Console Wars: 2007

[Joe Redifer]

That's the problem with the Wii. Developers will bend over backwards to give Wiimote motion sensing capability to any game they release to take advantage of the gimmick. The question is, how long will this gimmick be profitable for Nintendo? As in how long will the general public be enamored with it?

[David J.]

I don't know drixxel, right now what is the main selling point indeed?

It does play blu-ray disks, but I have no clue how much that has caught on in the public. Personally, I don't know a single person with a blu-ray player. From what I understand, these players are not cheap at all, so Sony is hoping that people will flock to the ps3 for a blu-ray, much like the DVD attracted buyers to the ps2. Will it work?

Well in Japan, DVD players where still very expensive when the PS2 came out, so that's why it worked for them. DVD was already an established movie platform, while with the PS3, Blu-ray launched around the same time as the PS3.

[Demonic Weasel]

Someone is going to have to explain to me why any of these consoles is supposed to be any good. So far we have limited evidence of games which is the most important factor of any system but the 360 has nothing much yet and almost all of it seems mundane, the PS3 has nothing yet and all of it seems mundane, the Wii has Zelda and that's it so far...

Furthermore Sony has really screwed their production of the PS3 although it is very capable technically. The 360 has done nothing but boast of pretty graphics. And the Wii is technologically behind the other two and really is a gimmicky thing that will probably have a limited selection of really good games.

[Mr Smith]

For good games all you need is a PC. I don't see any point shelling out a couple of hundred pounds when I can just buy a RAM and Processor upgrde. In 10 years time the PS3, Wii and 360 will all be obsolete.

[Joe Redifer]

So will your processor, RAM and graphics card. Possibly your sound card, too. Let's not forget you'll need a new motherboard to take advantage of the fancy new CPU that hasn't been invented yet. And a new OS.

[Mr Smith]

Well yes, but it will still be the same case and use the same cables.
I was hoping nobody would pick up that I would have to upgrade the entire computer at considerably more expense than buying a console, despite the fact it was obvious.

[Joe Redifer]

Well, you'll have to upgrade it anyway to use the next generation of Word, Excel and Powerpoint! Plus the new Blue Screen of Death is said to have 4096 shades of blue!!!

[GeckoYamori]

I think we're entering a shift of power in the industry. Microsoft have firmly established themselves in spite of all the whining in the beginning (Wasn't it exactly the same when Sony debuted?), and Sony are losing a lot of ground lately along with some bad business decisions.

Makes you wonder if it's possible to dominate the industry for more than 10 years.

[Joe Redifer]

That's a good question. In some BBC program they had on Nintendo a year or two ago, this chicky-poo interviewed Howard Lincoln, former VP of Nintendo of America and she was asking him about Sony and he was saying that Sony shouldn't get too comfortable/confident in keeping the lead. He was clearly speaking from experience.

[Mr Smith]

Plus the new Blue Screen of Death is said to have 4096 shades of blue!!!

That is the stuff nightmares are made of.

Nintendo have been the only constant in the video game industry for the past 20 years or so. Certainly they must have something going for them in order to have survived where others have faded and died. Although this by no means makes the SNES better than the Mega Drive.

[16-bit pwnage]

The two big factors that allowed Nintendo hardware survive so long are its prices and its games. Nintendo's always been about affordability, to date the Wii has been its most expensive console (a bank-breaking $250 US), all other consoles have been marketed for $200 US, and handhelds usually went for $150 (besides DS at launch). Also Nintendo has its massive array of unique and legendary franchises, and you can't get them anywhere else; Mario, Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Star Fox, Kirby, Animal Crossing, and so on. Sony and Microsoft have quality games as well, but what do they each have that's unique? Well, Microsoft has Halo, and Gears of War...and, uh, Halo? Sony did have several franchises, but as time went on some of them left and became multiplatform, notably Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon; now all they have is Gran Turismo

[j_factor]

Despite the massive hype, PS3 doesn't seem to be doing that well. I went to Fry's Electronics on Jan. 2, and they had a huge stack of PS3 systems. I went late in the day and there was tons left. I asked some clerk if they were selling well, and he said they'd sold 2 or 3 that day. I think that eventually, the ultra-low supply won't be able to cover up the ultra-low demand. 360's supply wasn't nearly as low and I never saw any in a store until late-February '06. Wii has even more supply than that and people still have to do a little research to track one down. I went to Fry's again yesterday and they still had PS3's in stock (not sure if it's the same batch), and they still didn't have Wii's in stock.

PS3, to me, has very few games to look forward to. Warhawk looks cool, Heavenly Sword might be good... then there's MGS4, Afterburner Climax, and that's about it. The high price doesn't help, but the lackluster library is the bottom line for me. Especially annoying (and weird) is the lack of first-party stuff (announced) so far -- yeah there's Warhawk, but that's all I see coming from Sony, when in the past they've put out a decent number of games. Also, who gives a shit about blu-ray movies? The only people who care at all are big-time home theater buffs, and from what I've heard, they seem to prefer HD-DVD.

360 is a little better. The library isn't as bad, the price isn't as bad. But the library and price are still not good. Also, what the fuck is up with the games being $60? PS3 games are the same but they're on blu-ray discs, which are much more expensive to produce. 360 games are on cheaply mass-produced dual-layer DVDs. Lame. Overall, the library just kind of bores me. Every game feels like a dull PS2/Xbox game with improved graphics. I enjoyed plenty of PS2/Xbox games, but 360's library is more focused on the EA/Tom Clancy/sports side of things, which I never cared for. It's like Xbox minus the games that were actually interesting. I feel that it's in need of a price drop or three, and I still don't like the core-versus-premium thing. The lack of backwards-compatibility that actually works also hurts it for me.

I own a Wii, and I'm enjoying it, but it still has a few kinks to be worked out. The SD card functionality sucks, the DS connection is conspicuously absent, the browser has been disappointing, and the virtual console leaves much to be desired (and they need to fix the whole each-game-is-its-own-channel nonsense). I also don't approve of the price of controllers and accessories, especially how everything's cheaper in Japan. It cost me $5 less to import the component cables than it would've cost on Nintendo.com, even though I bought it on an import site with high mark-up. So far, the Wii library has been pretty good, and there are lots of upcoming games I'm looking forward to. I like the controller enough that it makes me interested in games I otherwise wouldn't care about, and I think many multiplatform titles will actually benefit from it, contrary to everyone's reservations.

[Kikoskia]

It's the old rule all over again; the market just isn't big enough for three competitors. For there to be three, that means there has to be a last place. And last place of three is a very low percentage of the market, crippling almost. It crushed the Saturn and, had Nintendo not had such deep pockets when the megadrive came out, they would have been in deep trouble too.

This is a fight not to be the best, but not to be last. For he who is last suffers most and in such a highly competative market, last place is truly horrific.

[InternalPrimate]

I own a 360 and a Wii right now, and I have to say that I agree with Everything J_factor said about both systems.

[AmyDoesn'tDouche]

Several things here:

Nintendo "survives" because every piece of hardware they sell they earn money on. That means they don't need to sell a certain number of systems to get an install base to make money on videogames like Microsoft and Sony had to do with their systems. That means every console sold out of the gate equals money for Nintendo.

Also, their exclusive lineup really isn't all that it's cracked up to be. It became really important in the 64/GC era because there wasn't anything else out there, and their stalwart fans and supporters bought each and every Mario placquered game out there.

As for their "innovation": It's not really taking a risk with new technology if the games don't come with the risk. Nintendo purposefully denied Zelda an earlier Gamecube release because they wanted to guarantee early and quick sales for their new system. Unlike the PS3 and the X360, they are making money on every Wii sold.

Frankly, I don't buy the love affair with Nintendo or its products. The Wii doesn't have any truly sterling games after Zelda, which is nothing more than a gamecube game in Wii packaging.

Ultimately it comes down to software. If Nintendo can convince developers to develop for their system then they will be successful. However, as the future technologies of HDTV/Blu-Ray/PS3/X360 become cheaper and more standard, the non future proofed materials of the Wii could slowly evaporate. That's something that I forsee happening unless Nintendo re-releases the Wii with HD support and improved graphics, both stifling the development cycle and asking more monies from the pockets of Nintendites.

Let's be honest here, right now the Wiimote is just a cool diversion. The truly innovative and groundbreaking game has yet to be released for the system, and until then, I'm not going to toss around important words to companies that don't deserve them. Mario Strikers 17, anybody?