whose low development costs, tight integration between hardware and software and enormous profit margins allow it to take creative risks, drive forward innovation and promote the growth of the gaming market as a whole. Without Nintendo's unique business model and first-party status, games like Nintendogs, Brain Age, Animal Crossing and Wario Ware simply could not exist; they either rely heavily on the hardware which supports them, or are so far off the beaten track that creating them on a system with higher development costs and lower profit margins would be commercially untenable.

That's why Nintendo will remain in the hardware business - because its consoles are more than just a platform to run its software on. They are part of a platform strategy which defines the entire company's approach to the market, and which means Nintendo is more than just one of the world's leading videogame companies - it is also, and arguably more importantly, one of the world's leading toy companies, and remains a powerhouse of innovation and development which is a driving force for the entire games sector. "Doing a Sega" is not on the cards for this firm, and probably never will be - especially not when it's still in the enviable position of being able to shift the better part of a million units in Europe in a single week.

[trebor]

Very pleasant read, especially for all us kitties.

The undeniable fact is that whether they come in first in the handheld arena, or last in the console arena, they are the single company out of the big 3 that is profitable from day one of a new console. Despite the Xbox and PS2 "winning" against the Cube, ultimately Nintendo still wins because they have created a self-sustainable business model.

The fact that right out of the gates the Wii has been a source of profit should give assurance to all early adopters that, if anything, the Wii will get support from the best developer in the industry.

[NEO-360]

Very pleasant read, especially for all us kitties.

The undeniable fact is that whether they come in first in the handheld arena, or last in the console arena, they are the single company out of the big 3 that is profitable from day one of a new console. Despite the Xbox and PS2 "winning" against the Cube, ultimately Nintendo still wins because they have created a self-sustainable business model.

The fact that right out of the gates the Wii has been a source of profit should give assurance to all early adopters that, if anything, the Wii will get support from the best developer in the industry.

Cant argue with that.:thumbsup:

[ilnadmy]

Great article. I completely agree. Nintendo really does suck, and I too think they will "pull a Sega" in the next few months.

Great catch Gaddy!

[Zilla Man]

Although I enjoyed the article and Fahey had some good points he forgets some important things that I thought this guy got right:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4112&Itemid=35

Updated: Tuesday, 31 October 2006
DFC: Wii Needs to be More than a Fad

By David Cole editor

Analyst David Cole with DFC Intelligence says that Nintendo can't simply rely on the Wii's controller for the console's success. Read on for his analysis, "Are Wii in for a Revolution or Evolution?

"Sometimes a name can mean a lot. In November, Nintendo launches its new hardware system, the Wii, pronounced "we," as in you and I. Until last spring this system was known as the Revolution. There are many people that argue that Revolution was a much better name for the system. However, we disagree. Revolution implies an overthrow of the existing infrastructure. A successful revolution also generally requires an existing infrastructure that is severely broken, flawed or corrupt.

The problem with the idea of a revolution in the video game industry is that sales have been at record levels over the past few years. Why would we want the existing infrastructure to be overthrown? Of course, the video game console market could use some new innovation, but that does not mean it needs to be completely trashed. The Wii is likely to be much more successful if it creates an evolutionary change in the game industry. There really is no need for a bloody revolution.

From Nintendo's perspective the need for a revolution is much clearer. Since the 8-bit NES/Famicom from the 1980s, every Nintendo console system has declined in sales, even as the overall market has grown. Nintendo has thrived on the portable market, but the company has put itself on the brink of becoming a non-player in console systems.

http://www.next-gen.biz/images/stories/Companies/Nintendo/dfc%20nintendo%20decline.gif

"Of course, the key distinguishing feature of the Wii is its motion sensitive controller that allows users to control games with body movement. So much emphasis has been put on the new control system that it often seems the controller is the platform. From DFC Intelligence's perspective it would probably not be a good thing for Nintendo if the Wii is defined mainly by its controller. The risk is that consumers have fun with the Wii controller for a few months, but the fad passes and they move back to their tried-and-true gameplay methods on a competing system."


"...It would probably not be a good thing for Nintendo if the Wii is defined mainly by its controller."We think that the Wii will probably be much more successful if the controller supplements existing game styles while adding some new innovations in gameplay. The best example for this is Nintendo's own portable system, the DS. When it was first announced, the DS seemed like an odd duck with its two screens, a touch pad and stylus control. The idea of consumers controlling their portable system with a stylus seemed dubious. Now after two years it is clear that the DS touch screen can add a great deal to some games while still playing the old-school portable games. If a user does not want to use the stylus they always have the option to use the old control system.

For the Wii to be successful on a wide scale level we feel it will have to follow the model of the DS. Having a new control mechanism is a great expansion, but clearly the controller cannot become the be all and end all of the platform. Furthermore, it is important not to make too much of the controller. Game systems have always had all kinds of add-on accessory products that change the control system. Dance Dance Revolution (DDR), the EyeToy, microphone centered games and other devices have all been successful. DDR was a popular title, but how would the PlayStation 2 have fared if all games required the user to jump around on a control pad? The key for a hardware platform is offering flexibility for the multiple consumer types that enjoy games.

Of course, it also helps to be focused on a game playing consumer. Surprisingly a big advantage of the Wii may be Nintendo's narrow focus on expanding the gameplay experience. There has been a trend towards multipurpose machines that do it all: movies, music, web-surfing, photos and more. The problem with that concept is that the PC can already do all those things. The trend among consumers is to buy a PC for multi-tasking and then buy specialty hardware devices for applications in which they have a more intense interest. If consumers are so interested in multi-purpose devices how has the market for dedicated game systems continually grown along with increasing home PC penetration?

It is the same for the portable market. The Nintendo DS can go online, but the focus is on playing games, not web surfing or voice communications. This is why Nintendo's portable market has continued to grow in the face of the rapidly increasing number of consumers with mobile phones that play games. The problem the mobile phone market faces when it comes to games is that the network, not the hardware, is the platform. Increasingly consumers use cell phones as their main means of voice communications. The primary consumer interaction is with the network service provider and the key concerns are reception, usage costs, coverage and other service issues. Hardware is an easily changeable, secondary consideration and one trend is towards phones that are almost invisible. Obviously that does not bode well for gaming which depends on a rich graphical display. If consumers are going to choose a device for both voice communications and games, it will always be the voice communication features that win out. Multipurpose devices are generally best for the low budget consumer that can't afford the convenience of owning multiple devices. If you don't care that much about playing games a cell phone works as a low budget alternative to a dedicated game system. However, savvy consumers now realize that good hardware is relatively cheap for the entertainment value it can provide. Consumers are buying and replacing hardware at such a rapid rate that it is causing an environmental issue at landfills. Compared with other consumer electronics devices, game systems are not only cheap, they can provide solid entertainment value for a good five years or so.

These trends are probably good news for not only Nintendo, but also Microsoft and Sony. One area that could make the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 attractive to a significant consumer base is their evolution into the HD-era. However, this is probably most attractive for the graphical leap in games it will create, not the ability to play high-definition movies. For the graphically demanding video game consumer, the Wii simply may not be an option. Or at least it may not be the primary option. Another potential ace up Nintendo's sleeve is the trend towards consumers that buy two or more console systems. This could be especially true of consumers that demand a high-end system. These are the consumers that are also likely to be interested in an innovative product like the Wii. Remember, among savvy consumers, hardware is cheap for the entertainment value it provides. Thus the Wii becomes the second car in the garage. It says a great deal that the Wii will launch bundled with a title called simply Wii Sports. In addition, sports game leader Electronic Arts has announced strong support for Wii sports games. This represents a pretty big change for Nintendo whose previous three console systems have widely been regarded as the last choice for sports game fans. Sports games are purchased with annual regularity by millions of consumers and thus this was a huge missing audience for Nintendo. Of course, having the best graphics is key in a sports title. However, we think the possibility of a new control scheme is likely to be very attractive for many buyers of sports games.

This holiday season is likely to tell us very little about the long-term viability of the Wii. Will it be a quirky new controller fad or a solid hardware platform for the next five years? It will probably be at least a year after the Wii is on the market before we get true answers. The DS launched in 2004, but did not really come into its own until late 2005/2006.

We can say that Nintendo has nowhere to go but up in the console market. We can also say that the Wii looks like it corrects many of the problems associated with the past two Nintendo systems. There is more diversity of software, online connectivity, backward compatibility, and most importantly more openness to third party publishers and developers. When you get to the crux of the matter, alienating third party companies has been the key cause of Nintendo's console decline. The Wii must change that to be successful. The good news is from a pure economic standpoint, the Wii is actually looking like a fairly viable platform to companies not named Nintendo. Could it be possible that the Wii could be a success for not only Nintendo, but the industry as a whole? That would probably be the biggest story of all. Not a revolution exactly, but definitely a positive evolution."

He brings up a lot of things Fahey just plain overlooked, this being the most important:

"So much emphasis has been put on the new control system that it often seems the controller is the platform. From DFC Intelligence's perspective it would probably not be a good thing for Nintendo if the Wii is defined mainly by its controller. The risk is that consumers have fun with the Wii controller for a few months, but the fad passes and they move back to their tried-and-true gameplay methods on a competing system"

I see this happening already. Despite being built in from the ground up just for the Wii, Far Cry has gotten horrible reviews, as has COD3. And Red Steel is a gimmick disguised as a bad game. I think Wii sports is fun but gets boring after about a week. Most of the other games seem to be shallow tech demos that have little to no lasting power. If it weren't for Zelda (which could easily have been done on the Cube), Nintendo's launch lineup would be one of the worst in history.

As much as Sony and MS are a threat, I think Nintendo is by far its own worst enemy. Just like Xbox fans don't buy Japanese RPG's; FPS's, non-Mario sports games, and heavy action didn't sell on the Cube very well at all. MGS: Twin Snakes and the RE remakes failed to increase Cube sales.

I'm sure Mario Galaxy, Metroid, and Smash Bros. will be fun but I don't think the gimmick of a new controller will sell the Wii to non Nintendo fans any more than the Cube did. Add the fact that the Wii's graphics are a generation behind PS3 and the 360 and even those games may not sell.

But I think this paragraph addresses the Wii's Achillies heel:

"Having a new control mechanism is a great expansion, but clearly the controller cannot become the be all and end all of the platform. Furthermore, it is important not to make too much of the controller. Game systems have always had all kinds of add-on accessory products that change the control system. Dance Dance Revolution (DDR), the EyeToy, microphone centered games and other devices have all been successful. DDR was a popular title, but how would the PlayStation 2 have fared if all games required the user to jump around on a control pad? The key for a hardware platform is offering flexibility for the multiple consumer types that enjoy games"

My biggest problem with Wii is that I have yet to see that flexibility. Unless Nintendo comes up with a killer app that incorporates the Wii controller as an unique and essential part of the gameplay experience, I see it peaking at lower numbers than the Game Cube did.

[ilnadmy]

I think you can make the argument that Nintendo isn't depending on the Wii-mote to be used in all games. One example of that is Super Smash Bros. Brawl, where you have to use a GameCube controller or the Classic Controller for the Wii. It's just the Wii-mote is such a novelty item right now that developers are trying to include it in any way possible.

[DBS]

I don't underestimate Nintendo.... Sega had some bad moves from the black coats imo.

[trebor]

-snip-

Um, Zilla, did you even bother to read the entire article?


We can say that Nintendo has nowhere to go but up in the console market. We can also say that the Wii looks like it corrects many of the problems associated with the past two Nintendo systems. There is more diversity of software, online connectivity, backward compatibility, and most importantly more openness to third party publishers and developers. When you get to the crux of the matter, alienating third party companies has been the key cause of Nintendo's console decline. The Wii must change that to be successful. The good news is from a pure economic standpoint, the Wii is actually looking like a fairly viable platform to companies not named Nintendo. Could it be possible that the Wii could be a success for not only Nintendo, but the industry as a whole? That would probably be the biggest story of all. Not a revolution exactly, but definitely a positive evolution.

If you're going to use an article as a point to articulate an argument, then you should make sure the article will support said argument. Yes, the over-reliance on the Wii-mote could be a problem, as well as a host of gimmicky games, but the DS also went through the same growing pains, and now look at it. The DS is the fastest selling/growing handheld system in history!

I'm not going to let a few half-ass, weak attempts by Ubisoft get me down, because honestly, I've never thought of them as a particularly good developer. Although, Rayman Raving Rabbids is pretty damn good for what it is - which also happens to be Ubisoft's best effort so far on the Wii.

[Mochan]

This top-down approach, which creates consoles based on the games which will run on them, is the antithesis of Microsoft and Sony's approach, which designs from the bottom up - first creating a console and then worrying about what games will run on it. It gives Nintendo an enormous competitive advantage which would not be evident if it were a third-party publisher, and allows its top first-party software to innovate and evolve in ways which would be impossible on another company's hardware.


This is all nice in theory but honestly I don't see the difference at all. I especially don't see how the Wii is about "the games" and the hardware was made to conform to them... not when Twilight Princess, the system's symbolic game, is a Gamecube port of all things. What about all the games coming out on the system, everyone here (even Gaddie and trebor) is harping about how creative games down the pipe will come along to make use of the Wii's unique controller. If the rhetoric were true we'd have games already envisioned and ready to be made, and were just waiting for the Wiimote to come to being.

It's not like I saw the difference in previous iterations either; how were Gamecube 1st party games supposed to "evolve creatively" in such a way that it drove how the GC's hardware took shape? What, I mean was the creative vision behind these games to have low bit-rate sound and disk swapping? Is that why we had those mini disks for the GC?

Really the rhetoric is pretty but I don't see the end result anywhere. I don't see this so-called competitive advantage in evolution anywhere. Or rather... the guy is explaining it wrong. The games on the Wii (and the Cube for that matter) were made with the hardware in mind, not the other way around. Ditto the DS. Certainly I can see how things like Nintendogs arose as a result of the kind of hardware that was available, or was Nintendogs brainstormed and then they decided to make something like the DS to accomodate it? It seems more like the former.
There's something about the first part of his argument that just doesn't seem to ring correctly. I mean, I can see the profit margin and development cost angle, but not the one on software creating the hardware.

If anything, I'm finding Microsoft's 360 to be the more game-driven console; in the sense that it knew what PC tech it wanted to run on its console (i.e. -- Unreal Engine 3) and built a console strong enough to run it.



As for Zilla's article, I am wondering what that guy really thinks. He says that the Wii cannot live on the controller alone, then goes around and says that the Wii has poor graphics, making it the last choice to put out a sports game, so to alleviate this they must rely on the new control system! ZOMGWTFBBQ.The first article (Gaddie's) was way better.

I see this happening already. Despite being built in from the ground up just for the Wii, Far Cry has gotten horrible reviews, as has COD3.

Far Cry is far from being built ground up for the Wii... it's nothing more than a crappy port from what I've read. I don't see this risk of the Wii being a fad just yet. Farcry and Red Steel getting horrible reviews is not because the Wii is deteriorating into a fad, but because these two games were just plain bad.

The real problem I think is with the bad graphics. Far Cry got terrible reviews due to having crap for graphics, not because the controller was a fad. (many reviews for it say the controller is the best part of the game -- whilse the graphics were the worst).



I'm sure Mario Galaxy, Metroid, and Smash Bros. will be fun but I don't think the gimmick of a new controller will sell the Wii to non Nintendo fans any more than the Cube did

You mean like how the DS didn't sell to non-Nintendo fans?


If the controller cannot be the be-all end-all of the platform, then what will? The only thing left is what the first article pointed out: cheap development costs. Devs will flock to the Wii just because it's cheaper to make games on it. It sounds pathetic and unromantic but I think that is the real bottomline here.

They should also want to use the new controller for some ideas. And they definitely should; the guy is bonkers for saying the controller shouldn't be a centerpiece. The Devs don't necessarily need to go out of their way to overuse and abuse the controller's functionality, but pretty much every Wii title I think should be able to use the wiimote to some extent, even if it's just to look around or pan your view.

[trebor]

What about all the games coming out on the system, everyone here (even Gaddie and trebor) is harping about how creative games down the pipe will come along to make use of the Wii's unique controller. If the rhetoric were true we'd have games already envisioned and ready to be made, and were just waiting for the Wiimote to come to being.

I hate to sound cliche here, but it really does come down to the creativity of the developer. Again I have to point to the DS to support my argument - developers didn't know what to do with the freaking thing at first, thus for the first year of it's existence, it had weak software offerings from 3rd parties, for the most part at least. Now that it's been here for 2 years, and developers have seen what works and what doesn't, many games coming out for the system are simply fantastic.

But let's face it, Ubisoft isn't particularly known for incredible creativity or innovation. Sure, they've published a few winners here and there, but for the most part their games are derivative and sloppy - especially on Nintendo systems.

Although, one thing definitely in the Wii's favor is that a lot of same game mechanics from the DS can apply to it. Thus, we get a full-blown console version of Trauma Center on the Wii. I would love to see larger scale versions of a lot of DS games on the Wii, actually.

[Gadfly2317]

Zilla posted a good counterpoint article. Without going through it point by point, it essentially reiterates the same arguments and concerns that were leveled against the DS. . . gimmick, control centered, fad.

Nintendo proved they knew what they were doing with the DS and avoided the pitfalls.

Winning back the third parties in order to gain dominance is the biggest and most valid concern in Zilla's article, and it will be difficult because of the overall quality of Nintendo's first party offerings. At the same time though, Nintendo is definitely pulling in new demograhics with the DS, and anectdotally so far is doing the same with the Wii. This should give third parties a better chance since more than old Nintendo fanatics are along for the rid.

As far as using Far Cry as an example of a game that was "built ground up for the Wii.". . . no way. It's a two year old PC title. It was built from the ground up for the PC, and the Wii version is an minorly content port of the Xbox version. And I bought it before the reviews came out because I assumed it would look about Xbox level in the graphics and I wanted to try out a FPS on the Wii. The crappiness of Far Cry is not the Wii's fault. . .the Wii is clearly powerful enough to host some fine looking graphics. Far Cry Wii looks like an N64 game. Even the opening video stutters. Seriously, it is that bad. Ubisoft just cheaped out and dumped some crap out for launch in order to cash in. And they've hurt themselves more than the Wii, because I'm going to be very skeptical to pick up another Ubi total having gotten burned so badly.

The important thing overall in the Fahey article is how it brokedown the Nintendo business model, illustrating how important the hardware part of their business is to their software, and why they are not going to go the route of Sega. Also, in reminding people of how fiscally smart the business is ran, it reiterates that Nintendo doesn't need to be #1 or even #2 to stay in the game.

The kind of start the Wii is off to is more than any console could hope for, and in news story after news story (in such mainstream places as NPR) when the Ps3/Wii launches are compared, virtually all stories have come down giving Wii the higher marks. Nintendo has got the momentum, the hype, and next Xmas I don't see Wii's sitting there gather dust, a forgotten fad. There WILL be killer software. There will be SSBB online. There will be surprises. The virtual console will be better than ever.

Zilla's counterpoints are valid, and the nintendo fans shouldn't get over-elated. . . it's not like Nintendo has no history of sometimes screwing up a good thing, but its undeniable the company has been making a huge comeback on all fronts and is still a creative and business leader in this industry.

[Gadfly2317]

This is all nice in theory but honestly I don't see the difference at all. I especially don't see how the Wii is about "the games" and the hardware was made to conform to them... not when Twilight Princess, the system's symbolic game, is a Gamecube port of all things. What about all the games coming out on the system, everyone here (even Gaddie and trebor) is harping about how creative games down the pipe will come along to make use of the Wii's unique controller. If the rhetoric were true we'd have games already envisioned and ready to be made, and were just waiting for the Wiimote to come to being. Yet look how well, at essentially the last minute, the incorporated new control into a traditional adventure game like Zelda. It's a vision for a more immersive way to play, and while not everything about the Zelda control is perfect, it is a definite improvement, especially in the targetting.

Want to see what a game built from the ground up for the Wii can be like? Check out Elebits.

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

The Wii's price point is going to be the driving factor more than anything. We sit here as hardcore gamers talking about owning all consoles and how many games we buy and play. But that's just not the reality. My wife looked at GOW the most advanced game on the market from a technicaly standpoint. And said it looked like all the other army games I played on the old Xbox. But she want's a wii. I at first was worried about the controller becoming a fad and with any other company this may be an issue but Nintendo is a game developer.

Now take the fact of the cheaper price and system that is obivously something different MS and Sony need to worry. Hence you see Sony rushing to bootleg the system and don't kid yourself by think MS is thinking about something similar as well. They rebooted controllers once I see it happening again.

Nintendo real problem is to make sure 3rd parties not only support them with game but to make sure those games are profitable. EA is fully in there camp they cooed about the PSP at launch but now they are singing a different toon and they opened a studio to develop games specifically for the Wii (SSX Blur the first game). If companies can sell more copies on the wii for less development cost I don't know how the other 2 companies can compete with that.

Has a gamer I'm not so sold on there vision I prefer MS online vision but you have to respect how Nintendo instead of running the same race they are just cutting cross the field.

[Mochan]

This is all nice in theory but honestly I don't see the difference at all. I especially don't see how the Wii is about "the games" and the hardware was made to conform to them... not when Twilight Princess, the system's symbolic game, is a Gamecube port of all things. What about all the games coming out on the system, everyone here (even Gaddie and trebor) is harping about how creative games down the pipe will come along to make use of the Wii's unique controller. If the rhetoric were true we'd have games already envisioned and ready to be made, and were just waiting for the Wiimote to come to being.
Yet look how well, at essentially the last minute, the incorporated new control into a traditional adventure game like Zelda. It's a vision for a more immersive way to play, and while not everything about the Zelda control is perfect, it is a definite improvement, especially in the targetting.

Want to see what a game built from the ground up for the Wii can be like? Check out Elebits.


I'm not saying the Wii is not immersive or visionary, I'm saying Fahey's thesis that the Wii was conceptualized from the kind of games they wanted to make seems a bit off and is more like lofty rhetoric rather than a working business model -- the kind of "inspiring" drivel you hear from CEOs that don't even look anywhere close to how actual business is being done in a company.

I just feel that he didn't use the right words to describe the business model. I guess I'm just being picky over the semantics.

[Renzatic Gear]

I'm not saying the Wii is not immersive or visionary, I'm saying Fahey's thesis that the Wii was conceptualized from the kind of games they wanted to make seems a bit off and is more like lofty rhetoric rather than a working business model -- the kind of "inspiring" drivel you hear from CEOs that don't even look anywhere close to how actual business is being done in a company.

I just feel that he didn't use the right words to describe the business model. I guess I'm just being picky over the semantics.

It's not the hardware itself. Ignore the media it uses and what graphics card is under the hood. When he talks about Nintendo conceptualizing the hardware based on the games, he's talking about the controllers.

The N64 analog pad was built around moving Mario fluidly in 3D space, the Gamecube's controller was built with all Nintendo's games in mind. The Wiimote is exactly the same in this regard. Nintendo wanted to try something different, and came up with the Wiimote in response.

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

It's not the hardware itself. Ignore the media it uses and what graphics card is under the hood. When he talks about Nintendo conceptualizing the hardware based on the games, he's talking about the controllers.

The N64 analog pad was built around moving Mario fluidly in 3D space, the Gamecube's controller was built with all Nintendo's games in mind. The Wiimote is exactly the same in this regard. Nintendo wanted to try something different, and came up with the Wiimote in response.

I read a story somewhere that Shiggy (Miyamoto) was sitting in a chair watching T.V. flipping channels and thought this was a good way to control videogames. Sounds like one of those P.R. inspirational stories. But Shiggy does have an imput on the Nintendo's console designs.

[theWacoKid]

I'm now convinced that Zilla is a sony sponsored shill, a paid sony viral marketer. Posting an old article, nearly two months old, give me an effin break.

Here, lets take a look at the latest on the ps3 or should I call it flopstation 3.


Bundles and high price creating PlayStation 3 glut

Matt Martin 10:06 20/12/2006
Forced bundles and high retail price put consumers off, claims tracking firm

The high price of the PlayStation 3, along with the retail practice of bundling the console with software, has lead to a glut of stock online, claims tracking firm NotifyWire.

The company believes the fervour greeting the console launch has already slowed, with consumers put off by forced software and hardware bundles which in some cases can see the retail price doubled.

"I think we're already at the point where people won't pay a premium for the console or be forced into buying bundles," said Ian Drake, president of NotifyWire.

Drake believes interest is waning for the console, and compared the speed in which new Xbox 360 stock sold out before Christmas 12 months ago.

"Last year we tracked several one thousand dollar Xbox 360 bundles which would sell out in less than two minutes after becoming available."

Drake noted a US $1000 PS3 bundle was on offer at an online retailer for over 12 hours recently, claiming, "This sort of thing didn't happen with the Xbox 360 until well after Christmas."

NotifyWire tracks online retailers and informs members when product is available.

Drake also believes that consumers are becoming less trustful of auction sites such as eBay, where newly released consoles can sell for double the recommended retail price.

"I think people are tired of being gouged on eBay, and services like NotifyWire.com are making it easier for the everyday person to buy the PlayStation 3 online from a retailer they know and trust."

And let's check out what Time magazine thinks.

TIME magazine deems PS3 a bust
Posted Dec 18th 2006 6:50PM by Blake Snow

TIME magazine rounds up the five "phenomena" on the year that captivated the media momentarily before ultimately going bust on the hype. The PS3 shares the not-so spotlight next to Bode Miller, Studio 60, Fox TV's canceled If I Did It program, and Snakes on a Plane as the year's biggest letdowns according to the magazine.

From the article's sub-section entitled HOW TO BLOW A HUGE LEAD in video games: "The PS3 is hideously expensive--it goes for up to $600--and Sony manufactured only a piddling few hundred thousand for the U.S., fewer for Japan. Plus it's hard to write games for; the launch titles were lame. You know you're in trouble when you get beat by something called a Wii." Sony would have to try really hard to get anymore negative press for the PS3, not to mention other facets of the company's endeavors. Can an electronics brotha get a break? Maybe a slight one if we didn't run this story...

I think the following line sums it up nicely.

You know you're in trouble when you get beat by something called a Wii

[Zilla Man]

Um, Zilla, did you even bother to read the entire article?

Yup, I sure did.:D Did you read it? Saying that "Nintendo has nowhere to go but up" is damning with faint praise. Especially when you look at the bar chart and what their marketshare used to be.

The article supports the points I made in my post.

[Zilla Man]

Zilla's counterpoints are valid, and the nintendo fans shouldn't get over-elated. . . it's not like Nintendo has no history of sometimes screwing up a good thing, but its undeniable the company has been making a huge comeback on all fronts and is still a creative and business leader in this industry.

Exactly, Gaddy. I didn't post the article to prove that I think Nintendo will fail. I posted it because it points out a lot of the reservations I have about purchasing a Wii right now. Purchasing a game consloe is an investment. I need to see more before I'm convinced.

I'm cautiously optimistic that in late 2007 or 2008 we'll see the first Wii killer app.

But until then I'm content to get a DS or Cube and just wait.:thumbsup:

BTW, whatever reservations I may have about the Wii, it still has a lot more appeal to me than the 360 does now.

[ilnadmy]

Here, lets take a look at the latest on the ps3 or should I call it flopstation 3.

No, please call it the PS3. Your puns suck.

And it's true, the PS3 had a bad launch. The 360 didn't do too good during its launch either. Give it some time and then you can start writing epitaphs.

[NEO-360]

No, please call it the PS3. Your puns suck.

And it's true, the PS3 had a bad launch. The 360 didn't do too good during its launch either. Give it some time and then you can start writing epitaphs.

Cant argue that. But when Time magazine is putting the PS3 down in black & white print that basically justifies WacoKid calling it out of its name. Right now the PS3 is a top ten disappointment for 2006. Thats gotta hurt if you're a Sony rep.

Even though the Wii doesnt have the firepower or the horsepower that the PS3 does. Its still amazing that the Wii is still outselling the PS3 even with all those shortcomings. Incredible. :blush2: