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

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

happydolphin said:
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.

People already paid for the old-gen-console and don't buy another one (except the first breaks). So no, I can't follow your argumentation.

But anyways, fine, we have different definitions of gen. I accept that. Your definition says the XBOX won gen 6. Fine, keep your opinion. I don't see any reason to fight it, but for me PS2 won gen 6 not gen 5.



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
HappySqurriel said:

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.

Causality. You don't know what made Kinect less interesting to 3rd party devs. It could be that it came out after the Wii, it could be that people wanted to hold something in their hands, it could be that Nintendo's marketing push was better, it could be that Nintendo believed in their product more and visited devs about it (like they do for all console launches), it could be absolutely anything.

Also, I recognize the top part of that post ;)

And again, it doesn't remove from the bulk of my point, that it could be done on the same platform, and 3rd party support one of many metrics and you know that.



Mnementh said:

People already paid for the old-gen-console and don't buy another one (except the first breaks). So no, I can't follow your argumentation.

But anyways, fine, we have different definitions of gen. I accept that. Your definition says the XBOX won gen 6. Fine, keep your opinion. I don't see any reason to fight it, but for me PS2 won gen 6 not gen 5.

But that doesn't matter, because in the end the Wii outsold the 360 and the PS3, which were its direct competitors. So even if we disagree that the Wii was in a separate category from its contemporaries, it still outshined them.

But for the first part, try to follow. In one case, you have to pay the price of a whole new console (2 to 3 hundred dollars), in the other (the competitor alternative), you would only have to pay for the add-on (30 to 60 dollars). It's not a complex argument I'm making.



happydolphin said:
HappySqurriel said:

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.

Causality. You don't know what made Kinect less interesting to 3rd party devs. It could be that it came out after the Wii, it could be that people wanted to hold something in their hands, it could be that Nintendo's marketing push was better, it could be that Nintendo believed in their product more and visited devs about it (like they do for all console launches), it could be absolutely anything.

Also, I recognize the top part of that post ;)

And again, it doesn't remove from the bulk of my point, that it could be done on the same platform, and 3rd party support one of many metrics and you know that.


So name any add-on that third party publishers have given significant support to. Demonstrate that the add-on model has ever worked ...

The NES zapper, Super Scope 6, Sega CD, Sega 32x, N64DD, N64 Memory expansion, Eyetoy, PS-Eye, PS-move, Kinect and Wii MotionPlus have all failed to attract support; what is it about the Wii U tablet that would attract as much attention as an add on as it does as standard hardware for a console?



happydolphin said:
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.


im with you on this one, but some people dont get it. Sales and support have nothing to do with what a system could. Sony released a their version of the wiimote without the need of having to release a new console and as many people pointed out, the Move is just a black wiimote. MS did something similar and I dont know why he was even comparing a damn add-on to a new console. 



Around the Network
MDMAlliance said:
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.

graphics and power people are much more common because that is something that actually effects the game you play. Like it or not graphics are going to factor in if you were to objectively review a game, its even one of the categories, if a game graphics is bad to the point where there is screen tearing, lag, pop up etc. you bet people are gonna care.

I would disagree with those people personally i dont see high sales for game and i think its good I see it and think its readily accesible. Not that much different from movies, IE Transformers. And we all know 90 percent of the time high sales do lead to rehashing and to games like it as well.



oniyide said:
happydolphin said:
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.


im with you on this one, but some people dont get it. Sales and support have nothing to do with what a system could. Sony released a their version of the wiimote without the need of having to release a new console and as many people pointed out, the Move is just a black wiimote. MS did something similar and I dont know why he was even comparing a damn add-on to a new console.

You barking at the wrong tree. I did never such thing. My point is and stays, that it makes no sense to define gens for  the power of the devices. Because that means, that the PS2 is definitely not gen 6 and that means the XBox won gen 6. That is an opinion probably no one is following. I don't know why HappyDolphin now answers me with add-ons, that were never part of my argument. I think the discussion got too confusing and he (and you as it seems) disarrange my arguments with arguments of others who bring add-ons into play.



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

Soriku said:
Michael-5 said:
said:

"Time is required before the next generation console cycle begins in earnest"

It would appear that the creator of Monster Hunter, Street Fighter and Resident Evil doesn't see the Wii U as a true next gen platform - something that many other developers are likely to agree with, given the system's technological parity with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

You would make a great news reporter, taking what someone says and making completly unrelated conclusions from it.

All he said is it will take time before the next generation of games for the next gen consoles begin to thrive. This only means that early Wii U games will be ports/simulatious releases/re-releases of current gen games and it's going to be a while before we see an adundant amount of next gen software. (So far there are only a handful of Wii U exclusive titles, and except for Zombie U and that game by Platnium Studios, none are new IP's).


That part in the OP is actually from the link. And it was written by an actual journalist which makes it even funnier. Reading comprehension: how does it work? I also like how this comment comes from a website called "Nintendolife" as well.

But yeah, he's just saying that even when the Wii U releases, a next gen shift in terms of quantity of games and resources won't be in full swing yet as Capcom (and other companies) are still making current gen titles right now and the Wii U is getting ports for the most part. Of course, they'll devote resources to next gen sooner or later.

This comment has absolutely nothing to do with how powerful the Wii U is.

Oh wow, Journalism is really a joke then...



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

oniyide said:
MDMAlliance said:

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.

graphics and power people are much more common because that is something that actually effects the game you play. Like it or not graphics are going to factor in if you were to objectively review a game, its even one of the categories, if a game graphics is bad to the point where there is screen tearing, lag, pop up etc. you bet people are gonna care.

I would disagree with those people personally i dont see high sales for game and i think its good I see it and think its readily accesible. Not that much different from movies, IE Transformers. And we all know 90 percent of the time high sales do lead to rehashing and to games like it as well.


I think what you're referring to is more graphical fidelity than the graphics itself.  I'm not trying to say graphics don't matter at all, and that power doesn't matter at all.  More power does make more room for activities and graphics has a certain amount of addition to gameplay that may sometimes even be necessary.  The problem I have is when people don't understand those purposes and place these two things above all else.  I enjoyed SNES games and still do, yet the graphics on the SNES is absolutely horrid compared to the current graphics we're producing.  



HappySqurriel said:

So name any add-on that third party publishers have given significant support to. Demonstrate that the add-on model has ever worked ...

The NES zapper, Super Scope 6, Sega CD, Sega 32x, N64DD, N64 Memory expansion, Eyetoy, PS-Eye, PS-move, Kinect and Wii MotionPlus have all failed to attract support; what is it about the Wii U tablet that would attract as much attention as an add on as it does as standard hardware for a console?

@bold. The saving the cost of paying for a whole new console.

@"it never happened before therefore it doesn't happen". I know you realize that isn't proof. It's evidence, I'll agree, but it isn't proof, and my "push" argument stands against those examples that were often near failures in terms of push, timing, marketing and so many other factors. The 64DD being the biggest failure of them all in my view, glad you brought it up.

@oniyide. Of course you're with me on this one ^_^ I'm on the other side of the fence on this one ;)