Quantcast
Capcom: The Next Gen Doesn't Start With Wii U

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Capcom: The Next Gen Doesn't Start With Wii U

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
the gen started with the ouya console? who gives a fuck about power right?

The Ouya is not here yet, as far as I know. Only a kickstarter. I'm not sure, if the Ouya is in the same market or is only bought by homebrew/free-software-activists. Or as Rol puts it: if it will compete for the same Dollars as the WiiU, PS4 and NextBox. We will see.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network
happydolphin said:

I'm not sure if you're being facetious. There's a bottleneck, at which point improvements are needed to obtain certain features needed for certain experiences. If not, a new console would have no purpose. The Wii or WiiU alternatives are artificial gens, they offer nothing that could not have been tacked on to the original consoles. I've talked about this with another poster earlier.

The purpose of a new console is to bring gamers to put dollars on the table. Point is this: at some point most gamers have a device to game on. The sales of the old-gen machines dwindle in result. The console-manufacturer starts a new gen to force the people to pay for a new machine. Naturally people need at least an perceived value from the new machine, to consider to buy it. So the console-manufacturer try to sell new features. That may be advances in graphics, controls, network-capabilities or the like. But the best and most used argument is: if you want to play the new Mario/Final Fantasy/Halo/God of War/Tekken/whatever you have to buy the new machine.

And, what is with PS2? Your argument basically says that the PS2 is gen 5 and gen 6 was won by the Xbox.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

theRepublic said:

Brood War is a game, not a hardware expansion on an existing console.  Big difference.

The Wii Fit board is the most popular hardware expansion of all time and look at all the support that got.  No hardware expansions will ever come close to a new console release.

Sorry, do you think I didn't realize that when I posted the example?

Of course it's a game and not a HW expansion, of course that's a big difference, but it doesn't change the fact that it's equally applicable in the discussion of adoption. Some people made use map settings only made for the classical version, but they were few because BW was so well made that everyone adopted it.

Another example is Diablo Hellfire. It's not considered part of the canon because it was made by a 3rd party and wasn't officially backed up. This all supports my "push" argument, regardless of the differences you mention.



HappySqurriel said:

A software expansion to a popular videogame is substantially different than a hardware add-on to a console ...

Now, there is an argument to be made that third party publishers treated the Wii more like it was an add-on than an actual console, and when one wave of cash-in shovelware was finished they released another, but the Wii actually received steady game releases from third party developers, with the occassional good game, because it was a new system. Had the Wiimote been an add-on to the Gamecube it might have been able to attract 25 to 50 third party games (almost all of which would be awful) in a 2 year period; and after that almost no new games would be released.

If you want hardware to actually be used by developers it has to be shipped with the system.

I'm not sure how much I disagree with you, and your reason is discrepancy in adoption of the add-on as compared to the original platform.

But I will disagree. 3rd parties supported Kinect pretty much just as much as they supported Wii as of 2010 onward. Why is that? It's because MS did a good job at pushing it. It comes back to what I said.

But whether this is all true or not, it doesn't change the fact that it can all be done on one same platform to a certain degree of success or not. The same could not be said for computer components on the 1st consoles of the time, which is what prompted the generations in the first place.



So Wii lost to PS2! :O


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(


Around the Network
Mnementh said:

The purpose of a new console is to bring gamers to put dollars on the table. Point is this: at some point most gamers have a device to game on. The sales of the old-gen machines dwindle in result. The console-manufacturer starts a new gen to force the people to pay for a new machine. Naturally people need at least an perceived value from the new machine, to consider to buy it. So the console-manufacturer try to sell new features. That may be advances in graphics, controls, network-capabilities or the like. But the best and most used argument is: if you want to play the new Mario/Final Fantasy/Halo/God of War/Tekken/whatever you have to buy the new machine.

And, what is with PS2? Your argument basically says that the PS2 is gen 5 and gen 6 was won by the Xbox.

@bold. That can all be done on the same console. It's purely about marketing if technical upgrades are totally out of the picture.

If a competitor offers the updates on the same console, doesn't that invalidate the need for a brand new console, unless there's some other considerable upgrade that requires a new machine (such as a performance upgrade due to better computer components)? So a console in your perspective is purely artificial and has no reason of being, since a competitor in that case could easy cut over your offering by making it an add-on and saving people the need to buy a whole new console.

This basically puts the nail in the coffin.



the_dengle said:

You can't argue that GBC didn't "correspond to" N64. N64, which was of the same generation as PS1. So GBC was of the same generation to, and therefore "corresponded to" PS1 in that fashion. GBA clearly "corresponded to" GCN; they had a range of hardware and software connections, and even launched the same year. GBA corresponds to the 6th generation of consoles in this way. DS and PSP may have launched a couple of years before their home console big brothers, but they were undeniably of the same generation. Now 3DS and Wii U are going to have cross-play functionality. They belong to the same generation. The eighth generation.

Vita's cross-play with PS3 is a weird case stemming from the PS3's long lifespan. Undoubtedly when PS4 launches, it will feature more Vita cross-play functions than PS3 currently does... assuming Vita is still around to see the PS4 launch.

Nintendo's handheld consoles have always had a close relationship to their corresponding home consoles. They are the same generation -- especially when we start talking about software, which is what the context of my statement was. Just look at the Bit.Trip series. Not a very impressive technical feat at all, but it would be beyond silly to suggest that those are 4th-generation games or something. They weren't made in 1992. The fact that New Super 2 doesn't do anything that wasn't technically possible on GameCube doesn't make it a 6th-gen game. It was developed in 2011/2012, by developers who had experiences no developers in 2003 had. It likely incorporates programming techniques not yet imagined a decade ago. There's no argument to be had here; the tech isn't what determines a game OR a console's generation.

SEMANTICS

I HATE THEM

A console's "generation" is just a number to be thrown around. Whether Wii U is 8th-gen, 7th-gen, 12th-gen or 1st-gen, its "classification" is completely irrelevant and doesn't change a thing about its capabilities, its release date, its competitors, its third-party support, its launch price, or its color scheme.

That is all by design, being made by the same manufacturer. The same would likely not hold true had the handhelds been made by anyone else than Nintendo or Sony. Case in point, the N-Gage, released in 2003, bang on between the PS2 and the PS3.

Semantics, I love them, because they make us smarter and put people on the same footing. So much arguing is over the ambiguity of words. Words aren't concepts, they're tools to describe concepts. The sharper the tools, the cleaner the cut.

Again, generations have no reason of existence if not due to hardware upgrades that can't be done on the same machine.



oniyide said:
MDMAlliance said:
It's kind of sad that the biggest pride some people have in gaming are power and graphics. Power and graphics do something for a game, yes. However, if the experience is good, why care so much about it? It's strange how we are, when we get something extra, we always want more. "That's great, what more is there? Give me more." and that kind of attitude could be one of the reasons as to why great games do not make it into production or get cancelled, etc.

I think its sad that the biggest pride people have is sales, at least graphics and power add something to the gaming experience, what do sales add? nothing much if any.


Sales definitely doesn't mean whether or not a game is good, however I think the people you're referring to are mostly exclusive to this site.  The graphics and power people are much more common.  However, in regards to your comment about sales, for some people they believe that as a result of a game being good, it should have higher sales rather than high sales being something itself that makes the game better.

Sales is much more to do with business in the realistic sense, and I would say higher sales give a game a better chance to gain more exposure and have more games like it come out (not rehashing).  /redundant rant over.



Its the next generation Nintendo console at least.

Be happy with what you've got.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

happydolphin said:
HappySqurriel said:

A software expansion to a popular videogame is substantially different than a hardware add-on to a console ...

Now, there is an argument to be made that third party publishers treated the Wii more like it was an add-on than an actual console, and when one wave of cash-in shovelware was finished they released another, but the Wii actually received steady game releases from third party developers, with the occassional good game, because it was a new system. Had the Wiimote been an add-on to the Gamecube it might have been able to attract 25 to 50 third party games (almost all of which would be awful) in a 2 year period; and after that almost no new games would be released.

If you want hardware to actually be used by developers it has to be shipped with the system.

I'm not sure how much I disagree with you, and your reason is discrepancy in adoption of the add-on as compared to the original platform.

But I will disagree. 3rd parties supported Kinect pretty much just as much as they supported Wii as of 2010 onward. Why is that? It's because MS did a good job at pushing it. It comes back to what I said.

But whether this is all true or not, it doesn't change the fact that it can all be done on one same platform to a certain degree of success or not. The same could not be said for computer components on the 1st consoles of the time, which is what prompted the generations in the first place.


http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=wii&cat=0&year=2010&numrev=3&sort=0&letter=&search=

164 third party games with a gamerankings score above 60% released in 2010 for the Wii ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kinect_games

28 third party games with a gamerankings score above 60% for Kinect IN TOTAL

 

It's not even close. The Wii which (based on many people's claims) has awful third party support for a console is receiving about 10 times the support of your successful add-on. Add-ons get abysmal support.