zaphodile said: My take on why wii may lose momentum:  One could argue that graphics dont matter because of history. However, the difference in graphics have never been this great, hence history does not give any indication of the winner. One could point to the DS winning over PSP, but those are handhelds. People do not want to play God of War  on the bus, rather something easily digested like Mario.

Personally, I disagree with this claim. From Wikipedia about the Neo Geo:

"The home system featured two CPUs: a 16-bit Motorola 68000 main processor running at 12 MHz and an 8-bit ZiLOG Z-80A coprocessor running at 4 MHz. The system's main CPU was over 50 percent faster than the 68000 processor found in Sega's Genesis console (12MHz vs ~7.6MHz). The Neo Geo AES also had the benefit of its specialized audio and video chipsets. A custom video chipset allowed the system to display 4,096 colors and 380 individual sprites onscreen simultaneously (compared to 64 simultaneous colors and 80 individual sprites for the Genesis), while the onboard Yamaha 2610 sound chip gave the system 15 channels of sound with seven channels reserved specifically for digital sound effects. Surround-Sound was also used in a number of games."

The strenghts of the Neo Geo were:

• SNK was a strong first party developer
• "Future Proof" hardware that lasted 14 years
• Far more powerful than its competition (if you remembered going to the arcades and looking at pretty games and then wondering why your SNES/Genesis games did not look nearly as good, you were probably looking at Neo Geo games because the home and arcade hardware were the same)

Why (with all of this power) did the Neo Geo fail to sell adequately to the home consumer? Here is a hint from Wikipedia:

"The console was planned to debut at $599 USD and included two joystick controllers and a game (either Baseball Stars or NAM-1975). However, this plan was quickly scrapped and when the system had its national launch it debuted at $649.99 with two joysticks, a memory card, and a single pack-in game, Magician Lord (the early Neo Geo boxes had a gold sticker announcing the inclusion of Magician Lord over the initially planned choice of two games), this package was known as the "Gold System". "

 

zaphodile said: Bodhesatva said: Unless you can honestly answer: "Yes, I think last generation's games were superlatively more fun than all the generations that came before it," this should answer the question -- no, better graphics don't make games more fun. I can honestly say that. Most people prefer HL1 before HL2 for example, but that is because HL1 was much better in relation to all the other games that were out then. HL2 is actually the better game in every way. The thing is, people get nostalgic. I, for instance, still think Transport Tycoon Deluxe and Red Alert are among the best games ever made, because I was like 10 years old when I played them. Most good games out today are much better then the good games of yesterday, but people who have experienced several generations can't see this, because they still measure old games by old standards.

No... we measure them by today's standards, and they're still as good or better. Sorry, you're just dead wrong. I don't say to myself: "Well, I had some fun playing (Old Game X). Not as much fun as I did (New Game X), but that's understandable. So I like (Old Game X) better, overall." That's not it at all -- I can honestly say that I preferred Half Life 1 because I had more fun playing it (although not by much, because both games are in my top ten favorites). By any standard, past or present.

Just please accept that many of us don't use some wacky, old-school standard to measure old games. We are saying that the games made during the SNES/PS1/NES era really are better games. Not better for their time, not better considering they're old, just flat out better. You can't honestly believe that professional reviewers can't see the difference? That professional reviewers can't put down their nostalgic prejudices? And yet, as I said, SNES/NES games get put in their favorites lists all the time.

If you enjoy your better graphics, by all means, do so. Just recognize that the majority of us simply do not consider graphics a decisive portion of the fun-factor. I can't emphasize this enough: we do not use separate standards to measure old games. We measure them by today's standards, and they still measure up. Let me rephrase what you've implied: that we all say we like old games as much as new games, but we don't really feel that way. We're blinded by nastalgia and don't recognize that the new games are actually better for us.

Let me restate this -- you.are.wrong. We really do feel precisely as we describe. We are not blinded by nastalgia (least of all the reviewers). I'm certainly not questioning your opinion that graphics matter to you -- although I could, as I might purport that your love of the PS3 has blinded you, and that you want to believe that graphics matter because that position supports the strength of your console. But again, I'm not suggesting that. If you care about great graphics, go ahead. Just recognize that many of us do not agree. Probably most of us, in fact.

It's not really the graphics whom make a game good. It's about interaction in the game. To be able to destroy everything around you. Smart AI, Facial animation. It's gotta feel real, not look real. I think a lot of gamers will miss this on Wii. In theory nongamer market should be bigger than the gamer market. This means Wii wins. All other gamers will stick with PS3, 360. Only the Nintendo fans 25mln wil buy a Wii + nongamers. NES SNES era was great they had longer lifes and Nintendo was owning. So all third partys were there to get most potential out of these consoles. PS1 PS2 era had a shorter lifecycle so less potential out of consoles, but still great 3rd party support. In theory NES SNES era was better. Longer life is more and better games.

RolStoppable said: Bodhesatva said: I have an honest question that I ask whenever these "graphics matter" threads come up. Do you honestly feel that the PS2 era actually saw a better group of games than, say, the SNES era? The NES era? The N64/PS1 era? Do you really feel you were actually having more fun last generation than you were, say, 10 years ago? 15? For my own sake, my answer is: absolutely not. In fact, if anything, I might say the opposite. Yes, I can honestly say that I had more fun last generation than in the three generations I was playing before. This is because the technological improvements allowed for new sub-genres in the last generation that weren't possible on weaker hardware (at least not in a form that would have been a great game). Also, I live in europe and we were getting more japanese RPG and the like than in the generation before. Developers improved their game design due to their experience from previous generations. I am not saying that the games before the 6th generation aren't fun anymore or less fun. The reason why I think the last generation was more fun than the previous ones is because their was more diversity in the game libraries than ever before, partly due to the graphical evolution. The graphics of the PS3 and 360 aren't really significant enhancing the gameplay experience, since it was already possible to have 100+ characters on screen in the last generation. The Wii instead offers new ways to control games and makes new sub-genres possible or improves existing ones, resulting in even more diversity in the game library. That's what next-gen should mean.

That's cool, Rol. I personally didn't have more fun, and I think you'll find a lot of people who agree with me. But if you prefer newer games, it can be for the reasons you stated: new sub-genres, not specifically because of garaphical improvements. 

I personally like the NES more than the GameCube. But this is mostly because I am a big 2D fan, so I guess I should buy a DS

This is a false dilemma. Gamers don't have to "miss" anything on Wii, because most people who own the graphically superior systems will also own the Wii. The lower price point of the Wii allows this. Nintendo has wriggled its way into the market in such a way that it can sell its system to the casual gamers and Nintendo fans as well as every hardcore gamer who wants a different experience once in a while.

albhum said:

The only anti-Sony campaign is the one put on by Sony itself. The PS3 doesn't need its own jeering squad; Sony's endless stream of business and PR blunders generates all the bad press they could ever use.

That being said, I don't think this is true at all:

naznatips said:

Sony still has the potential to completely turn the PS3 around. At this price point it's highly doubtful that it will see the success of its predecessors, but it could potentially pull ahead of the Wii. And with even the tiniest amount of luck, it will pass the 360. The reason for this, I think, was touched on in this post:

TalonMan said: 

My point in quoting this isn't that these people aren't buying, but that people like this exist - and they exist in droves: people who badly want a PS3, but are just waiting for Sony to give them the slightest incentive to buy one. Sure, the PS3 is behind in sales right now, but none of the new consoles has even breached the 10mil mark yet. There are still 100 million+ gamers from last generation still waiting to make their next purchase, and the vast majority of them were PS2 owners. They're comfortable with the PS controller, they're fans of the PS brandname, and they've already been sold on the Sony-exclusive (or semi-exclusive) franchises. They're all waiting, and all they need is a reason to upgrade. I'm one of these. And these intangible factors add up to a mountain more than the 360's tangible advantages.

That's why, if Sony hits us by this Christmas with MGS4, Assassin's Creed, GTA4, LittleBigPlanet, etc. (notice that they don't all have to be exclusives), and a price drop, all of this bad publicity will vanish like a bad dream. The turnaround will happen overnight. All Sony has to do is not screw it up... kind of like they've been so dismally failing to do for the last year or so. And a screwup is still definitely possible: they could stubbornly maintain the $600 price tag, they could let a major exclusive slip away (or drive one away), they could make a bunch more PR blunders... use your imagination! So far they've been doing their best to invent new ways to fail. But at some point they've got to learn, and when it happens they've got nowhere to go but up.

TalonMan said:  I've got friends that are DIE-HARD Sony fans, and even THEY have failed to commit to the PS3 at this point. These are the same guys that were standing out in the freezing cold to collect a PS2 on launch day 6 years ago - it's now 7 months since the PS3 launched, and they seem no closer to purchasing one today then they did when it came out in November. My point in quoting this isn't that these people aren't buying, but that people like this exist - and they exist in droves: people who badly want a PS3, but are just waiting for Sony to give them the slightest incentive to buy one. Sure, the PS3 is behind in sales right now, but none of the new consoles has even breached the 10mil mark yet. There are still 100 million+ gamers from last generation still waiting to make their next purchase, and the vast majority of them were PS2 owners. They're comfortable with the PS controller, they're fans of the PS brandname, and they've already been sold on the Sony-exclusive (or semi-exclusive) franchises. They're all waiting, and all they need is a reason to upgrade. I'm one of these. And these intangible factors add up to a mountain more than the 360's tangible advantages. That's why, if Sony hits us by this Christmas with MGS4, Assassin's Creed, GTA4, LittleBigPlanet, etc. (notice that they don't all have to be exclusives), and a price drop, all of this bad publicity will vanish like a bad dream. The turnaround will happen overnight. All Sony has to do is not screw it up... kind of like they've been so dismally failing to do for the last year or so. And a screwup is still definitely possible: they could stubbornly maintain the $600 price tag, they could let a major exclusive slip away (or drive one away), they could make a bunch more PR blunders... use your imagination! So far they've been doing their best to invent new ways to fail. But at some point they've got to learn, and when it happens they've got nowhere to go but up.

I agree, the problem I see is that those of my friends that is PS fans, wont pay 6000 SEK (roughly 850 USD) for a PS3. I have a hard time to see them pay 4000 SEK (a little bit less than 600 USD). This means that getting the PS2 crowd to stay untill sony can get down to 400 USD in USA is very important. This means that Sony really need to divide their development to three different arrias. The needs more hardcore games to PS2 and PS3 to keep the old hardcore PS fans untill a price drops on the PS3. The problem I see is that Sony does have strong competition, each month now xbox360 (in USA) is cementing it place as the number 1 HD-consol, and Wii as the casual number one choice.

When PS3 does it first price drop, Microsoft will follow. If Microsoft can continue to gain PS3 exclusives from 3rd parties, many PS2 owners might start looking at the alternativs before PS3 gets down to affordable levels. I don't think any of the upcoming games will sell enough consols to overcome Wii, the might pass xbox360 but I am unsure about that either.

Sonys problem is that they are for the moment losing both the hardcore gamers (to xbox360) and the casual gamers (to Wii). They need to keep PS2 alive as long as possible to get longer time to make step from last gen as long as possible.

Borkachev said: I think a lot of gamers will miss this on Wii. In theory nongamer market should be bigger than the gamer market. This means Wii wins. All other gamers will stick with PS3, 360. Only the Nintendo fans 25mln wil buy a Wii + nongamers. This is a false dilemma. Gamers don't have to "miss" anything on Wii, because most people who own the graphically superior systems will also own the Wii. The lower price point of the Wii allows this. Nintendo has wriggled its way into the market in such a way that it can sell its system to the casual gamers and Nintendo fans as well as every hardcore gamer who wants a different experience once in a while. albhum said: BUT, if the brutal anti-sony campaign that most media are feeding keeps on projecting such a powerful shadow over PS3 future and doesn't slow down, then I see PS3 following the fate of the Concorde. The only anti-Sony campaign is the one put on by Sony itself. The PS3 doesn't need its own jeering squad; Sony's endless stream of business and PR blunders generates all the bad press they could ever use. That being said, I don't think this is true at all: naznatips said: HD penetration or not, I'm almost positive that the outcome of this generation has already been determined. It will be Wii, Xbox 360, PS3. The only thing that hasn't been determined is if the PS3 will even survive the next 5 or 6 years to the end of the generation. Sony still has the potential to completely turn the PS3 around. At this price point it's highly doubtful that it will see the success of its predecessors, but it could potentially pull ahead of the Wii. And with even the tiniest amount of luck, it will pass the 360. The reason for this, I think, was touched on in this post: TalonMan said: I've got friends that are DIE-HARD Sony fans, and even THEY have failed to commit to the PS3 at this point. These are the same guys that were standing out in the freezing cold to collect a PS2 on launch day 6 years ago - it's now 7 months since the PS3 launched, and they seem no closer to purchasing one today then they did when it came out in November. My point in quoting this isn't that these people aren't buying, but that people like this exist - and they exist in droves: people who badly want a PS3, but are just waiting for Sony to give them the slightest incentive to buy one. Sure, the PS3 is behind in sales right now, but none of the new consoles has even breached the 10mil mark yet. There are still 100 million+ gamers from last generation still waiting to make their next purchase, and the vast majority of them were PS2 owners. They're comfortable with the PS controller, they're fans of the PS brandname, and they've already been sold on the Sony-exclusive (or semi-exclusive) franchises. They're all waiting, and all they need is a reason to upgrade. I'm one of these. And these intangible factors add up to a mountain more than the 360's tangible advantages. That's why, if Sony hits us by this Christmas with MGS4, Assassin's Creed, GTA4, LittleBigPlanet, etc. (notice that they don't all have to be exclusives), and a price drop, all of this bad publicity will vanish like a bad dream. The turnaround will happen overnight. All Sony has to do is not screw it up... kind of like they've been so dismally failing to do for the last year or so. And a screwup is still definitely possible: they could stubbornly maintain the $600 price tag, they could let a major exclusive slip away (or drive one away), they could make a bunch more PR blunders... use your imagination! So far they've been doing their best to invent new ways to fail. But at some point they've got to learn, and when it happens they've got nowhere to go but up.

I largely agree with this post, and I think it's both well argued and worded. I do have a few points to make, however.

While I think you're absolutely right that there are millions of Sony fans still unsure if they want to continue on the Playstation bandwagon or not, I think it's unfair to state (or imply) that the full 100 million remaining buyers would fall into this category. I would suspect a healthy portion -- at least half -- buy whatever their friends seem to be playing, whatever has the most games available, or whatever has some random non-marquee title they want (tied to simply having more games. Example: I'd bet Guitar Hero sold more PS2s than any Sony-branded franchise besides Gran Turismo). And I have evidence to support this notion: no system in history has ever mounted a turn around in the manner you're describing. Not even close. At this point in a generational cycle, the system that was selling the best ended selling the most, the system that was selling the worst ended last, and everything in between remained sandwiched. Every.Single.Time.

I'm not suggesting that it's impossible, mind you: just historically unprecedented, and therefore unlikely. The sales trends consistantly spiral up and up (or down and down), almost regardless of quality titles (if Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Mario 64 and Goldeneye couldn't save the N64, what would?)

On the other hand, one thing you did not mention was 3rd party support. Historically, the systems that go into the generation with the heaviest 3rd party support tend to do well -- in fact, they (almost?) always win. In this case, that's not happening. But I do think it provides Sony with some breathing room: it's clear that developer support is already shifting dramatically away from the Playstation 3 and towards the Wii, but it's not as if major 3rd party titles such as Final Fantasy XIII and MGS4 were simply canceled, with the millions of dollars already spent wasted. The first batch of major third party titles is still planned for the system, and this provides Sony with some extra breathing room that, historically, consoles have not had when their dominance was wavering. For example, the N64 started out with poor 3rd party support from the very beginning (for good reason, I might add).

 

Most gamers will just have 1 console. A small hardcore group will own 360 and Wii or PS3 and Wii. Or all 3 consoles. I think this group will 10% of the market. For example last generation 15mln people had 2 or more consoles. Wii is different for 360,PS3 so it will be more attractive to get a second console. That won't make a huge difference 10-15%. In this generation. You cannot compare your gamerlifestyle with the massmarket.

This is true. I'm not necessarily saying everyone who bought a PS2 last generation is a die-hard Sony fan - just that the fact that they did so makes them much more likely to buy a PS3 this generation. For instance, most of those PS2 owners might have bought in because their friends were doing it, because they wanted to play Guitar Hero, or for any of the reasons you mentioned. But once they were owners, they also probably went out and bought games like God of War and Metal Gear Solid 3 - games they might not have bought a PS2 for, but since they already had one and they'd heard good things, they snatched them up. And now Sony's got them. Not through any great brand loyalty, but simply because these people will want to follow the series they enjoy into the next generation. Honestly, Gran Turismo probably isn't any better than Forza or Project Gotham Racing, and MGS might not be better than Syphon Filter - but people are going to stick with those series anyway because they've enjoyed them first-hand. They don't have to go out on a limb and take some reviewer's word for it - they already know they're good. And that simple effect, "familiarity," is in my opinion more important to a console's success than all the innovation, pricing advantages, and good marketing in the world. Within limits, of course. There's a price people won't go beyond even for the comfort of familiarity, and I think $600 is pretty much dead on.