| superchunk said: Just numbering each quote you made. 1. Wii introduced full motion, while the wiimote is overall easier, its still a new way to play. 2. I specifically mentioned "in raw crunching terms" as I was solely focused on CPU/GPU performance and not all the other enhancements in control. 3. "You seem to assume that better technology means better games." Not even close. I was saying 3rd parties and software developers by large believe this and want this. Why do so many high end publishes automatically shove off Wii? Because they don't want a lower spec'd game. As a developer myself, I know its far more interesting to utilize new tools to do new capabilities than it is to continue making the same old crap. Games have always pushed computer technology, especially graphics, for this specific reason as developers strive for newer capabilities. The Wii went against that as its technology was marginally better than last gen and was far behind the PS360/PC platforms. Then you need to take into account their bosses. Why would put forth R&D to create a new set of tools to get the most out of the Wii platform? Instead, it was far more cost effective to utilize tools they were creating anyways to take advantage of higher end technologies and create games for HD systems, ignoring the Wii. This is the primary reason Wii received no major shift in 3rd party games even though it has dominated the market; completely opposite of every previous generation. 4. Its not the shape or the buttons. Nintendo realizes they need 3rd parties. They've been trying to get them back ever since the N64 days. This gen, they will try to be unique while at the same time have the same base, i.e. similar power and architecture as well as at least the same basic controller option. This is why you'll see a move back to a multi-button having controller that also has a touch screen and alternatively the use of the Wiimote/nunchuk. They have the best of both worlds. Casual games that require less buttons or are enhanced by motion will use what is familiar to the casual base; the wiimote. While, the many core games and high end IPs 3rd parties create will use the newer standard controller with the screen and potential 3D capabilities. 5. Yes, this is a minor feature. However, by having a controller like this it becomes a very easy to implement feature and with the larger range of media capabilities, it becomes a good feature. 6. Its not so much that a phone's app seems bad on a TV as it does all the other apps that make perfect sense. Keep in mind tablets exist too. They also have a larger screen. There are thousands upon thousands of apps and Google is already in the TV space on their own boxes as well as other manufacturers TVs, DVDs, and even Sony's future game consoles. The content is there now and will only continue to expand. For Nintendo to ignore this emerging home/TV experience when it will become dominate, would be stupid. Especially considering it comes at almost no cost as Android is free and they only need to make sure android apps work, not the OS itself. 7. I only want the continuation of Nintendo's amazing software and innovation. The OP was my thoughts on what Nintendo is doing and planning based on rumors, known company statements, and the 3DS. Nintendo isn't a stupid company and anyone who has taken a good look at the current market can see the Wii's faults and what should be expected by Nintendo to capitalize on what Wii did great as well as where it fell short. 3rd party support is very important for Nintendo and they will want to make changes they know the 3rd parties want. With that, it does mean the next system will be more like the next MSony systems in base scenario, however, it doesn't mean it won't be clearly Nintendo. I think I've shown enough in the OP to demonstrate this uniqueness and continued expansion of innovation only Nintendo achieves. |
At 3, sorry for that, but then I just repeat, that means that 3rd parties have it all wrong, horribly wrong. You talk about the R&D into making new tools, but the ones for Gamecube/PS2/Xbox were good enough, all you needed was to slightly improve them at little cost to make up for the slight increase in power and motion controls. Best part is you could then have smaller teams making more games on the wii, and so more money. Easy.
Also, you must realise that just because you, as a developper, want to use new intersting tools to do new things, you shouldn't assume that people, as gamers, will like it automatically.
Going on, it's not Nintendo that needs 3rd parties, but 3rd parties that need Nintendo. On all Nintendo consoles, as well as Sega ones, the idea was for the 1st party to make the hardware sell, and so allow 3rd parties to have a big install base to sell their games. This changed with the PS1 because Sony wasn't a video game company, but a technology company, and continued with Microsoft for the same reasons. True, Nintendo needs 3rd parties to have an overall good library of games, but not as much as you're implying at all.
As for the home/TV experience you mention, it only makes sense if Nintendo wants to move away from just Video games. Otherwise, it's useless. Games won't get better thanks to apps.
Unfortunately, as you mention, Nintendo seems to be heading in this direction, as much as that's a terrible idea, so I can only argue as to waht they should do and not what they're going to do. It just shows that Nintendo can be a very stupid company.
