Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
Xbitlabs on Facebook
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
1.
"The problem is that the forthcoming game console of Nintendo does not only belong to the previous-generation consoles in terms of hardware capabilities, but is ideologically similar with them as well."
Not sure I agree with that comment. Any graphics card from HD4600-4800 series would be significantly faster than what's found in PS3 and Xbox360. It will have at least DX10.1 capability, more VRAM, etc. At minimum, the graphics card in Wii U will be 3-4x faster than what's found in PS3/360, even if it's just an HD4770/4850. Also, can't say with 100% certainty what the final specifications of the Wii U are going to be. Perhaps Nintendo will upgrade the specs for the final version. For example, I am pretty sure Nintendo will support more than 1 of the innovative touch-screen controllers, while initial specs only called for 1 such controller to work simulatenously.
I think Nintendo's dilemma is 3-fold:
1) Lack of strong 3rd party developer support. Outside of their 1st party games, there is no reason to own a Wii. This may or may not change with Wii U. If PS4 and 720 are much more powerful than Wii U, cross-platform games will once again be inferior on the Nintendo's platform, and that's not a good thing for someone who can only afford to own just 1 console.
2) Timing of the launch. Wii U launches first in 2012, but even if has 4-5x the GPU hardware performance advantage, the majority of developers are still going to be developing games for ancient PS3 and 360 hardware (and making COD clone sequels). That means in the next 1-2 years, Wii U won't really have much better 3rd party games. The problem is in 2-3 years when PS4/720 launch, and developers finally start investing heavily into next generation game engines, the Wii U will be the most underpowered next generation console. If Nintendo's strategy of launching first is going to be a key competitive advantage, it would need to build a strong customer base (i.e., sell 10-20+ Million Wii U consoles before PS4/720 launch). But Wii U will not cost less than PS3/360 to start with. Therefore, it won't be able to use price as a main attraction like it did with the original Wii. So can it sell 10-20 million units before PS4/720 launch based on 1st party game line-up? Probably not.
3) Competing with MS and Sony for hardcore gamers requires becoming LIKE MS and Sony -- and that's not something Nintendo wants. If Nintendo's console is just like MS's and Sony's (top of the line hardware, high price tag, competing primarily for the hardcore gamer, etc.), then can the market really sustain 3 $400-500 next generation consoles simulateously? Such a scenario implies having 3 systems that are more or less the same, except for their key franchisees. Is that what gamers really want?
With PS3 and 360, 95% of all games were multi-platform. Outside of 5-6 key franchisees (MS: Gears of War, Forza, Halo, Fable, PGR; Sony: Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted, God of War, Killzone, Resistance, Little Big Planet, Gran Turismo, etc.), the 2 consoles were pretty much identical. Sure, the fanboys might argue over minute details such as the differences in CPUs, Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, Kinect, etc. But overall, the general gaming experience on PS3 and 360 was more-or-less identical - i.e., traditional gaming model. More or less, they had similar online multiplayer capabilities, similar graphics, similar style of controls, similar sound, similar target market, similar style of games, etc.
By Nintendo doing something completely different like the Wii U controller, they are actually providing a different choice for the gaming experience (not necessarily the best choice). The whole idea behind Wii and Wii U was NOT attract the same target market as MS and Sony but to attract gamers that want a gaming experience unlike what MS and Sony offer, even it meant allienating the hardcore gamers.
I don't know if Wii U will be more successful than PS4/720 in terms of sales or $$, but having 3 consoles that are "more or less the same" (high-end hardware, online multi-player, traditional controls, more or less same style of games, etc.), only being separated by their key franchisees sounds way worse for the already predictable gaming industry that keeps turning endless sequels and doesn't care to innovate gaming.
Maybe because I am older, but I no longer care to buy 1 "best" console with the best graphics and best online gaming capabilities. If I wanted the best graphics and the best online gaming, well I have my PC for that
I am not 14 years old that I must buy "just 1 console" and proclaim it the best. Right now I'd rather have the option of buying 2 or even 3 different consoles that provide totally different gaming experiences than have 3 gaming companies compete with each other for the title of "the best all-around hardcore game console".
Frankly, I saw little point in owning the PS3 and 360 other than for their key franchisees since all the cross-platform games have better controls and graphics on the PC anyway!! At least the Wii provided a gaming experience I could not get on my PC. Similarly, the Wii U will be completely unique from PS4/720 and my PC - a good thing for us gamers. That makes the gaming market more exciting, not less.
The sad part is that the analysts/investors/shareholders would probably disagree with me since all they care about is making $$$, not about Nintendo innovating the gaming industry by evolving and offering a different gaming experience. If it was up to guys like Michael Pachter, the Call of Duty franchise would be made into Madden of first person shooters (COD 2013, 2014, 2015, etc. here we go let's make another $700+ Million dollars by selling mainstream garbage).
I think most of these analysts fail to realize that having 3 next generation consoles with similar online capabilities, all offering amazing graphics and all 3 targeting hardcore/"mature" gamers is not going to work. This is exactly why Nintendo decided to innovate with the controller as opposed to throwing a 16-core CPU and an HD7970 graphics card inside the Wii U (even if that was possible, that's not how Nintendo thinks because they are not MS or Sony). Sega already tried with Dreamcast by bringing the most technologically advanced console at the time and failed. Nintendo understands the reality of having 3 "identical/hardcore" consoles on the market with no differentiation between them other than 1st-party games and how much $$ they can throw to woo 3rd parties to become "exclusives". That's a road to financial disaster when trying to compete with MS's bank account using that strategy.
show the post
Not sure I agree with that comment. Any graphics card from HD4600-4800 series would be significantly faster than what's found in PS3 and Xbox360. It will have at least DX10.1 capability, more VRAM, etc. At minimum, the graphics card in Wii U will be 3-4x faster than what's found in PS3/360, even if it's just an HD4770/4850. Also, can't say with 100% certainty what the final specifications of the Wii U are going to be. Perhaps Nintendo will upgrade the specs for the final version. For example, I am pretty sure Nintendo will support more than 1 of the innovative touch-screen controllers, while initial specs only called for 1 such controller to work simulatenously.
I think Nintendo's dilemma is 3-fold:
1) Lack of strong 3rd party developer support. Outside of their 1st party games, there is no reason to own a Wii. This may or may not change with Wii U. If PS4 and 720 are much more powerful than Wii U, cross-platform games will once again be inferior on the Nintendo's platform, and that's not a good thing for someone who can only afford to own just 1 console.
2) Timing of the launch. Wii U launches first in 2012, but even if has 4-5x the GPU hardware performance advantage, the majority of developers are still going to be developing games for ancient PS3 and 360 hardware (and making COD clone sequels). That means in the next 1-2 years, Wii U won't really have much better 3rd party games. The problem is in 2-3 years when PS4/720 launch, and developers finally start investing heavily into next generation game engines, the Wii U will be the most underpowered next generation console. If Nintendo's strategy of launching first is going to be a key competitive advantage, it would need to build a strong customer base (i.e., sell 10-20+ Million Wii U consoles before PS4/720 launch). But Wii U will not cost less than PS3/360 to start with. Therefore, it won't be able to use price as a main attraction like it did with the original Wii. So can it sell 10-20 million units before PS4/720 launch based on 1st party game line-up? Probably not.
3) Competing with MS and Sony for hardcore gamers requires becoming LIKE MS and Sony -- and that's not something Nintendo wants. If Nintendo's console is just like MS's and Sony's (top of the line hardware, high price tag, competing primarily for the hardcore gamer, etc.), then can the market really sustain 3 $400-500 next generation consoles simulateously? Such a scenario implies having 3 systems that are more or less the same, except for their key franchisees. Is that what gamers really want?
With PS3 and 360, 95% of all games were multi-platform. Outside of 5-6 key franchisees (MS: Gears of War, Forza, Halo, Fable, PGR; Sony: Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted, God of War, Killzone, Resistance, Little Big Planet, Gran Turismo, etc.), the 2 consoles were pretty much identical. Sure, the fanboys might argue over minute details such as the differences in CPUs, Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, Kinect, etc. But overall, the general gaming experience on PS3 and 360 was more-or-less identical - i.e., traditional gaming model. More or less, they had similar online multiplayer capabilities, similar graphics, similar style of controls, similar sound, similar target market, similar style of games, etc.
By Nintendo doing something completely different like the Wii U controller, they are actually providing a different choice for the gaming experience (not necessarily the best choice). The whole idea behind Wii and Wii U was NOT attract the same target market as MS and Sony but to attract gamers that want a gaming experience unlike what MS and Sony offer, even it meant allienating the hardcore gamers.
I don't know if Wii U will be more successful than PS4/720 in terms of sales or $$, but having 3 consoles that are "more or less the same" (high-end hardware, online multi-player, traditional controls, more or less same style of games, etc.), only being separated by their key franchisees sounds way worse for the already predictable gaming industry that keeps turning endless sequels and doesn't care to innovate gaming.
Maybe because I am older, but I no longer care to buy 1 "best" console with the best graphics and best online gaming capabilities. If I wanted the best graphics and the best online gaming, well I have my PC for that
I am not 14 years old that I must buy "just 1 console" and proclaim it the best. Right now I'd rather have the option of buying 2 or even 3 different consoles that provide totally different gaming experiences than have 3 gaming companies compete with each other for the title of "the best all-around hardcore game console". Frankly, I saw little point in owning the PS3 and 360 other than for their key franchisees since all the cross-platform games have better controls and graphics on the PC anyway!! At least the Wii provided a gaming experience I could not get on my PC. Similarly, the Wii U will be completely unique from PS4/720 and my PC - a good thing for us gamers. That makes the gaming market more exciting, not less.
The sad part is that the analysts/investors/shareholders would probably disagree with me since all they care about is making $$$, not about Nintendo innovating the gaming industry by evolving and offering a different gaming experience. If it was up to guys like Michael Pachter, the Call of Duty franchise would be made into Madden of first person shooters (COD 2013, 2014, 2015, etc. here we go let's make another $700+ Million dollars by selling mainstream garbage).
I think most of these analysts fail to realize that having 3 next generation consoles with similar online capabilities, all offering amazing graphics and all 3 targeting hardcore/"mature" gamers is not going to work. This is exactly why Nintendo decided to innovate with the controller as opposed to throwing a 16-core CPU and an HD7970 graphics card inside the Wii U (even if that was possible, that's not how Nintendo thinks because they are not MS or Sony). Sega already tried with Dreamcast by bringing the most technologically advanced console at the time and failed. Nintendo understands the reality of having 3 "identical/hardcore" consoles on the market with no differentiation between them other than 1st-party games and how much $$ they can throw to woo 3rd parties to become "exclusives". That's a road to financial disaster when trying to compete with MS's bank account using that strategy.
3
8
[Posted by: BestJinjo 
| Date: 01/08/12 11:59:56 AM]
| Date: 01/08/12 03:22:40 PM]
| Date: 01/08/12 08:32:09 PM]
| Date: 01/09/12 12:31:50 PM]
