will know in 2010.
Evey year that weak hardware will hurt it, as games use more PS3 and 360 power no one will want a wii version of it.
| Blue3 said: will know in 2010. Evey year that weak hardware will hurt it, as games use more PS3 and 360 power no one will want a wii version of it. |
I think it all comes down to games. For multiplatform games, I can see that to some degree. But if the Wii version has all of the other parts (good control, online play, same features, etc.), then it'll be a toss up. The problem I had last generation was that the Gamecube port of games was missing too many features to be worth picking up. So I usually got the Xbox or PS2 version. The thing we don't know will be the quality of the game. If the Wii version has the best control scheme, then that will make up for lack of graphic quality. Why else would CoD 3 on the Wii sell more than the PS3 version? It doesn't even have online play and no unlockables. I still can't figure out why anyone would buy the Wii version. I rented it and beat it in two days.
We'll just have to see how it works out. I would have picked up the Wii version of Spiderman, but it's just a shoddy game, so I passed. How many other people did the same thing?
-Darkness
| Blue3 said: will know in 2010. Evey year that weak hardware will hurt it, as games use more PS3 and 360 power no one will want a wii version of it. |
| XBoxFanboy said: will know in 2005. Evey year that weak hardware will hurt it, as games use more XBox and Gamecube power no one will want a PS2 version of it. |
| N64Fanboy said: will know in 2000. Evey year that weak hardware will hurt it, as games use more N64 power no one will want a Playstation version of it. |
Power becomes meaningless if your console has less games and most multiplatform games are designed with the less powerful system in mind; in other words, unless you have the sales performance to match your processing power it becomes a meaningless statistic.
just a business decision, which is, of course, influenced by visions of the top brass.
kutaragi has a different vision than iwata/miyamoto. the direction iwata/miyamoto has taken--based on their vision--is that growth in "hardcore" gamers will be slow and thus need to capture a new market and that's the motivation behind the wii.
that means hardware specs is not crucial to their strategy. ergo, cut costs wherever it can. so, why not use existing hardware with small upgrades. the fact that it's gamecube 1.5 hardware just happens to be a nice bonus for 3rd parties. this echoes what Origin said.
PS. the hardware argument is way overblown. if technology matters so much nobody would buy board games any more. i can see myself enjoying Wii Sports 20 years from now, just like how much i now enjoy the original Super Mario Bros. though i sure hope there's something more elaborate than the individual games from Wii Sports sometime within the next 20 years.
the Wii is an epidemic.
Darkness said:
I think it all comes down to games. For multiplatform games, I can see that to some degree. But if the Wii version has all of the other parts (good control, online play, same features, etc.), then it'll be a toss up. The problem I had last generation was that the Gamecube port of games was missing too many features to be worth picking up. So I usually got the Xbox or PS2 version. The thing we don't know will be the quality of the game. If the Wii version has the best control scheme, then that will make up for lack of graphic quality. Why else would CoD 3 on the Wii sell more than the PS3 version? It doesn't even have online play and no unlockables. I still can't figure out why anyone would buy the Wii version. I rented it and beat it in two days. We'll just have to see how it works out. I would have picked up the Wii version of Spiderman, but it's just a shoddy game, so I passed. How many other people did the same thing?
-Darkness
|
Wii is to weak to have all the other parts, it cant to the same size enviroment the same amount of characters the same amount of ai. Controls alone dont make up everything else being inferior, and says you that the wii controles are better.
Does the wii have any other shooter then cod3 ? on PS3 it was competing with a far superior Resistance. People bought it cause they wanted something thats not youth oriented, mature games are a bit lacking.
I had a blast with Red Steel myself, but then again, I hate free-aim gamepad shooters automatically anyways. :)
Nobody is crazy enough to accuse me of being sane.
| Blue3 said: Wii is to weak to have all the other parts, it cant to the same size enviroment the same amount of characters the same amount of ai. Controls alone dont make up everything else being inferior, and says you that the wii controles are better. Does the wii have any other shooter then cod3 ? on PS3 it was competing with a far superior Resistance. People bought it cause they wanted something thats not youth oriented, mature games are a bit lacking. |
So ... Since the PS3 now exists then every game for the PS2 is now declared crap?
It couldn't even handle the potential graphics, AI, Physics and environments that the XBox or Gamecube theoritically could. Hell, the PSP must be uber-crap because it can't handle the potential graphics, AI, Physics and environments that the PS2 or Dreamcast theoritically could.
Until someone can demonstrate that it matters, processing power simply doesn't matter.
| ramberk said: The Wii was designed for these reasons: 1. Affordability (for the consumers) 2. Profitability (Nintendo makes money on each console sold from the start) 3. Ease of Development (its just like the gamecube, so devs are familiar with it) 4. Backward Compatibility (VC and GC games can be played on it.) The issue at hand though is that the Wii is not as powerful as the 360 and the PS3. But here are some interesting things to think about... If the Wii did not have the Wii-mote, would it be as popular is it is? No. It would be a bigger "failure" then the Gamecube and N64. If the 360 and PS3 were slightly more powerful (or as powerful) as the Wii-- would either console be as popular as they are now? No, probably not. The thing that differentiates the 360 and PS3 are their computing power (and X-Box Live). So, here's the interesting thing to think about. Nintendo already "won" this console war. They are already making a ton of money on the Wii. Let's say they fall to "third place". It doesn't matter. They already "won". Now, the problem with Sony and MS is that the only way they can compete is by creating a SUPER CONSOLE. Thats the only way Sony and MS can compete with each other and with Nintendo-- by making the most powerful console because gamers love powerful consoles. The problem with this, is that SUPER CONSOLES are expensive to develop and manufacture. And Sony and MS can't sell these SUPER CONSOLES at too an expensive price or else few people will buy them. So that'st the problem with Sony and MS, is that they can only compete by making a SUPER CONSOLE, but they can't make a profit or be successful unless they sell a lot of CONSOLES and gamers buy a lot of GAMES for their console. So, for MS and Sony, in order for their SUPER CONSOLES and their GAMING BUSINESS to be successful, they need to be "#1". They need to have the biggest marketshare and they need to totally beat the competition. Whats worse is that MS and Sony have to sell more games for their console to be profitable. And their games are more expensive to develop and sell for more at retail then Wii games. So developers have to sell more games to make it worthwhile to develop games on the 360 and PS3. But its tough to sell a lot of games, especially if they are more expensive to buy. So, here's the funny thing. MS and Sony will not get a large chunk of the console marketshare and it will be tougher for their games to be super-mega-hits during this round of the "console wars". NOPE. The best scenario for MS and Sony is that there will be a "3-way tie" in terms of console marketshare. Even, if there is a "3-way tie" MS and Sony already "lost". I really doubt we'll be getting a "3-way tie" anyway. Nintendo already "won". I'm not even sure if MS will put out another X-Box even if they can get some profit from the 360. If you spend billions and billions of dollars in the video game market and only make millions of dollars-- is it really worthwhile to stay in the business when you could invest that money in something else more worthwhile? That question is what Sony and MS are asking themselves now. Will there be a PS4? An X-Box 720? I don't know... MS didn't even make a profit on the first X-Box... |
You know what you said here puts me in my mind of this thread I started up.
Sean Malstrom: Alas, Microsoft- Why Microsoft will leave the console market
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=1423
SOMEBODY'S leaving after this 7th gen's over you can bet your bottom dollar and even though I'm not fully in belief of it myself it may be TWO.
John Lucas
Words from the Official VGChartz Idiot
WE ARE THE NATION...OF DOMINATION!
I highly doubt Nintendo alienated 3rd parties this time around, at least not on purpose.
NINTENDO SAID SAID THAT THET MADE THE WII GRAPHICS LIKE LAST GEN BECAUSE OF 2 REASONS WHICH ARE CHEAPER SOCT FOR DEVELOPERS ESPEAICALLY SMALLER COMPAINES AND THE LOW PERCENTAGE OF HDTV. THEY SAID WHEN HDTV PERCENT GOES HIGHER THAN THEY WILL BE READY TO HAVE NEXT GEN GRAPHICS
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
