Slashdot Mirror
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 $60 for controller costs) to avoid damaging my wallet the same way the purchase of a Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 will, and the possibilities and promises from Nintendo somehow still keep me hoping for a bright future. But for now, the future is made up of many of the same promises and hopes I had when the N64 and GameCube were announced. I just hope I don't end up being disappointed once again."
As long as Nintendo continues the Mario, Zelda, (etc) franchises, their consoles will continue to sell with or without third party support. Fact is, their first party games are just THAT good.
"Nintendo reported that as of June 30, 2006 they have sold a total of 21.00 million Nintendo GameCube units worldwide."
"With 32.93 million Nintendo 64 units sold worldwide..."
They're not #1, but they are certainly a strong (read: profitable) second-place contender. I wonder what these flops are?
that of the big three, Microsoft seems to be in the most stable place currently. Now, I'm by no means an M$ 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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
Basilisk Digital
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?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
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.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
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.
As I understand it the processor on the Wii is made by IBM and is 800Mhz or less
4 539.html ),
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_391
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.
I loved those games! Sony really knows how to develop good ones.
Oh, wait.
I suspect the surgeon general disagrees with your comment.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
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.
-- jchenx
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.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
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!!!!
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Interesting game, professor. The only way to win is not to play.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
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.
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!?
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
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.
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...