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

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

I can't see who posted this thread. Is it a glitch or something?



Around the Network
Turkish said:
I can't see who posted this thread. Is it a glitch or something?

Yes, it's a known bug.



happydolphin said:
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.

Then why did you post it?  It clearly has ZERO relevance.

There is not one single example of a hardware add-on receiving significant software support.



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing/Backlog:
Wii U - Currently Gaming Like It's 2014 (Hyrule Warriors) - 11 games in backlog
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2013 (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) - 7 games in backlog
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 2012 (Borderlands 2) - 11 games in backlog
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

theRepublic said:

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.

Then why did you post it?  It clearly has ZERO relevance.

There is not one single example of a hardware add-on receiving significant software support.

huh?



The 3 most successful hardware add ons are Kinect, Wii Balance Board and the N64's RAM expansion pack.


Kinect because it has the most number of titles that support the add on: ~130 upcoming and existing games.

The Wii Balance Board because of the number of units sold: ~34 million units sold.

The RAM expansion pack because of the percentage of total system games that supported it: 15.5%...60 games out of 387 titles.

Significant support is subjective though.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network

I take it this way: The next gen doesn't start until more players are in the game. I don't think he's really knocking WiiU or saying it's going to substantially underpowered vs next-box or PS4. In this economy even, Microsoft and Sony (especially the latter) cannot afford to incorporate super cutting edge of latest technology.

No doubt in my mind that WiiU will be the least powerful of the other two. But it's not going to be an ocean like everyone is declaring judging by what we know about the WiiU so far. It was good for Nintendo to have a system as conservative as WiiU. I don't think cutting edge/latest tech is what is going to drive the gaming industry forward. Development costs are too high and there's been a surge of amazing indie developers making fantastic games and not breaking the bank. I like the direction Nintendo is going with WiiU. They don't follow anyone. They do their own thing. Else they'd just be bland and would have a disadvantage considering there are only a gaming company vs a multimedia company like Sony. People need to keep those things in mind. The iPhones and iPads don't go for super power like lots of Android powered mobile phones. They go for simplicity and accessibility which is what mobile devices are for in regards to the iPhone at least.

Though, I'm not a huge fan of Apple (mostly the patent whoring and designing a mobile device out of glass), they are really prospering by doing their own thing their own way which is why lots of people compare Nintendo to Apple a lot. Except, Nintendo likes to annoy people with holding things back and keeping hush hush about things when they really.. well, shouldn't.

I'm going off on a tangent. But anyways, looking forward to WiiU and the other next gen consoles. It's going to be interesting. Wonder if Microsoft and Sony are going to keep things the same or do something different...



Mnementh said:
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.

My fault, was reffering to another post, but quoted you instead. :(



MDMAlliance said:
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.  

fair enough and i was talking fidelity



happydolphin said:
Viper1 said:

In that case, here's my copy and paste.

Although Nintendo will release the new game console Wii U and the market will be continue to be invigorated by the increase of DLC, time is required before the next generation console cycle begins in earnest.



So what does "in earnest" mean to you in this context? I understand it to mean "fa realz", just to keep things simple.


There's a very big difference between something beginning, and something begining in earnest. WWII began in 1918 with the signing of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but it didn't beging in earnest until the German invasion of Poland.

 

Basically, you can't have a home console generation with only one entrant, so even though it begins with the Wii U, it doesn't begin in earnest until there are at least 2 competitors.

 

You wouldn't really say that the previous generation began in earnest when just the 360 was out, or that the one before that began in earnest with the dreamcast.



scottie said:
happydolphin said:

So what does "in earnest" mean to you in this context? I understand it to mean "fa realz", just to keep things simple.


There's a very big difference between something beginning, and something begining in earnest. WWII began in 1918 with the signing of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but it didn't beging in earnest until the German invasion of Poland.

 

Basically, you can't have a home console generation with only one entrant, so even though it begins with the Wii U, it doesn't begin in earnest until there are at least 2 competitors.

 

You wouldn't really say that the previous generation began in earnest when just the 360 was out, or that the one before that began in earnest with the dreamcast.

That makes perfect sense. The others wrote something like this before, but this was the best explanation, sounds right. I think "fa reaalz" was a good way to slang it ;) but I understand your subtle distinction now.