By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - How the Videogame Industry Shot Itself In the Joystick--and Why the Wii Has Stopped the Bleeding

Nintendownsmii on 19 November 2007

Funny Ghaleon, I thought the same thing but it is pretty true that after SFII complexity was all the rage in video games. And honestly if it was not for the deep complexity would people have been piling around the same machine 4 months after release? I somehow doubt it.



Around the Network
Words Of Wisdom on 19 November 2007
Avinash_Tyagi said:

Two things, the move to 3d alienated more people from gaming, as it made the controls more complicated and intimidating. Also even though the added graphics were needed to get to 3D since then have games really changed all that much, its still mostly the same games, even with all the vaunted AI and physics and the such the games are still by and large the same, just more refined and tweaked, yet costs of these games have been rising very fast, and yet they still have a long way to go before they can ape reality.


1) You can still make 2D games. Wiiware, VC...etc all prove (or will hopefully prove) that there is a market for good games regardless of type.

2) That is the nature of the beast. If you want your enemies in the FPS game to do more than stand still and shoot at you, you need to program it. If you want a richer and more robust game, you need to program it. It's where the designer's vision of what the game should be meets the cost of development that determines the final number. Right now, designers can and have sacrificed to put out a game that they were not completely happy with, that could not do everything they'd like it too. At the same time, companies have struggled to produce games that meet as many of these aspirations as possible.

Ideally, any game a design imagined could be implemented in a cost effective way. This would be video gaming utopia. We're not there yet and I pray that designer creativity doesn't have to be sacrificed any more than it already has to meet production costs.



LordTheNightKnight on 19 November 2007
Onimusha12 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Onimusha12 said:

With all the consoles they have to replace and will have to replace that's just well wishing.

You didn't hear about how Microsoft already earmarked a billion for those repairs, in the last fiscal year?

Sony also said they'd sell five million PS3's without any games. Sony says alot of things and they've made alot of claims that they'd start turning a profit yet have not given us a single bit of evidence to coroborate that claim, they've done nothing but make vague and unconfirmable boasts that in lieu of their history of broken promises and empty claims does little to bolster confidence. If Sony was anywhere near turning things around they wouldn't be scrambling to liquidate assets and selling off factories to cope with the loss their gaming division is bringing on them. It's naive well-wishing for anyone to think Sony is anywhere near turning a profit or in any position to make things right.

I didn't claim they were near turning a profit. I just pointed out that if they don't cut prices any further, they would stop losing money when volume goes up.

No, the PSP is not profitiable, at least not enough to justify its continuation, and the free services it offers more than hinder any hardware sales profits. And like so many others you mistakenly think Hardware sales are all that matter. While the PSP has decent Hardware sales, its Software sales are non-existant, the PSP is an abismal failure, its software attach rates are arguably the worst of any console in known history.

Not profitable enough? The system isn't costing the company money. That's certainly profitable enough. And I did NOT state that the PSP's hardware sales are all that matter. Its game sales may be low for how the system is selling, but they are selling a lot better than you claim, and the games are not flopping, unlike the PS3.

Both, and either way the Sony is losing ground at an astonishing rate in other markets just to compensate for the dilemma of the PS3. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

I don't disagree they are losing groud. That's just not the same as being in dire straights.

And that expansion can be fed back into other markets that have much more viable futures than console gaming currently holds for them.

You donl't know what furture console gaming holds for them. And expansion can't be "fed back". It's money that can be fed back, but expansion is used to get that money.

That is possible, but looking at Microsoft's other fringe markets, conservative is a word not native to their lexacon.

Gaming is not a fringe market for them. That's what you don't get. Gaming has been more profitable than movie box office for years (or a about the same, if you include DVD). You honestly think Microsoft doesn't want an actual piece of the pie?

The PC market doesn't need to be growing. Microsoft could force it to grow by forcing their Xbox lineage into it just like they forced their way into console gaming to begin with. With the direction MS is taking Console gaming, PC gaming would be the logical next step, consoles have only been a hinderance for MS's gaming. You expect Microsoft to just keep making consoles more and more identicle to PCs yet expect you to buy them in adition to the PC you already own? My advice is more than sound, but it is speculatory I will admit and there is plenty of room to question it.

The market doesn't need to grow? That's not how the busines world works. And forcing into a business is not the same as making an existant on grow.

Plus how is the console market hindering PC gaming?



 


I respect your optimism

It's not optimism. I'm pointing out the facts. If you knew my post history, you'd know I go for facts, not optimism.

and I'm sure you thought you had many good points, but all you've really done is provide questionable benefit of the doubt for contrary arguments.

You not agreeing with them doesn't me I provided questionalbe doubt to the very arguments I made. That makes no logical sense.

I won't accost you for having a varying opinion, but I remain umimpressed by the arguments you've provided.

Not when you got all the facts wrong:

Assuming Microsoft's system repairs haven't already been taken care of.

Not knowing what I actually wrote about the PS3, and what Sony could do.

Assuming the PSP isn't "profitable enough".

Making bad assumptions about how businesses work. 

 

A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Avinash_Tyagi on 19 November 2007
Words Of Wisdom said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

Two things, the move to 3d alienated more people from gaming, as it made the controls more complicated and intimidating. Also even though the added graphics were needed to get to 3D since then have games really changed all that much, its still mostly the same games, even with all the vaunted AI and physics and the such the games are still by and large the same, just more refined and tweaked, yet costs of these games have been rising very fast, and yet they still have a long way to go before they can ape reality.


1) You can still make 2D games. Wiiware, VC...etc all prove (or will hopefully prove) that there is a market for good games regardless of type.

2) That is the nature of the beast. If you want your enemies in the FPS game to do more than stand still and shoot at you, you need to program it. If you want a richer and more robust game, you need to program it. It's where the designer's vision of what the game should be meets the cost of development that determines the final number. Right now, designers can and have sacrificed to put out a game that they were not completely happy with, that could not do everything they'd like it too. At the same time, companies have struggled to produce games that meet as many of these aspirations as possible.

Ideally, any game a design imagined could be implemented in a cost effective way. This would be video gaming utopia. We're not there yet and I pray that designer creativity doesn't have to be sacrificed any more than it already has to meet production costs.


 You can make 2D games but why not simplify the controls as Nintendo has done instead?

 

Which is why the Wii has eschewed graphical advances until they become more cost effective, in favor of bringing more people into the market, that way when you are ready to implement those more expensive costs, you also have a larger base with which to recoup those expenditures



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Words Of Wisdom on 19 November 2007
Avinash_Tyagi said:

Which is why the Wii has eschewed graphical advances until they become more cost effective, in favor of bringing more people into the market, that way when you are ready to implement those more expensive costs, you also have a larger base with which to recoup those expenditures


Exactly.  Cost effectiveness is the key.

I knew you'd come onto the page (maybe we were never on different pages ).



Around the Network
Avinash_Tyagi on 19 November 2007
Words Of Wisdom said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

Which is why the Wii has eschewed graphical advances until they become more cost effective, in favor of bringing more people into the market, that way when you are ready to implement those more expensive costs, you also have a larger base with which to recoup those expenditures


Exactly.  Cost effectiveness is the key.

I knew you'd come onto the page (maybe we were never on different pages ).


 Well you were saying that costs were going to go down over time, which isn't true, as costs will continue to rise for a long time, but Nintendo will always use older tech which has already dropped in price, rather than MS and Sony which will try to be bleeding edge, also Nintendo will try to grow the market unlike Sony and MS that have been targeting a very small group overall



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Words Of Wisdom on 19 November 2007
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

Which is why the Wii has eschewed graphical advances until they become more cost effective, in favor of bringing more people into the market, that way when you are ready to implement those more expensive costs, you also have a larger base with which to recoup those expenditures


Exactly. Cost effectiveness is the key.

I knew you'd come onto the page (maybe we were never on different pages ).


Well you were saying that costs were going to go down over time, which isn't true, as costs will continue to rise for a long time, but Nintendo will always use older tech which has already dropped in price, rather than MS and Sony which will try to be bleeding edge, also Nintendo will try to grow the market unlike Sony and MS that have been targeting a very small group overall


Costs will go down.  That is a given.   When is the only real question left.

Avinash_Tyagi on 19 November 2007
Words Of Wisdom said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

Which is why the Wii has eschewed graphical advances until they become more cost effective, in favor of bringing more people into the market, that way when you are ready to implement those more expensive costs, you also have a larger base with which to recoup those expenditures


Exactly. Cost effectiveness is the key.

I knew you'd come onto the page (maybe we were never on different pages ).


Well you were saying that costs were going to go down over time, which isn't true, as costs will continue to rise for a long time, but Nintendo will always use older tech which has already dropped in price, rather than MS and Sony which will try to be bleeding edge, also Nintendo will try to grow the market unlike Sony and MS that have been targeting a very small group overall


Costs will go down.  That is a given.   When is the only real question left.

 Well costs will go down when games can mimmick reality which won't be for a very very long time.  Until then the best option is to let tech mature and go down in cost before adopting it because if you are on the bleeding edge costs will be very high, only when we reach the plateau of reality will the wall be hit



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)