The Pressures on the Next Nintendo Console

With the launch of Nintendo's next-gen offering a little more than two months away, the importance that Nintendo is placing on this console is finally becoming apparent. Dyed-in-the-wool Nintendo loyalists and haters alike have both come to the same conclusion: if Nintendo is to stay a force in the non-portable console market, this system has to succeed. Along those lines, WhatEntertainment offers an editorial entitled Failure is not an Option. It explores the reality that Nintendo's failure would have repercussions on the industry as a whole. "Most of all I'm worried what this might do to the industry if it's a failure. In a landscape already filled with the carcasses of those that dared to try something new, and publishers more afraid than ever to try something a little different, the high-profile failure of a system that tried to put innovation and fun before graphics could be the final nail in the coffin of creativity." Meanwhile, GameInformer has a piece entitled Will Wii be Dissapointed Again? Billy Berghammer says what he doesn't want to say: the Wii could be another flop for Nintendo. From that article: "The launch price is low enough (outside of the $60 for controller costs) to avoid damaging my wallet the same way the purchase of a Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 will, and the possibilities and promises from Nintendo somehow still keep me hoping for a bright future. But for now, the future is made up of many of the same promises and hopes I had when the N64 and GameCube were announced. I just hope I don't end up being disappointed once again."

Comments

Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[ACAx1985]

As long as Nintendo continues the Mario, Zelda, (etc) franchises, their consoles will continue to sell with or without third party support. Fact is, their first party games are just THAT good.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[masklinn]

Indeed.

Plus the Nintendo war chest that dates back from the NES era (remember kids: nintendo has never EVER lost any money, even on hardware sales, even for a quarter, even during the worst of the GameCube era) is humongous, and the DS Lite prints money after all.

They can afford several more gamecube-level failures, especially since gamecube-level failures still nets them profits without even the need for first-party games.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[DorkusMasterus]

Well, I didn't read the article, but the the implication I get is not that Nintendo needs this to be a hit financially, as much as in the public opinion arena, to be a true contender in the console market in the future.

I don't think anyone in their right mind could justify saying Nintendo is going to be in trouble (as a company) if the Wii disappoints. However, it is likely that if it doesn't sell well, and people generally don't adopt it well, that Nintendo may start to be seen as "the" handheld company, and not the "video game" company it is currently. Does that make sense? I just think it's deeper than financial. Sony's not going to fail if the PS3 fails. But it's games division, SCE, will be rocky. But Nintendo, as stated, will make a profit on each unit, ensuring Nintendo isn't going anywhere soon.

But it may not be on people's radar unless they make Wii stick with gamers.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[masklinn]

Well, I didn't read the article, but the the implication I get is not that Nintendo needs this to be a hit financially, as much as in the public opinion arena, to be a true contender in the console market in the future.

Whatever happens in the west, even if the Wii utterly fails, Nintendo will always be a "true contender" on the japanese market (especially with the success of the DS, Nintendo has become omnipresent there).

Nintendo won't stop making consoles anytime soon, trust me on that one.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[Chris Burke]

The HARDWARE costs nets them a profit, they still have R&D costs though.

Right, right. So they have to do well enough to recoup their R&D cost. The reason why having a for-profit hardware console is important is that it means the very first sale of their console starts paying off that R&D cost. This is why they were able to make all their money back and them some despite the "failure" that was the Gamecube. If they had tried selling their console at a loss, like Microsoft, then they would most likely have ended up losing money overall, again like Microsoft.

Instead, they made money. And that was on what was possibly the least exciting most "me-too" Nintendo console ever.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[antifoidulus]

Actually, in 2003 they DID lose money, but that was because the dollar took an (probably expected) nosedive versus the Yen. However, after that, Nintendo has been keeping much more dollars and euro on hand to avoid another fiasco.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[joshsisk]

"On the NES, SNES and N64 Mario and Zelda games where awesome, however that time is long long ago."

There has only been one Zelda game and one Mario game since then. One game is not "long long ago".

Windwaker was good, though not quite up to the standard of the N64 games. I never played Mario Sunshine, so I can't comment on it as a follow up to Mario World (or was it called Mario 64, I forget?).

New SMB, however, was great fun! It's a retro-esque game, though, deliberately designed to be a succesor to the NES/SNES games... you can't really expect it to be a worthy follow up to Mario World/Mario 64/whatever it was called.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[Doytch]

I just think it's deeper than financial. Sony's not going to fail if the PS3 fails. But it's games division, SCE, will be rocky Huh? The only division in Sony that actually makes money is the Games division. The fact that every division in Sony is throwing their products onto the PS3 only shows that the PS3 is their only hope. Pioneer forced Sony out of plasmas pretty much by themselves, and Sharp is killing them in LCDs. Throw in the fact that the PS3 is incurring massive costs for Sony and you'll see that if the PS3 legitimately fails, Sony will be in big shit.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[hardburn]

Remember that the three companies engineering and sell their consoles on very different models. Microsoft slapped the orginal X-Box together with whatever off-the-shelf PC hardware they could get from the lowest bidders. Microsoft did a little better job at engineering the 360, but it's still off-the-shelf PC stuff, for the most part. They sell both systems at a loss, but they also have massive cash reserves to protect themselves. So Microsoft's model is low fixed cost, low manufacturing cost, sell at a loss, absorb the loss until the other players in the market are squished.

Sony is a big R&D company. They can manufacture most of the components for the PlayStation line themselves, so their manufacturing costs are low. They pour a lot into the intial R&D and, until the PS3, sold the unit at a profit. The PS1 looked like it was going to be initially sold at a loss in North America, but then RAM prices dropped, allowing them to sell at a profit by launch time. They had to recoup that big R&D loss, but as long as they sold a lot of units, they'd be OK. PS3 is something of a departure, in that it's sold at a loss and is tied to the company's overall Blue-Ray strategy. Sony can't afford for the PS3 to be flop, or even for it to just sell "pretty well". It has to be a smash hit or they'll never get their R&D cost back. So Sony's model is high fixed cost, low manufacturing cost (reletively), sell at a loss, make it up on licensing games.

Nintendo spends comparitively little on R&D. Like Microsoft, they rely on third-parties to manufacture most of the components, but those components are usually specifically developed or modified for the console. They spend a lot of time keeping the manufacturing cost down (for example, the DS doesn't have a z80 processor like the Advanced does for playing old GameBoy games, which lowers manufacturing cost without loosing too many customers). So their model is low fixed cost, low manufacturing cost, sell at a profit, rake in more cash by licensing games.

I have little doubt that Nintendo recouped their R&D cost for the GC before the $99 price drop. The system simply isn't that sophsticated. The Wii might be different, though, since it has such a wildly different controler design.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[grumbel]

Plus, I don't think icons like mario can die that easily. Maybe in a few decades, when the first-timers are all gone? Yeah, right, it also happened to bugs bunny and mickey mouse, remember? ;)

Still waiting for an all new Pixar rendered CGI Mickey Mouse motion picture... ;)

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[rjung2k]

"It has been 12 years since we had an original Mario platformer on handheld and now all we get is a retro-game?"

If you think NSMB is nothing more than the original Mario Bros. games with prettier graphics, then the only conclusion I can draw is that you didn't play it for more than five minutes. The basic action might be old-school Mario run-and-jump, but the level designs, new powerups, and depth of gameplay (try getting all the star coins if you really want to prove your platformer chops) makes it great for both casual players and "hardcore" gamers.

There are perfectly good reasons why NSMB is a record-breaking blockbuster.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[aardvarkjoe]

But, of course, at this point we really have no idea how good this new controller is going to be for playing games. If it ends up being used for a couple of gimmicky features and otherwise a standard-style controller would suffice, then I'd say that $60 is far too much.

It looks as though the Wii is going to live or die based on how well the new controller works. If it turns out to be everything the hype is claiming, then you're right and nobody will mind paying for it. But otherwise, that price is going to be a real turn-off for many people. The $30 controller prices for last-generation consoles was bad enough.

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[Breakfast Pants]

From what I played at E3, Wii Sports is just a bucket of parlor tricks. Of course I only played the tennis game, but in that tennis game you can't even control where your characters move. I thought the swinging of the wiimote would emulate a racket, but it isn't like that at all. It is like you swing it, and it presses the hit button. If you twist as you swing, it presses the drop shot button. It isn't like you twist hard and it does a more severe drop shot, it is just gesture recognition. I was completely let down with the whole experience. I hope with time more people can do better with the controller, but I'm seriously doubting it.

When everyone saw the controller they thought of sword games. From seeing how Red Steel has implemented sword play I am extremely depressed. It is about the equivalent of what you would get with a DS sword game (e.g. you literally draw gestures on the screen).

Re:Zelda, Mario, Rinse, Repeat

[SirSlud]

It is definately on the high end, which sucks. No argument here.

But I've played around with it, in house, and I'm absolutely convinced that once developers start getting creative with it, watch out.

There is a pattern emergin in many upcoming Wii games. I'm not sure if other people have noticed, but from a game design standpoint, a lot of games are focused on 'mini games'. Those familiar with the Warioware brand or the Monkey Ball brand I'm sure are aware of the term, but a startling number of games coming out for the Wii make minigames the core focus. And there is a reason. These games a comparitively low budget (development wise) exercises in order to find out what makes using the controller fun. I am pretty convinced that after the first round, or possibly second round, some game will come around that makes people smack their foreheads, going, "I never knew my favorite kind of game was more fun using this type of controller."

A lot of work has to be done on the developer side to filter input from the controller, and to tune how to interpret the results of the accelerometers and the pointing device SDKs. Once that initial round of solidifying up your in-house Wii input library happens, I'm pretty convinced we'll start to see games that make you wonder why dual analogue is the defacto standard. Everytime I've played one of the Wii projects at work under development, I've resolved that I'm not even going to risk it; the Wii is getting pre-ordered the day Futureshop starts accepting them.

Based on the surprise Splinter Cell announcement, and a few other late announcements, I think some game designers have realized that one analog and one pointer is better than two analogs.

Opinion of article....

[Aeron65432]

Another flop? Did I miss something?
"Nintendo reported that as of June 30, 2006 they have sold a total of 21.00 million Nintendo GameCube units worldwide."
"With 32.93 million Nintendo 64 units sold worldwide..."

They're not #1, but they are certainly a strong (read: profitable) second-place contender. I wonder what these flops are?

Re:Opinion of article....

[Valharick]

Typically when someone talks about a Nintendo flop they like to pull out the Virtua Boy. Pretty much the one system Nintendo had that didn't do too well. Personally, I'd rather work for a company that sold 50M units in the black than one that sold 70M in the red.

Re:Opinion of article....

[masklinn]

Nintendo was actually 3rd place worldwide on the last generation... in unit sales (Microsoft shipped 24 million xbox)

Of course, Nintendo trounced MS in Japan and got a damn huge lot of profits out of the gamecube era (hint: you're nearly the only game publisher for a 20million user base. Ohhh look, every single release gets a million sales!) while Microsoft lost $2billion in the process. But on shipped units count, they lost.

Re:Opinion of article....

[ClamIAm]

I don't think you understand... Nintendo is always on the brink of failure. Yeah, they completely own the handheld console market. True, they don't lose money on hardware like Microsoft. Oh yeah, and they've only had one unprofitable quarter in their 100+ year history. But wait! No! They're doomed! (really)

Re:Opinion of article....

[steveo777]

The OP was merely pointing out that none of Nintendo's systems have flopped... and that he did forget about the not so venerable Virtual Boy. *Sigh*

So, even though their home console sold the least, they were the clear winners of the last generation with regards to profit. And I agree with your statement about their lack of 3rd party support.

Re:Opinion of article....

[Perseid]

The PS2 was primarily just a graphical upgrade to the PS1. The controller is the same. Can you honestly claim that PS2 games play just like old PS1 games? Of course not. Innovation in games will take place on the PS3. And Nintendo's new controller does not inherently guarantee innovation any more than Sony's tilt function.

And any console shortage is temporary. 360s were so rare for a while it was laughable. Now my local walmart has them everywhere. The same will be true of the PS3. There will be a shortage at first. Then the shortage will go away.

Lastly, unless you're a temporal fugitive from the year 2008, you don't know how successful Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is going to be. Period.

Re:Opinion of article....

[justchris]

That is a nice argument, but it has one serious flaw. Aside from the 360, the 5th generation is still going.

Microsoft only reports shipped numbers, Nintendo only reports sold numbers. As of the release of the Xbox 360, Microsoft has stopped shipping original Xboxen. That shipped number will never increase. Nintendo, on the other hand, still ships the Gamecube, because the Wii has not shipped yet. They continual to outsell the original Xbox by 1000 to 1 in every region (and until March of this year, were outselling the 360 as well, but that was mainly due to production issues on Microsoft's part). By the time the Wii releases, chances are the number of GC units sold vs the number of Xbox units sold will be almost exactly the same.

huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

quote: Dyed-in-the-wool Nintendo loyalists and haters alike have both come to the same conclusion: if Nintendo is to stay a force in the non-portable console market, this system has to succeed.

Says who? Oh, someone on the internet. So it MUST be true.

Bad style! [beep! beep!]

[oc255]

"I am of course talking about the Wii (pronounced as we), which while perhaps being the strangest name ... [snip]"

Alert, alert! They call it "THE Wii" when the Nintendo Wii style guide explicitly says to call it just plain "Wii". Deploy the style sentinel drones of doom!

So the real news here is...

[DorkusMasterus]

that of the big three, Microsoft seems to be in the most stable place currently. Now, I'm by no means an M$ fanboy, but it does seem that the analysts are correct in their looking at Nintendo as needing a solid hit out of the Wii, to have a future in the console market. (They will still be fine with handheld sales alone, of course). Same thing with Sony and their PS3 (excepting the haldheld market, as the PSP is still struggling to find a foothold anywhere). PS3 will no doubt sell well to loyalists and such, but will it be enough to keep the company making as much money as they did in PS2 and game sales?

Only time will tell, but it's very interesting that this all places quite a bit on Microsoft's side, as they are going to be regarded as the "established" player in the market, come Christmastime, and with a well timed and measured price cut, they could be looking at a very good situation over there...

I personally (and here's the fanboy side) hope the Wii does well. Even if it's not all we hoped, it's still someone trying to innovate in a market crowded with sequels, little improvements from generation to generation, and I hope they are rewarded for it. I think it will do much better than say, the Dreamcast. But, overall, it's going to be an interesting year from here on out to see where the consumer speaks with their wallets...

Re:So the real news here is...

[masklinn]

that of the big three, Microsoft seems to be in the most stable place currently.

Uh... what? So basically, losing $2b on each generation of your console and not being able to get any decent foothold in japan is "a stable place" now?

God, and there I thought that earning money meant you were in a stable position. The times, they are a-changing.

Re:So the real news here is...

[rjung2k]

"The 11-17 year old male demographic all think "Microsoft is cool" primarily because of Xbox. These are the masses of tomorrow."

At least until they grow up, move out of their parents' home, get a job, get some responsibilities, get a wife and kids of their own. Then we'll see how much time they have left for Microsoft's hard-core gaming vs. Nintendo's pick-up-and-play casual nature...

Look at sales of the DS

[dividedsky319]

I don't think anyone expected the DS to be as big as it has become. The same could turn out to be true for the Wii.

Plus, BECUASE the DS has become so popular, I think that people will be a lot more willing to give the Wii a chance.

Obviously only time can tell, but I think the DS's success is very important to the Wii...

Re:Look at sales of the DS

[DorkusMasterus]

Mod Parent Up!

I also believe that DS sales are going to really help the adoption rate of the Wii. People didn't take the DS seriously at first, and now, they're flying off the shelves. I think that people are seeing that Nintendo is not just being innovative to be wierd (okay, not ALL the time, at least), but really trying to push what we consider regular gameplay to be.

Re:Look at sales of the DS

[Tremor (APi)]

I agree with that, certainly. I do think that Nintendo Wi-Fi has boosted the DS significantly, and I find it alarming that we aren't going to see any online-capable titles on Wii until 2007. The 360 is all about Live, which is doing really well for MS, even though they're really using Live as a giant profit machine. You get your 360 and your headset and hook up the ethernet cable and you're good to go. Built-in WiFi on Wii is a good move - it keeps you down to just the power and A/V cables because of the wireless controller, which makes it easier to set up, but it needs to offer that online capability ASAP, and with good quality games. I'm looking forward to Batallion Wars online on the Wii, and I'm hoping for online-capable Mario Kart, Mario Strikers, and Smash Bros. to be out in the near future as well.

I see the Wii as a huge potential success for Nintendo; they can easily get up to 2nd place behind the 360 (the PS3 being very ready to flop, IMHO), and possibly even outdo the 360 if they succeed in drawing in non-gamers. The price point will be a big help on that front, but online capabilities are important; I want to be able to buy a Wii for mom and play some Wii tennis the day she unpacks it, or encourage a friend to buy a unit so we can go head-to-head online.

With a non-online console, you go to a friend's house and play - if you buy your own, you get convenience, at the loss of the social aspect. With an online console, you've got a bigger incentive to buy your own unit, because it means you can play games with your friends from the comfort of your own sofa. When you're targeting non-gamers, you have to get them to want their own unit, not just want to casually use someone else's.

Re:Look at sales of the DS

[painQuin]

I think that people will be a lot more willing to give the Wii a chance

All we are saaaaaaaayiiiiiiiing, is give Wii a chance....

apologies to lennon.

Re:Look at sales of the DS

[Don_dumb]

I don't think anyone expected the DS to be as big as it has become. The same could turn out to be true for the Wii.

EA certainly didn't expect it, only a month ago /. posted a story about EA complaining to Sony about the failure of the PSP (and probably their wasted development).
I don't think the size of the DS' success was as much of a suprise as the fact that they were able to find a new market for consoles (if only portables). I dont think Dr Kawashima's Brain Training, has been given enough recognition for being a killer-app. The DS and more recently DS lite was the console parents brought for their kids under the child lobbying of "it will help me learn". But it would seem that the weekday morning TV & broadsheet newspaper coverage, and parents having a go that they themselves are buying DS and DS lites. The parents and previously non-games playing adults are buying the DS, (I wonder if anyone is doing a demographic study of who buys it, I reckon a much larger proportion of female owners than other systems). Part of the massive success of The Sims was that it didn't just appeal to gamers.

If Nintendo has learnt anything from this it is that with less power, less overtly violent games, they can get a part of the public that Sony & MS dont consider. Judging by the marketing here (UK) they are doing just that, using Chris Tarrant (the middle aged Who Wants To Be A Millionaire host) and more twenty something women than men (always in bright, friendly environments), advertisng during the Friends .

Like many people have pointed out Nintendo dont have to 'Win' the console battle, they dont even have to compete, MS & Sony can have the Madden & GTA playing (teenage 20-something crowd), Nintendo will have everyone else. And make profit.

Same Arguments as DS had

[MuNansen]

The same arguments that were made against the DS are being used against the Wii ("gimmicky," lesser graphics power, etc.) as that Game Informer article proves. He hardly even mentioned the DS. He also neglects to mention the Sony backlash, and the fact that we're now in a time where people are a bit tired of the graphics arms race between M$ and Sony, and would like something new. At least to a further extent than has been true for consoles in the past.

That doesn't guarantee success by any means. There's just a lot of positive angles that the author was ignoring.

Re:Same Arguments as DS had

[ArwynH]

The handheld market is a different game.

No, not really. Remember when the PSP was coming out how everyone was oo-ing and aah-ing the 'technologicaly impressive' PSP? I remember it well, mostly because I was one of the those posting replies to posts like yours, that stated Nintendo has had it and that those two screens, mic and touch screen were all gimics, especially when compared to the PSP which is 'more powerfull than the PS1'. Of course all I could say at the time was 'think of the possibilities!'. Now it's more or less a done deal and pretty much everyone accepts that the DS was a good idea. At least I haven't heard anyone call any of the DSs features a gimic in a while now.

The technology is not just unimpressive...

The controller is more impressive than two screen, a touch screen and a mic if you ask me.

...it's backwards and it doesn't have the price advantage...

Backwards? I doubt it. It's specs might not look as impressive as it's rivals, but numbers aren't what define technology. For instance, from what I hear, it's power consumption is pretty minimal. This means very little heat and smaller compact device. In those respects it's light-years ahead of it's rivals.

As for price, in Japan it's half-price of it's only rival. 250,000 compared to 600,000. I'd call that an advantage.

In the rest of the world it's cheaper than the cut-down version of the Xbox and includes a game. That is also what I'd call a price advantage. Don't forget those are release prices, I suspect the difference will grow further into the cycle.

...than the 'big boys'

Yes, the other consoles are a bit big aren't they...

The only real selling point the Wii has over the competition is Nintendo's stable of games, and look where that has got them since the N64

Looked at Nintendo's software sales recently? I'd say they've done pretty well for themselves. Considering they are one of histories most successful game makers ( and a lot of those games were post-snes), I say that thier catalog was worth quite a bit.

Re:Same Arguments as DS had

[fwarren]

I am a 40 year old programmer, been on computers since I was 15, never owned a game console, and have three kids.

My youngest is out at his friends, he has played them all, XBox 360, Xbox, PS2, Gamecube, and N64. For playability, he likes the N64 the best.

For the first time in my life, I am very tempted to put a game console under the chrismas tree. That would end up being a Wii as a family gift and a game for each of the kids.

I am sure many less tech savy folks than me will go, "Oh, I know my kid has their heart set on an XBox360, but at $400.00, I can get this $250.00 Nintendo system, buy some games for it, and still come out with an Xbox 360. I am sure the kids will like the Wii."

Re:Same Arguments as DS had

[Abcd1234]

lousy battery life (3 hours on 6 AAs), cost, size, and weight to name four.

Hah, for a second there, I thought you were talking about the PSP...

We'll know about abject failure pretty quickly

[Jerf]

I think we'll know whether it's an abject failure pretty quickly, and it's probably not even worth worrying about this close to release.

Just wait for the reviews about two weeks after the Wii has been released to the reviewers, after the novelty has had time to wear off and there's a better sense of whether the games are actually fun, or if the controller is just a useless gimmick.

Right now, probably nobody really knows. The game devs and their testers are too close to the game to know whether it is any actual fun, and almost all of our reviewers have at most a few hours experience, all in the same day.

I think we'll only know it's an abject failure if the controller simply becomes tiresome, or hard to use, or to sum it up "no fun" with real use.

Otherwise, I'd expect the first Wii generation to look like the first DS generation, for the same basic reasons, and again for the same reasons, if you tried to determine the success of the DS based on that first generation you'd have been way off.

Anyhow, of all the times to be worrying about whether the Wii is going to fail, this is really the silliest, when we're this close to release. Just wait and see.

Re:We'll know about abject failure pretty quickly

[cowscows]

A few weeks won't really be enough time to tell, because Nintendo won't be able to ship out the systems fast enough in that time frame. Every console launch is like that (except the xbox in Japan).

The DS sold well at launch and was hard to find, even though there weren't that many great games available for it for a while. It was only months later, when better games started coming out, that the system really gained momentum. And then the DS lite made things even crazier.

The Wii might be a smash hit right out of the gate, beyond all the fanboys picking it up. But I wouldn't be surprised if in general it starts out a little slow, but then ramps up as more interesting games get released. Especially if Nintendo is really going after the non-gamer market. They aren't going to buy a system based on hype, but eventually they'll see something at a Wii kiosk at Target that will catch their eye, and maybe try it and enjoy it enough to purchase one.

Doom and gloom

[urbanradar]

It seems to me that TFA is just trying to cash in on the current Wii frenzy. It's the old trick: Write something controversial, watch it get slashdotted before long, and watch the ad revenue flow in.

Personally, I'm unconvinced. IMHO, the Gamecube failed due to two points. It was underpowered compared to the XBox and the PS2, but yet didn't have enough innovative features to really differentiate itself from the competition. And, secondly, there weren't all that many games for it. The N64, too, suffered from this.

With the Wii, Nintendo has already taken care of those points upfront. Not only are we going to have tons of classic games from older consoles, a lot of vendors have also already pledged support for the Wii.
And as for being underpowered, well, yes, the Wii isn't as powerful as the XBox360 and the PS3, but the sheer freshness of its gameplay and its innovative games should more than make up for it. Especially since the Wii is being marketed as the "console for everyone". If Nintendo's strategy works, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise have bought a console will buy a Wii, and they won't care about sheer raw power. And neither will Nintendo fanboys.

So I don't see why the Wii should suffer from the same problems as the N64 and the Gamecube.

Failure

[MBCook]

I agree it would be a terrible thing for the industry if the console were to fail, but it would be OK with me.

I had an N64 and it was my favorite console of that generation by far. Some people say it "failed" because it didn't put The Big N back on top. I really enjoyed the thing, and I'm glad I bought it.

I have a 'Cube and many people say it failed (or is close). I've bought FAR more games for the 'cube than my XBox and PS2. It was a great little system. I don't regret buying it at all.

If the Wii fails, so what. I can afford to lose $250 on a console that that will only have a bunch of great games during it's life (Marios, Zeldas, Pikmins, Smash Brothers, etc.). That's OK with me. It will be sad, but I'll still love the games.

Let's not forget that even if Nintendo's grand experiment fails (the controller) everyone could always use the "classic" controller for the rest of the console's life-span (not unlike the NES Zapper was basically forgotten about). The Wiimote can still be used for fun with light-gun games (and is worth it for me for that fact alone).

The PS3 is $600. I'm not buying that until I'm dead sure there are tons of games I want for it. Even with the price drop that will have to happen by the time I buy it.

The 360 is $400. It's not as worrying as the PS3 but that's still a fair amount of money.

The Wii is $250, and worse case scenerio I can use it as a replacement 'Cube and have a few new fun games.

The Wii may "fail" because it doesn't take over the industry or ends up in 3rd place, but I bet I'll still love it anyway.

All that said, who do we think... objectivly... is the most likely to fail? The cheap one with the "gimmick", the expensive one that is more of the same, or the obscenely expensive one that currently seems like more of the same?

$60 unreasonable price for controller?

[LoverOfJoy]

I keep seeing these jabs on the price of the Nintendo controller (both parts). I can understand the disappointment. After the prices for x360 and ps3 people are looking to Nintendo as cheap affordable fun. Add on to that, Nintendo is well-known for making great party games and seem in a position to continue that so multiple controllers for a nintendo system seems a given. Given all that, is anybody seriously surprised by the price of the controllers? Sure, they probably could have taken a loss or a smaller profit by pricing the pair for $50 (35 and 15?) but is that typically the place to have lower profit margins? You're going to pay $50 for a wireless x360 controller and likely at least that much for a ps3 one. Why would anyone expect to see less for a two component wireless controller that probably has more state of the art technology in it? I wish they released a wii bundle with an extra controller rather than a game but I can see why they went the other way. To me, this is just further evidence that they will be successful. Financially, they'll make money. And because the wii is so much cheaper to develop for, they don't even need to have a HUGE install base for developers to continue giving support. Developers don't need to sell as many to make all their money back and then some. Finally, if the games are frequently $10 cheaper it won't take long before you've saved enough from the games to pay for the $10 more expensive controllers.

Re:It costs a Wii bit too much

[GreatDrok]

This is a console with about the same horsepower as the original XBOX (technology circa 2002) with a new age powerglove for a controller, all selling at a premium price. This thing will be a museum piece long before it reaches the traditional console end-of-life cycle. It's just not worth it.

I don't know how you figure that out. Unlike the Xbox versus Xbox 360 you can directly compare the performance/power of the Wii against the Game Cube. The GC was only barely less powerful than the Xbox and certainly more powerful than the PS2. The Wii is pretty much a GC with 3x the clock speed on both CPU and graphics while being fully backwards compatible so it will be able to perfectly play GC games many of which are very good so there is a large library of available games to buy and be reissued.

No-one is going to argue that the raw compute power of the Wii is pretty far behind the 360 and PS3 but it really doesn't matter if none of the games really do much new. The 360 and PS3 are nothing but the evolution of the NES, nothing new, just more power. Nintendo defined the current controller structure and the Wii redefines it.

Judging by the number of people queuing up to pre-order the Wii this last weekend I think it is going to be very successful.

Re: PS2 was Weakest...

[trdrstv]

It was underpowered compared to the XBox and the PS2,

Incorrect. The PS2 was the least powerful contender this time around (after the Dreamcast dropped out fo course) The only thing the GC didn't have hardware wise over the PS2 was disk capacity, since they went with mini DVDs, and not DVD9's. For a good comparison of capable graphics, play RE4 for each.

I don't understand the 'Graphics Arms Race' much as The PS2 was technically inferior to both the GC, and X-box yet the PS2 had the largest user base. The PS1 was inferior to the N64 (except for disk / cartrige capacity) yet the PS1 sold more. The DS is weaker than the PSP, yet is sells more. The Gameboy was weaker than all competitors, but crushed the competition.

Clearly 'power' =/= greater sales. There is more to it than that.

Re:It costs a Wii bit too much

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it the processor on the Wii is made by IBM and is 800Mhz or less

Actually, all we know about the Wii's GPU (code name Hollywood) and CPU (code name broadway) is that they're custom built processors manufactured using a 90nm SOI CMOS process; the process is the same process which was used on the PowePC 970 processors (the G5) which came in single and dual core configurations and ran between 1.5GHz and 2.5GHz. We have heard from ATI that the graphics demonstrated at E3 were just "The tip of the iceburg".

Recently, in an interview with UBIsoft about RedSteel, it was reported that UBIsoft did not recieve Wii hardware until 2 months before E3 and they did not have time to complete the artistic upgrades before the demo had to be ready for testing (most developers require 4-6 weeks of testing a demo prior to E3); this meant that the E3 demo was more representative of what was running on Gamecube hardware than what the Wii can do. Now, I'm not arguing that the Wii is a technological marvel but it is not incapable of adequate graphics ( http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/img_3914 539.html ),

The one thing I will say about your "under 800MHz remark" is that I know for a fact that EBgames was publishing the fake IGN specs and received a nice visit from Nintendo's laywer; now they publish the same specs Nintendo does. Matt from IGN was either lying or believed a lie.

Re:Oh noes, the sky is falling!

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved those games! Sony really knows how to develop good ones.

Oh, wait.

Failure of Nintendo predicted for over a decade.

[Maul]

The failure of Nintendo has been incorrectly predicted by game magazines and other "journalists" for well over a decade... more like 15 years now that I think about it. It always is supposedly right around the corner. It started in the 90s when Nintendo was late to the North American 16-bit market and hasn't let up since.

Nintendo is still around making consoles after all this time. Maybe because they know how to make a profit without having to necessarily be the top-seller.

Re:It costs a Wii bit too much

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gamecube had a 485Mhz PowerPC processor and the Wii will supposedly have one about 800Mhz or less. How is that tripling the power?

So the 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 MP that was (said to be) about as powerful as the Pentum 4 3GHz was only 1.5 times as powerful as my Pentium 3 1GHz? What about the Pentium 4 Duo, since it runs at the same speeds that Pentium 4s ran at in 2002 it is no more powerful than that?

The fact is that modern CPU cores are getting 4 or 5 times the performance per cycle that they got on older cores; the 2.5 GHz G3 cores (the same core that was in the Gamecube) that are in the XBox 360 and PS3 are probably not as powerful as a PowerPC 970MP running at 2.5GHz.

Also, do you have a source of that less than 800MHz remark (one that goes to either a developer with a Wii dev kit or to Nintendo themselves)? No, all you have is a rumor that was posted on IGN by an editor who openly says he "Hates Nintendo" and has spent the past 5 years bitching about how he wants to be the editor for the XBox channel; a nice "unbiased" source.

It's funny that Nintendo has declared a monopoly on innovation. Why? Cause you can download games and play online? Cause they have a controller that responds to motion? These things have been done before and they aren't going to change things. It will be fun for a game for most and won't have longevity. It's a gimmick.

Do you know what the #1 selling videogame systems were in holiday season 2004 and 2005 were? If you said PS2, PSP or Nintendo DS you'd be very wrong. The best selling game systems were the atari-classic 25 in one game systems that were sold at toy stores. Do you know why they sold so well? Because gamers who grew up with the Atari and NES are having children and wish to share these games with their children, and at the same time children under the age of 12 can not play modern games very well. The virtual console will be huge to tons of people simply because they know the games and want to play them again.

The Wiimote may be similar to motion controllers, light guns and other input devices that have been tried in the past; but none of these previous attempts had been made by one of the largest game publishers in the world, who is currently riding the success of another platform that was dismissed as a gimick, who has billions of dollars to ensure that it won't flop.

Re:It costs a Wii bit too much

[jizziknight]

The Gamecube had a 485Mhz PowerPC processor and the Wii will supposedly have one about 800Mhz or less. How is that tripling the power?

Clock speed isn't everything. You need to turn in your nerd card. Also, where are people getting this 800MHz BS from anyway? Unless something changed very recently, Nintendo hasn't released the final specs other than that the chips are made using a 90nm process.

Re:the controller has me worried

[pembo13]

I suspect the surgeon general disagrees with your comment.

Enormous pressure due to fanboi hype

[jchenx]

IMHO, one of Nintendo's biggest pressures (and arguably their largest problem too), will be the hype generated by all the Nintendo fanbois. They are hyping the Wii as if it's the biggest thing EVER for gaming. All you need to do is read the buzz being generated here and on all sorts of gaming forums. There's a lot of "Nintendo can do no wrong" sentiment, which is very, very dangerous.

I want the Wii to succeed, but I don't like to be told by fanbois that it will (or "wii-ll") succeed, without them or myself even having tried out the console ourselves. I still have a lot of doubts, such as how sensitive the control will be, whether or not I'll get tired after a period of time, how long it takes me to adjust to, and more importantly, just how much "more fun" Wii games are, versus titles on other platforms.

I think it's healthy to be skeptical, but it seems like everyone brings up these valid points, a Nintendo fanboi shoots them down, saying that it's not going to be a problem, bashing all the other consoles, and claiming that Nintendo games have a monopoly on fun games. Puh-lease! This is starting a very dangerous precedent.

Don't get me wrong, I like what Nintendo is doing with the Wii, and I will get one this year. But you Nintendo fanbois need to back down a bit and let people have their doubts. Like or not, we're all going to get the real story once the dang thing ships.

single controller is a mistake

[Lord Bitman]

They include gimicky sports games which nobody would ever want to play except to try out the new controller, but only include one controller so you can't even do that decently. For $250, you get a bill for $60, which you can either use to buy a decent single-player game (meaning the bundled game was an interesting waste of plastic), or buy a second controller.

Wi + $60 = Wii

[rAiNsT0rm]

Let me begin by saying I used to be a Sony playtester and a reviewer, I also was running a Revolution/Wii website until a week ago. I went from excitement and enthusiasm in the Wii, not fanatical fanboi stuff - just happy that at least one company "got it," to pretty much not caring at all. A normally priced console that offered a fun experience accessible to everyone and doesn't engulf my entertainment system with its presence. Or so I thought.

As more and more details appeared, my excitement level dropped rapidly. I'm a jaded reviewer so my excitement level generally peaks at a 3 or 4, and the Wii had me at a 5 or a 6 which is pretty rare. Then to find the console will be $249 (and Nintendo then has the nerve to hype the fact that they are making profit on each Wii) and come with just one controller. Wi + $60 = Wii. Bringing the total to $310. Then for families and those who bought into the four player experience hype, we have $430.

The launch lineup isn't spectacular, and the control of Zelda and Red Steel have both been constant issues and received multiple redesigns *after* the games were well on their way to completion... not a good thing, especially when a 1st-party title can't get it right. In addition the sensor bar is small but still a drag.

Nintendo is resting way too much on the success of the DS and I think they may be in for a surprise. There haven't been any great DS releases in some time, with many of the top rated games being launch titles or pretty close to it. I think the Wii will sell out of its stock for Christmas and the next couple shipments but I think it will then taper off. Mario Galaxy doesn't do it for me personally and while it will help pick up sales down the road there isn't a whole lot on the radar still.

I still hope it does well because I think Sony and MS need to learn a bit of a lesson and bring gaming back around from a pure money-making venture into a *fun* and diverse money-making venture, instead of the next gangsta-simulator, racing, FPS now with 20% more polygons!!!!

Re:Wi + $60 = Wii

[rAiNsT0rm]

Well you seem to know it all, but the truth is that I was *SENT* a Nintendo press release that was an entire page hyping the fact that they were making a profit. So sorry to burst you all-knowing bubble, but to me that is B.S.

Microsoft did some big backpedaling before its launch too and they got beat down for it, Nintendo is not immune to it either. No matter how much you like a company, their product, or their decisions, they are not infallable. They can make mistakes and bad decisions. IMO they have here. Two controllers, even if it meant losing the speaker, packed in with a game at $250 would have still been profitable... and in fact was exactly what I *personally* discussed with a Nintendo retail specialist MONTHS before any prices or speakers had been talked about.

I have played Zelda. The control was awful, it has indeed had constant issues and is like a pair of jeans with 10 different colored patches on them at this point. Can it still be good? Sure! Was it a smooth development that embodied the new console and control scheme? Nope, not even close. The control has been a nightmare and has seen countless revisions, that is never a good sign in game development... especially a AAA 1st-party title. Wake up.

Name two other solid games on the radar for the Wii set to release about the same time as Galaxy. I'll wait. Intial sales will be good, taper off, Mario will release, sales will pick up, sales will taper off, rinse repeat. That is how every console has gone for ever. All I'm saying is that Nintendo has the ability to finally end this cyclical nature and it would be very beneficial to the game industry and for gamers... but what do I know? I've only been there. Do you want games to be like Hollywood? Summers filled with junk games, huge gaps for the run up to Christmas, etc. Step outside your world and maybe try to see a bigger picture, or *gasp* try to understand where someone else is coming from.

I can afford the thing if it was $600, I could afford it even at substantially more... it seems you can as well... that's great give yourself a round of applause, now realize that to the average family of four this will be a major outlay of cash, much more than it needed to be. To them it was never a question of 360 vs. PS3 vs. Wii. The Wii is basically their only choice and they aren't comparing it to anything but their pocketbooks. Mass appeal comes with lower prices. The games are expensive, the console is moderately priced (a bit high for what it is though), the controllers are expensive. This is not how you win mass appeal. The DS is $129 and games are $29.99 that is in the realm of mass appeal, $400 and $50 games is not.

I am no troll, nor am I flamebaiting, I am someone who has a good bit of insight to this industry and is not happy with how this shook out compared to what I have personally heard and been told in the months leading up to this point. I never *expected* anything.

Anyone else think of War Games?

[blueZ3]

But rather than compete with them head-on in what can only be described as a graphical arms race, Nintendo are going to win the war by not taking part

Interesting game, professor. The only way to win is not to play.

The real winner for this generation is...

[NinjaFarmer]

IBM. IBM won this generation hands down. They managed to convince not one, but three major companies to bankroll their R&D for brand new top of the line chipsets. So, here is the story as I've managed to put together so far:

IBM: Alright, we seem to be falling a little behind on our high end chipsets, and we need to develop something new and spazzy. Hm... phone rings

Sony: Hey IBM! Were starting to develop a new console and were interested in developing a new chipset for it.

IBM: I know JUST what you need. You want the biggest baddest most powerful chip ever created. You want more power, speed, and flexibility than anything seen before. I'm telling you, 8 cores! Eight!

Sony: Power hm.... I don't..

IBM: cutting in This will be the fastest chip in the world! Your box will be more powerful than a supercomputer! How can you say no to that!

Sony: Hm... Ok were sold. We'll send our guys over to work out the details hangs up

IBM: Alright! That problem solved (idiots). Hm... Maybe Microsoft will be interested in something similar. Calls MicrosoftYo Bill!

Microsoft: Hey wazzup!

IBM: Well... I'm not supposed to tell you this but... let me let you in on a little secret about what Sony is up to...

A minute later
Microsoft: Hm... it sounds a little expensive, but we've gotta match them in power. Hm... maybe if we got our system out waay ahead of them.... How about we help develop an earlier version of your super processor, and we'll say that you really don't need a supercomputer to run games. That works. Alright deal.

IBM: Alright! I'll talk to ya later! Hangs up

IBM: I wonder what my pool would look like full of Benjamins. Man I can't believe those dupes agreed to bankroll our superchip. Now... it seems like our high end embedded processor could use a boost. Now what idiot will pay for the fastest and most energy efficient chip ever created.... Well now those guys at Nintendo might actually do it. Yea... They'll jump right on it, just as soon as they see the cost estimate for Sony and Microsoft... hehe.

IBM dials the phone
IBM: Yo Shiggy! Have I got a deal for you! I'm not really supposed to tell you this but... Sony and Microsoft are in the works to develop the most powerful chip ever created. Why don't you take a look at the materials here... emails Nintendo a set of documents. The cost estimates is very prominantly displayed throughout the documents

Nintendo: Hm... That's pretty impressive. But I don't think we can do that. It is awefully expensive....

IBM: That's no problem! In fact, I had something else in mind for you! Here let me send it over. This set of emails contains documentation on a chipset based on previous technology, but still very advanced. The word 'savings' can be seen repeatedly throughout the documentation

Nintendo: Wow! This is just what we wanted! Its perfect! Those fools at Sony will never know what hit them (hehe what a waste of money). Hangs up

IBM: Hehe... heh... dials on the phone Hey Bob and Sons construction? Yea hey! Yea the pool is awesome. In fact, that's why I called... No no, nothing's wrong with it, in fact... I want to expand it. Yea... Olimpic sized doable? Great.

Over Reacting

[TheZorch]

Where has this guy been? Nintendo isn't in any serious financial crisis. If any game company is in serious trouble its Sony. The Gamecube wasn't a failure nor was it a money looser for Nintendo. They had their niche market and it made them money, and the DS is outselling the PSP by the truckloads. Also, the Wii was cheaper to manufacture than both the XBox 360 and PS3.

No, Nintendo is nowhere near being in dire straits. What planet are you from!?

Oblig. Sony complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey there. It's me, the guy that fixes stuff at your local technology store here, to talk to you about why you shouldn't buy a Sony anything any time soon.

From the designs of their products, you can see that Sony has no interest whatsoever in making products that last beyond the warranty period. Their laptops have no latch securing the screen to the lapboard of the computer. When you put a Vaio in its sales floor box, with the hinge down, it literally falls open and cannot be closed. (I've even seen the new Blu-Ray equipped Vaios do this.) All the holding power that's supposed to keep the screen and the computer together when closed is in the hinge. Bad design.

Even better, Vaio laptops have the thinnest screen enclosures on the market. The enclosure has no ridge on the outer edge (like the ones you see on most other laptops, Apples and HPs to start) that redirects pressure to the outside of the enclosure and protects the screen. Instead, all the pressure goes directly on the screen. Maybe this is why all Vaios come back from repair with a note saying, "Your Vaio is designed for maximum durability. However, please refrain from putting pressure on the screen enclosure."

Sony cameras are probably worse. From their Handycams, that look and operate like relics from the late 90s but retail at futuristic prices, to their CyberShot cameras with touch screens on the back. One model has nothing but a power button and shutter on top and a touch screen covering the entire back of the camera, which controls everything else. It makes me wonder if Sony has an entire department dedicated to Putting Large LCDS on Things That Go In Pockets. Oh yes, and the batteries are proprietary, too.

Sony isn't doing too badly in audio equipment--their stuff seems to be on par with everyone elses. And their optical drives are decent but you wont see one in any non-Sony OEM machines. Not to mention their drives are more expensive.

For almost every technology thing you can name, Sony makes a souped-up, talked-up, marked-up version of their own. 99% of the time, it's just not worth the extra money.

Re: PS2 was Weakest...

[CronoCloud]

Overall the GC is more powerful than the PS2 but the PS2 does have the advantage in certain categories, particle effects for example. That's one thing the PS2 is VERY good at.

But why the PS2 "won"? Games, lots of games, lots of diverse games, lots of high quality games, games for final fantasy fans, games for RPG fans who don't like final fantasy, FPS, TPS, online games, MMORPGS, action RPG's, diablo clones up the wazoo, niche games, board games, games that you can make games with. more character based platformers than the GC by far., sports games, wrestling games, racing games, you name it the PS2 has it.

Not selling at a loss != profit

[traindirector]

But Nintendo, as stated, will make a profit on each unit

This is a misconception. Just because the console isn't sold at a loss doesn't mean that Nintendo will "make a profit" on each unit.

Sure, each unit sold makes a positive contribution to the financials of the Wii project, but in order to determine whether Nintendo makes a profit on the console, you must factor in R&D, marketing, and a number of other support expenses. The amount of money that Nintendo brings in on each console (and accessories and licenses, etc.) must offset a certain fixed cost of overhead in order for the operation to be profitable. You can calculate this as an additional cost added to each console that scales with the number of consoles sold.

Consider this situation: Nintendo sells a total of 10 Wiis. Assuming the unit costs $249 and the unit costs $189 to manufacture (I just made that number up), they bring in $60. $60 x 10 = $600. But R&D + other costs were somewhere in the millions. If R&D, etc. total $10 million (again, just making numbers up), and only 10 are sold, the true cost of each unit is $1,000,189. Nintendo would make profit on no consoles, even though they weren't selling them at a loss.

Of course, it's a lot easier to cover those initial expenses and start making a profit when you're actually bringing in money with each sale...

Re:It costs a Wii bit too much

[boss nonnu]

The really key thing for Nintendo is how they handle their third party publishers. Nintendo are the evilest of them all when it comes to the business side of things. They'll crunch everybody's margin (except their own) as hard as they can and play hard politics with release schedules, distribution deals and manufacturing lead times. In terms of support, they'll do the barest minimum - even if they're distributing your product. These are the main reasons why they lost a lot of key third party support on the N64 and GC. With Wii, Nintendo have already begun to project a strong, third-party-friendly image - much fuss has been made of Ubisoft's Red Steel, for example. However, the back-end stuff is *probably* as brutal for Wii as it was for the GC and N64. As an example, my client are producing a DS title that needs a bigger save chip than normal. This has pushed the production lead time from a fortnight to nine weeks, because the carts now have to be manufactured in Asia instead of Europe. This also adds additional shipping costs which, of course, my client pays for rather than Nintendo. These days, the GBA is even worth touching unless you can guarantee a top 10 place. The margins in place are so tight that it's really not worth the investment. Because of this, there's hundreds of great Japanese titles that'll never get localised for a larger, appreciative audience. It's a real crime against gaming - especially for a format that should be dirt cheap to publish on by now! Nintendo are so rich that they don't care who can or cannot afford their practices and demands and, more crucially, honestly believe that they don't need anyone who isn't prepared to play by their dictatorial rules. This might well be their undoing and the Wii will end up like the DS - home to a small collection of great first-party titles, but very few third party notables. Not to mention the RSI and injury claims, but that's another matter!