EA - Wii Caught Us By Surprise

A Next Generation story details comments by EA's CEO John Riccitiello about the surprise hit that is the Wii. The exec as much as admitted that they 'bet on the wrong horse' by focusing on the PS3 and 360 during the console transistion, and now are turning the mighty corporate ship as fast as they can to stay with Nintendo's success. "Nevertheless, Riccetello said that EA had the second-largest market share on Wii as of March with 19 percent, thanks mainly to Tiger Woods PGA Tour. Only Nintendo had a larger share. The firm shipped six new Wii titles in fiscal 2007. EA also shipped eight titles on Nintendo DS. The emergence of online, wireless and geographical differences in the console realm also made things complicated in fiscal '07."

Comments

Bad joke

[east coast]

The Wii caught them so off gaurd that they nearly pissed themselves.

Thankyou, thankyou, I'll be here all week.

Re:Bad joke

[dintech]

EA have matured as a company. We know that with age you've always got to consider Wii well in advance. You certainly don't want to be caught short. Looking round EA's forthcoming lineup I definitely see a lot of Wii coming soon.

Re:Bad joke

[illegalcortex]

Nintendo's Wii caught them with their pants down.

Re:Bad joke

[Khuffie]

It took me a while to get that...I think my brain has become numbed to the wii Wii jokes...

Oblig. Reply

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats what she said!

Good Thing?

[Odin_Tiger]

In a way, this could be a really good thing for Wii that EA missed the boat to a degree. Without the EA juggernaut from day 1, it may have left enough room for younger, more innovative companies to get a solid foot in the door. That little moment of bad judgment may well reverberate through the lifespan of the console, and I can't say I expect it to be in a bad way.

(...oh, and...first?)

Re:Good Thing?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

So we're getting indy mini-games instead of EA mini-games? I must be missing your point. No third party developers have come out with a must-have title (or even a title worth renting).

Re:Good Thing?

[bym051d]

It gave them the opportunity, but few have stepped up. There's a decent amount of Wii software now, but the very large majority is pure crap. Most companies just threw out as much crap as possible hoping it would stick. I bought a Wii in February and have purchased two games. There's one more I want, but I'm playing through the VC original (Paper Mario).

Re:Good Thing?

[eison]

No such luck. Unfortunately, all the other companies missed the boat too. It seems only Nintendo believed the platform would do well.

Re:Good Thing?

[Aladrin]

His point is that Indie developers may have felt there was enough space to produce a game, where they melt have felt the market was too crowded if EA had come on with a huge showing initially. The Indie games will already be in development now, if they're going to be, and EA's late announcement of support won't stop most of them.

I dunno how RIGHT he is, but that's what he meant.

Re:Good Thing?

[MBGMorden]

I don't think smaller, innovative companies really compete head-on with EA. I know that there's some other stuff here and there, but isn't EA basically a sports game company? (It's all I've ever seen them make. Personally the only EA games I own are the SSX series). While I'll not dispute the popularity of sports games (hell I even used to like them myself back in the days of "Double Dribble" and "Super Tecmo Bowl" :)), it seems like for the most part, people who buy those types of games are gonna keep buying them because that's what they play. Almost everything innovative is happening in different genres.

Re:Good Thing?

[PFI_Optix]

EA makes the Command & Conquer games since they bought Westwood.

Well, not so much "makes them" as "ruins the oldest RTS franchise in gaming by releasing crap products and dropping any level of support--including patches--while the game is stolen broken and wrought with bugs and exploits."

Re:Good Thing?

[Twixter]

Well, if EA had been there since day one, maybe they would have missed the importance of the controller and have developed games without taking that into account. Now they have the chance to develop for the platform with some hindsight.

Re:Good Thing?

[donaldm]

You left out the "IMHO" but I think you got modded unfairly. However from my personal perspective the only games I like on the Wii are Zelda and later on "Metroid" which to me is not a great incentive to buy the console considering we have to pay AU$399 (US$342) in Australia and most games are in the AU$99 (US$85) mark and will stay that price while PS3 and Xbox360 games actually drop by 30% to 50% after 3 to 4 months. I am quite sure the people in Europe and the UK would agree with me on this.

I can't remember when I last purchased and EA game since I am not into sporting games and I do have quite a lot of PS1 and PS2 games as well as 10 Gamecube games and none of them are made by EA. Still if people like EA games that is their prerogative.

Re:Good Thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

EA has made/published many games that weren't sports titles:

The majority of the James Bond games
The Lord Of The Rings games
Battlefield 1942/2/2142
Need For Speed series
Burnout series
The Godfather
Superman Returns
Black

Re:Good Thing?

[Nazlfrag]

Well they have an unusual definition of missing the boat, seeing as they are the second largest players in the Wii market, second only to Nintendo themselves. Hopefully you're right though.

Re:Good Thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

We know what he meant, but he obviously hasn't see the Wii library. His assumption is wrong.

Surely it did

[ceeam]

Just proves how far detached big game companies are from their userbase and how little do they understand entertainment.

Re:Surely it did

[Lockejaw]

EA -- releases the same games year after year, with some updates
Wii -- completely new control system, so something of a new way to game

Yeah, sounds like EA is a bit of a mismatch, eh?

Re:Surely it did

[falcon5768]

no no they are very attached to their userbase. What the Wii did though was expand that. The game execs where too busy selling to the hardcore that they forgot there are millions of other people who are NOT hardcore, and who only pick up a game here or there because their tastes are not for Dead or Alive boobie soccer, Final Fantasy XVI "The search for shemales", or Metal Gear Solid Geriatric.

these are the katamari people, the same types who buy Luxor on their computers. Nintendo through their superior thrashing of the handheld market saw this nitch, and latched onto it. The people who still bought those other systems are still there, but Nintendo brought in a whole new crew to the party.

Basically they did to the industry what they did to jumpstart it back up in the 80's

Re:Surely it did

[gstoddart]

Just proves how far detached big game companies are from their userbase and how little do they understand entertainment.

Well, the thing about new and disruptive technologies, is nobody really sees them coming.

For years, they've been on the march of "better graphics, more of the same kind of game play" that they haven't been able to look outside of that scope and foresee the effects of the Wii.

All of a sudden someone comes along, says "graphics aren't the whole point, and, hey, look at this new controller". The rules change. A lot of people who weren't into games (or losing interest, or whatever) stand up and decide that is exactly what they've been looking for, and where do I get one. It's only once it's become wildly popular and something you can't ignore, that you have to re-evaluate what you thought.

In fairness, I don't think anyone saw the Wii coming or could have planned on the fact that simpler game play, with less intense graphics, that actually involved moving around would have captivated so many people. You're probably right to an extent, but from their position, EA would have looked at the Wii and said "Well, I don't see that being a big deal". Now they're finding out they were horribly wrong.

Me, I still can't get over how much fun the Wii Sports which came with my Wii is -- I mean, bowling of all things? Who knew? These are exactly the kind of games I've wanted -- only I didn't know it, I just knew I couldn't play/stand most games anymore.

Cheers

Re:Surely it did

[dctoastman]

No offense, but I saw the Wii coming. I underestimated the speed at which it caught on, but I knew that it would be the best console to own this generation.

That's because I started to realize that Nintendo knows what people want better than the people themselves.
Everyone bitched about the Wind Waker. Wind Waker comes out to stellar reviews and praise.
Everyone called the DS a gimmick. Now it is dominating the field.
When I saw the Wii, I wasn't going to doubt Nintendo's direction.

Re:Surely it did

[gstoddart]

No offense, but I saw the Wii coming. I underestimated the speed at which it caught on, but I knew that it would be the best console to own this generation.

You saw it coming before launch? Or you saw it for what it was once it was there to be seen? The latter isn't so tough, because half of the media was covering it like crazy and saying the exact same thing.

When it launched, I (and a whole bunch of other people) went "hmmm ... now that sounds fun". I certainly agree that Nintendo is doing an amazing job of identifying untapped markets. It's certainly the first real change in paradigm we've seen in gaming for quite a while.

I'm more saying that, from EA's stand-point, the new controller seemed to be a bit of a gimmick, and since it' didn't address their core market of hard-core gamers, they couldn't see how it would fit into their business. It was so outside of the box, they couldn't even see it for what it was; I think it totally blindsided the 'traditional' gaming companies (the same ones who have been producing games I can't play for the last bunch of years).

Me, I'm looking forward to what truly new things in gaming Nintendo is going to put out before long. I'm sure it'll be both interesting and fun.

Cheers

Re:Surely it did

[Anonymous Coward]

As Stewart Brand put it:
"Once a new technology rolls over you, if your're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the road."

Re:Surely it did

[seaturnip]

You have it exactly upside down. EA is too attached to their existing userbase, and failed to foresee the new, different users jumping in.

Re:Surely it did

[blueboy31]

Do you own a Virtual Boy too?

Re:Surely it did

[cbreaker]

"No offense, but I saw the Wii coming."

Well.. you know the saying.. put enough monkeys in front of keyboards and you'll get Shakespeare..

The Wii is very gimmicky, and I feel as though the big reason it did well is because: A) It was billed out as a "next gen" console (even though it's not) and cost half what the competition is charging (because it's three year old tech.)

Just you watch. Give the market a couple years, and see where the Wii stands then.

Re:Surely it did

[peragrin]

It may be three year old tech but it does everything the other two do except HD video. nintendo proved that you don't need the latest and greatest in horsepower to play a game that you will enjoy and remember.

and the controller? well that's the latest in technology. MSFT and Sony completely missed the boat on INTERACTIVE games. Though i am still waiting for VR to come back. While the game play was slow on some of those it was cool. With the better hardware today it should be a lot more realistic.

Re:Surely it did

[mosch]

Give the market a couple years, and see where the Wii stands then.

The Wii will continue to have dominant market share, as it's particularly attractive to both older and younger game players.

Meanwhile, people who only play first person shooters will continue to believe that the Wii is merely "gimmicky", and that their console is better because it has more pixels.

Re:Surely it did

[dctoastman]

Before it was named the Wii.
I thought that the motion sensitive controller was a true innovation in the video game market and that Nintendo had the skills to do it justice. Based on their past successes with other such things.

I've basically learned that when everyone is mocking Nintendo for something to keep an eye on it because it will be huge.

Re:Surely it did

[toolie]

A) It was billed out as a "next gen" console (even though it's not) What is your definition of next gen?

Re:Surely it did

[dyslexicbunny]

Parent essentially sums some up what I was going to say.

EA developed their understanding of the video game market and planned accordingly. They saw the rise of graphic dominance and hardcore gaming dominance. They may have tried to figure out how to pull in people who don't play video games but completely abandoned that approach. Given they frustration at pulling in non-gamers, I'm not surprised that they were caught off guard.

However, I think it was a failure on their part not to realize what was needed to capture the market share of non-gamers. Perhaps they might have sat down and realized that it was a hardware barrier and not completely a software barrier. And had they done so, there was no reason not to stand behind the Wii. A new controller style that non-gamers could relate to. A shift in gaming interaction. Getting in on the ground floor and staying ahead of the competition.

Could they have seen the Wii coming? Perhaps. As the parent says, no one really sees disruptive technologies coming unless you know the market. But even then, they may still backfire and end up unadopted. EA could have poured all this money into developing for the Wii and it could have flopped. I suppose they look stupid now but perhaps it made more sense then. Maybe they could have done some real options analysis or something similar to see value in developing for the Wii.

Re:Surely it did

[plague3106]

The Wii is gimmicky because of its controllers? Did you ever stop to think that maybe the simplified controls do actually appeal to alot of people? I had a ton of fun playing Zelda and RE4 with the Wiis controls. They are VERY intitutive and you no longer need to be a great button masher to play games. Blazing Angels is a whole new way to play a flight simulation game.

Why throw away $600 on a console? I could get better graphics out of my computer by upgrading than blowing that much on a console.

Re:Surely it did

[Endo13]

In fairness, I don't think anyone saw the Wii coming or could have planned on the fact that simpler game play, with less intense graphics, that actually involved moving around would have captivated so many people. Really? I suppose you're referring mainly to game developers. Because I'm fairly sure a lot of us saw this coming when we first heard/read about the Wii.

Re:Surely it did

[JFMulder]

EA -- releases the same games year after year, with some updates
It's fucking football. What do you want them to do, change the rules?

They are a business. If people want to buy something and you can make it, you make it.

Re:Surely it did

[Endo13]

No actually I believe he has it right. EA is too attached to their own preconceptions of what their userbase wants, and too detached from the actual users to see what they really want. Take the BF series for instance. People that I know who have been avid BF2 and BF2142 players that managed to get in on the Quake Wars beta like it much better than BF. It's exactly what they wanted from BF that they didn't get - because EA is too detached from their actual users.

Re:Surely it did

[k_187]

Isn't that the exact same argument that was used against the DS?

Re:Surely it did

[gstoddart]

Before it was named the Wii.
I thought that the motion sensitive controller was a true innovation in the video game market and that Nintendo had the skills to do it justice.

Wow. I'm impressed -- definitely way more tuned into the game market than most people.

If you could see this coming, I hope to hell you bought some shares. I'm sure you'd have turned a tidy profit :-P

Cheers

Re:Surely it did

[TemporalBeing]

n fairness, I don't think anyone saw the Wii coming or could have planned on the fact that simpler game play, with less intense graphics, that actually involved moving around would have captivated so many people.

You're probably right when it comes to the game developers; however, as others have pointed out, there are a fair number of us did predict it would. You can check the dates on these, but here are a number of my own posts related to the subject:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

I'm sure they go back well over a year. FYI - that was simply a google search for my slashdot name and "Wii". I didn't even both to search for the Wii's original name - Revolution - so there could be more out there.

Re:Surely it did

[jratcliffe]

To be fair, it appears that the Wii success caught Nintendo off guard as well - while a designed shortage in the first couple of months to drum up attention might have been a good idea, it's very hard to believe that the current lack of availability is something that Nintendo planned, rather than a result of sales having outstripped Nintendo's forecasts (and hence manufacturing capability).

Re:Surely it did

[Suspended_Reality]

Here's my blog prediction from September, 2005: Original Prediction.

So I was a little off on the hype back then. Still, I was convinced enough to put my money where my mouth was. I went on to invest a fair chunk of my investment portfolio in them, and the rewards are paying off handsomely right now. Currently, Nintendo stock makes me more money than my job. And, at 27, this head start is lowering my retirement day every time it goes up. This is the next iPod (albeit, not with an 80% market share, but in terms of holiday shopping sprees).

Re:Surely it did

[HalAtWork]

In fairness, I don't think anyone saw the Wii coming or could have planned on the fact that simpler game play, with less intense graphics, that actually involved moving around would have captivated so many people

You mean nobody caught the clue train when it stopped by almost 2 years ago? Ever since they revealed the controller and the highly popular videos of people using it (not even any game footage!), I don't think anyone has had a doubt...

Re:Surely it did

[Blakey Rat]

Just proves how far detached big game companies are from their userbase and how little do they understand entertainment.

Uh, huh?

Isn't the problem more along the lines of EA was focusing on their core userbase, and then Nintendo introduced a lot of new gamers who weren't part of their core userbase before? I think you have this exactly backwards... the Wii isn't successful because hard-core gamers are buying it (although they are), it's successful because it's selling to people who don't typically buy game consoles. And that's the market EA had nothing planned for.

Re:Surely it did

[Blakey Rat]

But to be fair, you're on Slashdot.

Nearly everybody on Slashdot thinks Nintendo is the greatest gaming company ever and can do no wrong. Haven't you ever seen the moderation around here? Haven't you noticed the off-topic Nintendo posts that show up in nearly every gaming topic modded to +5?

While it's great that you predicted the success, going by the predictions of the most hard-core fans of the technology isn't really the best way to do business. By that logic, every software company should invest in Amiga-- because I hear from the hard-core fans that Amiga's really awesome and due for a comeback!!

Re:Surely it did

[phantomlord]

Here's a Slashdot Poll from March 2006.

22057 picked Sony to win by the end of this year
13559 picked Microsoft
9183 picked Nintendo

There were obviously a few of us who thought Nintendo was going to win. A fairly significant amount given the inertia Sony already had in the market at that point and the general attitude toward MS here. That's better than 20% of people picking Nintendo, not exactly an insignificant amount.

Re:Surely it did

[Altus]

On the other hand, EA has most of the biggest sports franchises and if you can figure out a good way to map the controls for Baseball and Football (american) to the Wii controller than your just not thinking hard enough.

Sports games are a great fit for the Wii and if EA had thrown their weight behind the Wii from the beginning I think you would have seen an even bigger sensation there... of course since Nintendo cant produce them fast enough as it is, perhaps it just doesn't matter.

Re:Surely it did

[UbuntuDupe]

Amateur. I predicted EVERY past event in history! Totally saw it coming.

I'm not so good at predicting events before they happen tho :-/

Re:Surely it did

[Altus]

Meanwhile, people who only play first person shooters will continue to believe that the Wii is merely "gimmicky", and that their console is better because it has more pixels.

which is a shame because you could make a REALLY cool FPS with the wii and that new gun accessory.

Re:Surely it did

[Fozzyuw]

What do you want them to do, change the rules?

Yes! =)

Re:Surely it did

[grumbel]

A lot of Wii users never were in their userbase to begin with, so I hardly would call it 'detached'. Wii is catering to a new audience.

Re:Surely it did

[Khuffie]

That game sounds like all kinds of awesome, and I hate American football.

Re:Surely it did

[DDLKermit007]

Even better! One of the Jaguar games I really loved! I wish my Jaguar worked still :( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutal_Sports_Footbal l

Re:Surely it did

[xenocide2]

No offense, but I saw the Wii coming. I underestimated the speed at which it caught on, but I knew that it would be the best console to own this generation.


Would you like a cookie? Everyone seems to think that picking the right console means they win. Seriously, what's with people's efforts to vindicate their choices after the fact? Shouldn't what matters now be whether you're satisfied with the kinds of experiences you get via the console?

I think the thing to learn here is that you shouldn't care about what other people think about your choices -- it's the only true geek way.

Re:Surely it did

[lmnfrs]

Today the game industry is vastly different from what it was when any of us were kids just getting into games. Everything games in the main stream are designed for is completely different from the design goals we remember. I think anybody here will agree, or at least know exactly what I'm talking about.

The "Hardcore Audience" was created out of nothing by marketing groups, and has changed the way non-gamers and relative newcomers think of video games. I'm not saying they stink and I'm oldskewl l33t or anything; many of these games are very good. But having been into video games as long as I have, I recognize them as what has been popular and successful in recent years, nothing more.

Everything that was revealed about the Revolution (once they started giving away actual details, that is) struck me as a return to old, well defined values. There was no question in my mind that the system would do well. Of course I didn't know it would do this well, but I did think it would do well enough to invest in Nintendo.
[/IMHO]

And I also agree that this just shows how out of touch EA is with what makes a game a game. It was a good follow up laugh to the laugh I had when they said they wouldn't be supporting the Wii.

Re:Surely it did

[Lockejaw]

I agree, the Wii is a great platform for sports games. I was just commenting that EA seems reluctant to try anything new, while Nintendo is generally associated with that sort of risk-taking. Nintendo likes its franchises, but they know they can only go so far just selling more Mario platformers, so they expanded Mario beyond platformers.

Re:Surely it did

[epee1221]

What do you want them to do, change the rules?

I'd prefer to see that effort directed to something new rather than yet another iteration of Madden.

Re:Surely it did

[mkettler]

Sure, there's a reasonable excuse for EA's sports based games.

But what about everything else EA does?

Looking on their website, they list 14 "new releases" going back to 2/21/07. Every one of them is a sequel, except "Boom Boom Rocket".

Even outside the sports genre, EA is not well known for having many brand new games. They publish a lot of "xyz 2" and "abc the follow on adventures".

Hence, it's not surprising that the Wii caught them off guard. They don't have any finger on anything new in the gaming market. They're largely a market follower, not a leader. They consistently go with what they know.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think anyone should expect EA to have a good sense of what the next "hot thing" will be.

Re:Surely it did

[epee1221]

Unfortunately, this may be delayed a bit since Red Steel doesn't seem to have gotten the greatest reviews. (I haven't played it myself, though)

Re:Surely it did

[Asmor]

Mutant League Football is the only sports game I've ever liked. Great game. I loved playing the aliens that rolled up into balls when they ran.

Wasn't quite as fond of Mutant League Hockey, though.

Re:Surely it did

[cbreaker]

Everything except HD? That's laughable; I won't even bother trying to open this can of worms.

BTW, the PS3 controller also has built-in accelerometers.

And what kind of game have you ever played that's not interactive? Moron. Just because you swing your arm instead of hit a button doesn't make it any more interactive. But if you want to swing your arm, you can do that with a PS3 too.

Re:Surely it did

[cbreaker]

You personify the problem with game system fanboys. I never said I owned anything, and in fact I own both a Wii and a PS3. So which one are you referring to as "my" console?

And sorry, but FPS games demand more realism and the Wii can't provide it. It doesn't matter though, because I own no FPS games and don't intend on buying any. FPS belongs on the desktop PC.

Re:Surely it did

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pretty sure you saw the same thing I did- that gamers were getting tired of "more of the same" while Nintendo said they were going to focus on innovative game play. And all the while, MS and Sony kept displaying their ever shinier reshashes of their old games.

However, that did not in any way guarantee Nintendo would succeed. Nintendo has had a bunch of innovations before- the power glove, Virtual boy, ROB, their oddly phallic N64 controllers and a bunch of others- that were entire flops. And man, when I heard that they were naming the console "Wii" and shipping it with controllers that resembled remote controls, it in no way seemed to be a guarantee that the Wii would succeed.

Saying you are going to be innovative, and actually executing and being innovative are two very different things. Personally, while I thought Nintendo definitely had the right idea, I was very skeptical of them actually being able to pull it off.

And to be honest, I am a little wary that the Wii is a fad- I played with mine continuously for about a month before I got bored with it. Its great when people are over, but the single player game library is rather weak, and I don't use it much anymore.

And BTW... if you really saw this coming and truly believed in it, you would have invested in Nintendo last year and tripled your money! To be fair though, IIRC correctly they now have a larger market value than Panasonic even though they have something like 1/4 the revenue. A Googlesque type of overexuberance...

Re:Surely it did

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're a climatologist?

Re:Surely it did

[seaturnip]

WTF does Quake Wars have to do with the Wii? What a non sequitur.

Re:Surely it did

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss that game. I never got to play the Hockey one, though.

Re:Surely it did

[Endo13]

It's called context. Ever heard of it?

Re:Surely it did

[Anonymous Coward]

EA -- releases the same games year after year, with some updates

And this is different from the company responsible for gems like "Hyper Mario Brothers" (plot summary: the princess is in yet another castle!) and "Legend of Zelda: Flowerpot of Doom" (plot summary: Ganon is back again!) and "Metroid Double Prime" (plot summary: she's still a chick)... how, precisely?

Sure, Nintendo release original titles too. Like, uh, EA does too, actually...

Re:Surely it did

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think we thought Nintendo was going to do poorly. I thought Microsoft and Nintendo would do fine. I think Sony blew it completely. The other two are simply capitalizing on the opening. Most of the people polled picked Sony as the big winner and had little faith in the other two. Therefore, Sony's failure to deliver was a big turning point in this console market. MS plays its strength in online gaming while Nintendo opens up the market to newcomers. Good for MS & Nintendo ;)

Re:Surely it did

[Haeleth]

And sorry, but FPS games demand more realism and the Wii can't provide it.

People used to think sports games demanded realism, with vendors competing to try to model every blade of grass on the pitch and make every single footballer individually recognisable down to the last pore on his nose. And, lo, they were all bewildered by the way people were buying Wiis just to get their hands on the simplistic cartoony sports games that were bundled with the console...

Yeah, Wii games aren't going to compete with your Haloes or Half-Lifes for pure shininess, but the sports experience shows that there's a significant market that doesn't give a toss about shininess, and there's no reason to assume that wouldn't work just as well with a simple and fun FPS title.

Re:Surely it did

[Wdomburg]

Swinging your arm with a two handed controller is awkward. The design change on the controller is as important as the tech.

Not for everyone, sure. It's no skin off my nose if some people place more emphasis on graphics and built-in media players and whatever else it is they see in the PS3 (or 360, for that matter).

Re:Surely it did

[tepples]

BTW, the PS3 controller also has built-in accelerometers. But not in the wand form factor, making it no good for swordfighting. And it doesn't have a camera, making it no good for point-and-click operations. There are things the Wii Remote is better for, and there are things the SIXAXIS is better for.

And what kind of game have you ever played that's not interactive? I have managed to avoid them, but others have criticized the lack of interactivity in cut-scene-fests like Dragon's Lair and the second disc of Xenogears.

Just because you swing your arm instead of hit a button doesn't make it any more interactive. Some people compare the difference between a button and an accelerometer to the difference between a D-pad and a thumbstick. A button triggers one kind of swing that's the same every time, while an accelerometer can trigger a swing at any of 3 speeds in any of 16 directions.

Re:Surely it did

[squiggleslash]

In fairness, I don't think anyone saw the Wii coming or could have planned on the fact that simpler game play, with less intense graphics, that actually involved moving around would have captivated so many people.

Honestly, I don't think you're right. I think the games industry didn't "get it", and those who pride themselves on being "hard core gamers" were likewise, but the Wii was generating genuine excitement in most circles outside of those. The Nintendo DS should have been enough to slap those in the face who thought "Cheap and innovative" was a recipe for disaster.

The failure to recognize the Wii was going to be a hit was entirely the result of myopia on the part of a tired, unimaginative, and ultimately largely conservative games industry that couldn't see what was staring it in the face. Not only was the Wii innovative, low cost, and "good enough" where it needed to be, but nobody but a bunch of completely self-absorbed morons could have failed to see that Sony and, to a lesser extent, Microsoft were going to hand the entire market to Nintendo on a plate by choosing to make unimaginative, if powerful, consoles that were incapable of being priced at a sane consumer level.

Everyone beyond the aforementioned groups was saying this when the Wii was still called the Revolution. It was obvious. It was so, so, obvious.

Postscript: I just Googled "site:slashdot.org squiggleslash Nintendo revolution" and was able to find this comment buried in one of the pages that came up. Hey, Golias! Nuh-nuh ne nuh nuh!

Re:Surely it did

[ravenshrike]

The PS3 is a perfectly good console, but when it comes to somewhat life realistic interaction with the games instead of just button pushing, it's left far in the dust compared to the Wii. End of story.

Re:Surely it did

[7Prime]

The thing people need to understand is that Sports Gamers don't want to actually PLAY the sports, they want to WATCH them and participate in their management. They want to play coach, manager, and maybe star quarterback. From what I've seen of them, they're sorta like an RPG but using sports teams instead of warriors. Things that actually require getting up off the coutch and being physical are deemed "kiddie" in the eyes of most sports gamers. "WiiSports" may have been a hit among people everywhere, it may have even been one of the most athletic titles ever made, but it didn't appeal to jock gamers in the slightest. It's all about playing the teams that "they know" and "they love," and it's all about how high the "badass meter" (TM) reads. In many ways, even though the Wiimote may be a sport in of itself, it's actually likely the least likely to appeal to the sports jock.

Re:Surely it did

[7Prime]

You had to be blind not to see how well it was going to do, about 2 weeks after the "Revolution" was announced. I'm not talking about gamers, but the entire tech-savy population in general (which is VERY significant these days). From the start, Nintendo were labeled the "good guys", and that's really all it took. It was the innovative underdog taking on the lame, corrupt geezers (Sony and Microsoft), ironic since Nintendo, as a company, is more than 120 years old. People bought into the PlayStation and XBox names, not because they liked the system, but because they liked the content. But with the Wii—literally, you could see the international marketplace, for the first time ever, growing a direct attatchment to the basic philosophy behind the system. Wii's success is a totally different story than any other system of any other generation.

It's a duplication of the iPod's success, actually. Ya know why the iPod was/is selling so well? Because of its features... no, not really, because of it's interface? Yeah, that's a small part of it. But the main reason is because there's a philosophy behind it that's more than just the sum of its parts, a religion of sorts, that screems a combination of "form follows function", "inspiration", and "enjoyment". Apple and Nintendo take on the image of the inpirational speaker, entertainer, and silent protagonist, all rolled up into one. If you can sell those things, it doesn't matter what you put out, it will sell.

People can't put their finger on why they like the iPod or Wii as much as they do, so they quote things like "interface design", "enjoyment", "back to basics", things like that. But those are simple excuses for a larger whole: they like what the companies are preaching, and they want to be a part of it.

I'm not meaning to brag, but I could see this coming the day the "Motion Sensor Remote" was announced. I'm dumbfounded that other companies couldn't.

Re:Surely it did

[7Prime]

Although Metroid Prime may change that. And many companies are taking it as a challange to make the first killerApp full-fledged FPS on the Wii. Many non-FPS games have demonstrated a huge potential in the Wii as an FPS console. I was sold on Zelda: TP, due to the ease of aiming, Rayman Raving Rabbids seconded that... the Wiimake of Resident Evil 4 totally solidified that. Now they just need to figure out the movement part of the equation, and they're set.

Re:Surely it did

[7Prime]

The VB was almost the complete opposite of the Wii, in terms of innovation. "Virtual Reality" was the new "big thing"... a fad that was about to be completely swept away. Instead of "creating something that even gamers didn't know they wanted", the VB gave people EXACTLY what they had already been talking about for years, and were getting bored of, already. The VB may have been unique to consoles and gaming, but it was ANYTHING BUT innovative in terms of concept.

The fact is, the VB had no overall "design philosophy". It's existance was owed to one essential gimmick. The Wii is much more than just motion sensing. The motion sensing is simply a tool that's apart of a much larger design philosophy, and way of thinking about game design. There's a distinct message behind the Wii that holds both social and artistic meaning. The VB simply said, "stereoptics is the new thing". If all the Wii was was "motion sensing is the new big thing", it would have died long ago.

Re:Surely it did

[7Prime]

I wrote about this about a year and a half ago. At the time, it was still called the "Revolution" and game mags had all but given up on the system. Even most of it's supporters were hoping for a "good solid second place".

(129855) Why Apple Won, and Why Nintendo Will

Re:Surely it did

[7Prime]

I'll add in mine, as well, that I just recently recovered. From February 2006, before the "Wii" was christained.

#129855

Re:Surely it did

[phantomlord]

In my case, I haven't owned a console since the SNES. The vast majority of my gaming came on the PC with the occasional session at a friend or cousin's house. More than a year ago, I was already ready to buy a Revolution. The name change to Wii did make me mock it even though I wanted one. And that's just it, it got me excited about consoles again. For the last 15 years or so, it's mostly been games that the computer is good at that I've played: FPS, RTS, sports (in particular EA's NHL line) and MMOs. I own almost the full line of Loki games and to this day, still play some of them from time to time.

So what did it for me? What made me so excited that I had to have one? The new controller mechanism and the idea (successfully marketed to me) that they wanted to make games that were fun versus crapped down versions of games I prefer to play on my PC. I was coming off my addiction to EQ and I wanted something I could play on my terms, whether it be for 15 minutes for 2 hours at a time. I'm 30 and a lot of my friends lack the time to sit down to play hardcore style. Almost all my friends were excited about the Wii. My dad had a stroke and can't use his left hand, I was excited that, even though he hasn't played a game since the Atari, the Wii's controller would allow him to play. Sure enough, there are a number of games that work well one handed. Find me another console that lets a one handed player enjoy games.

The buzz about the Wii just felt right... I was excited and my friends who've been out of the console scene for years were excited. My more hardcore friends wanted to pick it up so that they could feel complete/in case any good games came out for it. I felt the PS3 was all hype and was very overpriced. One friend wanted one, two wanted to buy one to scalp when they came out given the production numbers were going to be so low. The 360, I thought, would do ok... I didn't see anything special about it other than the fact it has extremely deep pockets behind it and that it was the cheaper of the two consoles vying for the teenage/college market. So yeah, I predicted Wii, 360, PS3 myself. I really didn't expect the Wii to still be having supply issues this far out though (not that they wouldn't sell but I guess I just expected production rates to exceed demand).

Re:Surely it did

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better to plan for a moderate outcome with the expectation of being pleasantly surprised than it is to plan for the most successful outcome only to be left with warehouses full of consoles.

Re:Surely it did

[Anonymous Coward]

The better one is the Cyberleague Sports, such as Basewars.

Re:Surely it did

[Val314]

I dont see any shortage here in Austria. Pretty much everyone has all 3 consoles available.

Maybe they just allocated to many to Europe?

Re:Surely it did

[LKM]

They are a business. If people want to buy something and you can make it, you make it.

Maybe somebody would if EA didn't own exclusive licenses for many of the important sports franchises.

Frankly, I don't understand why people defend companies like EA with the "they are a business" defense. Why in the world would I care? I don't criticise them for making money, or for being a business, I criticise them because I don't like their games and their updates are seriously lacking, and the fact that they are a business doesn't make this any better.

Re:Surely it did

[LKM]

EA said they wouldn't support the Wii? When was that?

Re:Surely it did

[LKM]

they like what the companies are preaching, and they want to be a part of it.

I would say that this is the excuse, and the actual products are the reason. All these people who got addicted to Wii Bowling couldn't give a rat's ass about what Nintendo is preaching. They think the Wii is fun, and they buy one.

Re:Surely it did

[LKM]

Well, you won't have to wait long for a really cool FPS. Metroid should be coming out soon :-)

Re:Surely it did

[Lockejaw]

but it didn't appeal to jock gamers in the slightest .... and it's all about how high the "badass meter" (TM) reads.

I'm inclined to blame the use of Miis for at least some of the lack of badassery.

Re:Surely it did

[10Neon]

I am pretty sure the developers saw it coming too. Months before launch, Gamasutra's developer responses on topics relating to the next generation leaned heavily towards the Wii. It was the publishers that were blind to what was going on.

Re:Surely it did

[cbreaker]

Who used to think sports games required realism? Didn't you ever play Summer Games on the Atari or C64?

I wouldn't say that there's a significant market that doesn't give a "toss" about graphics and sound. I have several friends with the Wii and all of them say "I wish the games looked better. It kinda sucks." I mean, yea, it's fun to play now and then. I never said it wasn't. But it's kinda like .. a video arcade game. Fun for a night, but you're done once you've player for a couple hours.

The Wii proves that it doesn't have to be the latest technology for people to buy it, but it doesn't prove that people don't care or don't want it.

Re:Surely it did

[cbreaker]

Don't think that because you say "end of story" that it becomes The Truth. It's completely subjective. Having a controller with both buttons and motion sensitivity might actually just be better.

And shit, sometimes you just want to sit back with a beer and play a game without standing up and flailing all over the place.

Re:Surely it did

[buffer-overflowed]

Well fuck, I keep forgetting that Mario is always a rehash because it still stars an italian plumber instead of a portugese electrician.

Re:Surely it did

[mink]

I've seem some pretty bad ass Miis

Re:Surely it did

[mink]

I was under the impression the Wiimote has both buttons and accelero-thingies.

As for playing a game without standing, thats what chairs are for. You can play all the games standing or sitting. Yes you can still wave your arms around, but you can figure out how to just do it with your wrist as well.

Re:Surely it did

[mink]

TRON 2.0 you spend 99.9% of it in an environment that is not even remotely realistic to the insides of computers/technology. Game was quite fun. I would love a TRON game for the Wii and I think the graphics would be no problem. The only problem I see is that you would get tired from throwing the disc in an FPS style game. Lookig at the movie, they didnt use them constantly so an FPS IMO isnt the fight formula for a TRON game.

All sci-fi FPS games (this covers a majority of FPS titles, the next set being WWII FPS) are completely unrealistic in almost way. WWII/modern combat FPS games try to be sort of realistic but usually (due to limitations) can at best be close to graphically realistic.

No FPS ever has been "real" as in "just like reality". What is your definition of real when you say FPS games need "more realism"?

Re:Surely it did

[mink]

The Power Glove was a 3rd party product. Nintendoo did not make it and at worst marketed it via the crappy movie that displaced "The Wizard of Speed and Time" in movie theaters.

Re:Surely it did

[cbreaker]

Like my wrist need more of a work out after a 10 hour day at the keyboard and mouse..

Re:Surely it did

[cbreaker]

How many Trons can they make before they all look the same? One.

You can say "unrealistic" but you apparently can't differentiate between "fiction" and "realism." In the movie Independence Day, it's obviously fiction; aliens never came here and blew up all the cities. But, it looks damned real up there on the screen.

With each new generation of systems, FPS gaming has become more and more realistic due to advances in graphics technology. Think about Wolf3D; not very real. Fun at the time, sure. Look at Doom 3. You actually feel like you're part of the environment - the lighting and graphics are so good.

The whole idea behind first person shooters is immersion. Better graphics provide better immersion.

There's some instances where graphics won't matter, like Duck Hunt or Tron. For everything else, the Wii won't have because the games will be FAR too outdated and make the whole thing look silly.

The Wii game system is still fun sometimes, sure. Just stop trying to convince people that graphics DON'T MATTER. Because they still do.

Re:Surely it did

[mink]

"You can say "unrealistic" but you apparently can't differentiate between "fiction" and "realism.""

I think this is your problem as well. To me it seems you are way overselling the "realism" of games today as well as saying movie FX are accurate depictions of reality.

"With each new generation of systems, FPS gaming has become more and more realistic due to advances in graphics technology. Think about Wolf3D; not very real. Fun at the time, sure. Look at Doom 3. You actually feel like you're part of the environment - the lighting and graphics are so good."

What lighting? (That was a joke son) It was still unrealistically dark for all those shiny corridors, which were not coated with the normal 5 gallons of blood a single corpse will spray, and everything is wet shiny plastic.

We are nowhere near making an FPS that can compare to images of real world objects. We can make some close stabs with games like F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Half Life 2. The white painted cinderblocks on walls look close to what I see in schools, but they are still too shiny and now are getting over textured (best way I can describe them in games now). Light still is not quite behaving in a real manner; it does not defuse/bounce enough/properly and still has problems with light and shadow being an all or nothing thing in many cases. Flames still are primitive in video games, some do a good job of bringing across the feeling of actual fires, if you compare a video of the game flames with real flames (from the same kind of objects/magnitude) they are not even in the ballpark of reality, real fires are smoky dirty things that can consume available oxygen. Realistic games are often dull, because people die easily in reality.

Explosive barrels, flammable gas tanks, and many of mainstays of FPS games are never going to be immersive and real at the same time. Because in reality if I shoot a 55 Gallon drum full of petroleum based fuel with any standard bullet it will just leak out and maybe (if I used a tracer or something) catch fire. There isn't enough oxygen in the tank for it to explode and it will take some time for the fire to bring the fuel up to it's flashpoint.

"The Wii game system is still fun sometimes, sure. Just stop trying to convince people that graphics DON'T MATTER. Because they still do."

I never said graphics don't matter. I am saying you don't have to have realism in graphics to make a good FPS.

"The whole idea behind first person shooters is immersion. Better graphics provide better immersion."

I think we may be arguing crossways about somewhat different views on things that are not 100% overlapping, or maybe one of us is looking at the head of the elephant while the other is examining the tail.
I think the difference of view is, to you, better graphics=immersion and I don't see it as that alone. Does better graphics to you mean more like the room you are sitting in, or more like Hollywood FX?

I don't think realism make for better immersion then unrealism. Games are fantasy and like ID4 there is no way to judge if a giant alien ship fired it's main weapon at the Whitehouse, it would explode like that in reality. That's why it's hard to use Sci-Fi/movie effects as a measure for realism.

I think it comes down to, for me, better graphics, immersion and reality are not so dependant on each other then for you. The important thing at the end, still, is to have fun playing a game (no matter the system), right?

Re:Surely it did

[mink]

So thats what kids are calling it now a days (It's a joke I swear).

I didnt realize I had responded to you more then once in here until now, sorry if I got a little confused in the other one.

Re:Surely it did

[cbreaker]

I don't disagree with everything you've said but the term 'having fun' is subjective. Would I have fun playing an FPS on the Wii? Probably. Would I have MORE fun if the graphics were a lot more realistic? Definitely.

Ultimately, it is the game that makes it fun; not the graphics or interface. The Wiimote might make some things better, the PS3 graphics might make other things better.

You can't say that graphics haven't improved FPS game play. Would Counter Strike be a fun to play if they couldn't generate good representations of office settings? I don't think so.

I won't say that there's not a long way to go before truly photo-realistic graphics on a game system are a reality. Doom 3 was a giant step forward in realism; whether the walls were too shiny or not. Perfect? No. Awesome: YES. =) When you play Call of Duty for the PS3, with the surround sound kicking and you're playing on a decent HDTV, it's awesome. The rain and thunder, the soldiers yelling, the gunfire and bullets.. it's quite a game. Very realistic feel to it.

The other point you've mixed into your argument, which isn't DIRECTLY related to graphics (but is related) is game physics. When you shoot a barrel of oil, you want it to leak oil, not explode. It comes with the territory. With each new generation of game system or PC performance ratings, we see more of this kind of thing. Without the power to compute and calculate all the possibilities of having realistic physics, it can't be done. We do see more of this coming our way though; the next CryENGINE is supposed to be really superb in this department. Physics also seem to go hand-in-hand with lighting, so that will continue to improve as well.

You don't need to have great graphics to make a fun FPS, but it sure helps. More powerful systems will resolve your "issues" in due time. Unfortunately, none of those types of FPS games will (or should) be made for the Wii. Have you seen Far Cry Vengeance? Wow, they shouldn't even try to make games like that for the system.

Re:Surely it did

[mink]

I think our views are mostly down to personal taste, what we view as potential and what we each consider "AWESOME!".

I have fun playing counterstrike, but I do not consider the office (or other settings) good representations, this does not take away from my enjoyment of the game (except for really bad physics violations). Clearly this is where we have differing opinions.

I have not picked up Far Cry for the Wii mostly because of bad reviews. But IMO it was rushed out and I wont judge it as unable to have a good FPS until developers have at least a year experience (same as I gave PS2, Xbox and Gamecube).

Back to Doom3. To me it was an improvement in graphical effects (they got heat haze pretty well, but fires still burnt too clean and you should start taking heat damage further from the flames, also work in difficulty breathing via already existing air timer), engine capabilities, and darkness rendering speed. What killed the Awesome for me was the annoyance that in a high tech future, there was no gun or arm or head mounted flashlight thingy (you are a Marine as I remember) of any kind. It took users modding it to add something that to me should have been there (lack of it actually broke immersion for me). At a minimum you should have been allowed to have the pistol and flashlight out at once. Darkness aside, I think they relied a little too much on the whole lights go out and monster jumps out of a closet behind you gag.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? I get the impression you are younger and much more impressed with some of these things, then I am in my frumpy almost middle age. I wonder only because it reminds me of the way I was when computer games were moving from MDA, to 16 color CGA, to 64 Color EGA, and on to the VGA we know and love today. All that happened in the span of 1981 to 1987. To people working and playing computer games at the time it was like four major generations of consoles in six years. We also went from the 8088 to the 80386(production will finally end next month along with 80486 chips) in that span as well.

Re:Surely it did

[cbreaker]

Hah! I'll be 29 in November. My first computer was a C64 (which I still own) and my first PC was an Amstrad 8088. My first game system was an Atari 2600 - although admittedly my parents couldn't afford one until it was far obsolete. I used to be a regular on the local BBS scene (my favorite BBS's were CNet BBS systems running on Amigas. They had the best multi-node and Hack'N'Slash ruled.) Before that I used to logon to Quantum Link on the C64 using a User Port 1200 Baud Modem (1200 Baud was about the limit of what the C64 could do, I guess.)

Prince of Persia in CGA was still amazing. Especially if you owned an Adlib of Soundblaster card.

Anyways, after some time I moved on to a 486sx20 and that's when things got interesting. I stumbled upon overclocking on my own by playing with jumper settings on the board (holy shit! It's running at 33Mhz! Nobody at the computer shows would believe me. Just some dumb kid, they thought I was.) I got a SoundBlaster Pro and I thought it was the best thing in the world - until I got the Ultrasound. I got the GUS because all the new demos (Second Reality; Future Crew) supported or required one. Who knew it was a wavetable sound card! Fired up Doom, and I was shocked!

I've always been amazed with how fast these computers have become in so short a time. Each year they can do more and more and more. Game systems being computers, the same applies there. Honestly, I've never really been a console gamer and I'm still not. The heard lives with gaming on the PC. Shit, my last new game system was the SNES (the used Xbox I got, I got so I could mod and play with Linux and MAME and such.)

Maybe that explains why I like fancy graphics so much. I just dig it. (I'm not alone there - people love fancy graphics.) Of course, nothing will help a game that isn't fun to play, but if you have a fun game with awesome graphics there's just nothing like it.

To comment on Doom 3 again; I wasn't as critical of it, I guess. I thought it was badass. I mean, I haven't been so impressed with a game for a long time before that, and I still haven't been as impressed as I was with that with any new games. Throw on the flashlight, run around dimly lit hallways.. look to the left.. HOLY SHIT! A Zombie! The shadows from the flashlight beaming his shadow on the wall were just great. Considering it was the first game to really say "Enough of this light-map shit, let's do REAL lights" it was damned impressive. Today, they could do better, of course (unfortunately, not enough of them do. Even Half Life 2 makes heavy use of light maps..) Doom 3 suffered from becoming far too difficult in the later levels, but every new area was just fun to look at.

As far as the Wii; it just doesn't have the mustard to make competitive looking 3D FPS games. Even on an SDTV, the games won't look very good. Things aren't like they used to be, where the systems could be stretched to their limits only after years of development experience. They're really just like slightly altered PC's now, and everything is very well documented. Developers can write games for all the new game systems that use all of the available power and quirks, on day one.

Understandable

[Sciros]

Considering the hype surrounding the PS3 and 360, it wasn't really stupid to back them or anything at the start. But the price annoucement changed everything, and they should have noticed that immediately. Instead, EA made the same mistake in judging the market that Sony did when they thought "well, PS2 dominated the market while pricier than the GCN, so at that rate people will gladly pay 2x as much for 100x the hardware." What they SHOULD have noticed is that people on the whole clearly don't care nearly as much about graphical firepower as other things, and the PS2 made that crystal clear!

EA had the luxury of changing teams while Sony had to figure out how to stick with theirs, and so far the haven't been able to do so.

Re:Understandable

[monk.e.boy]

The media tends to feed on its self, especially online gaming media types.

They constantly reference and quote one another in a fever pitched frenzy.

I guess EA read those and get bought expensive meals my Playstation and 360 sales people, and all the while IN REAL LIFE gamers chat and play each others consoles and choose what they like.

Whos going to tag this 'obvious' 'duh' etc...

monk.e.boy

Re:Understandable

[jollyreaper]

Considering the hype surrounding the PS3 and 360, it wasn't really stupid to back them or anything at the start. But the price annoucement changed everything, and they should have noticed that immediately. /quote>

Yup. The PS3 was met with genuine anticipation up until the price point was announced. The arrogance with which that was handled made people step back and say "wait a sec, is this a pending trainwreck?" That E3 show cemented that feeling. "Riiiiiiiidge Racer!"

The Wii was met with skepticism, mostly due to the silly name. But I think there's a key difference in the way the console launches were handled. Sony told you that you were wrong and needed to change your perspective, $600 is NOT too much to pay for a console. Nintendo, on the other hand, didn't set out to tell hardcore gamers they were wrong about needing the latest graphics and that they'd love the wiimote, they were more about approaching a target market that their research showed would be receptive to the product. They didn't say "Yo, non-gamers, you are now our bitches."

It just goes to show, give people what they want, they'll respond positively. Opening up a new market is the tough part since you first have to persuade people to give it a try. Shitty products have to take the marketing beyond "give it a try," to "You are going to like it because I need to make bonus, you cocksucker."

Re:Understandable

[plague3106]

Don't you get sick of copying and pasting this to every thread about the Wii?

Re:Understandable

[Sciros]

Nope it's an easy karma buffer :-P

On Simpson's Movie Opening Day...

[Bullfish]

EA exec says "D'oh!"

Seriously, even Nintendo didn't plan for the Wii's level of sell-through

Madden?

[AKAImBatman]

EA had the second-largest market share on Wii as of March with 19 percent, thanks mainly to Tiger Woods PGA Tour.

How odd. I would have thought that Madden was the EA leading title. While the graphics aren't as nice as the 360 and PS3 versions, players often report how cool it is to play the game with actual football movements rather than overly complex controller commands. I know a lot of non-sports gamers actually picked up the game just for the innovative controls. (I have to admit that I was also tempted. But I'm too much of a miserly scrooge to spend the money. :P)

Then again, one of the things I really wanted when I got a Wii was a true Mario Golf type of game. Perhaps the serious golfers all played the Wii Sports version and fell in love with the idea? A relative of mine told his wife on no uncertain terms that they were getting a Wii, after he played a few holes on the Wii Sports Golf course. So I suppose it's possible that the Golfers like the idea even more than the football fans. (That's a shocking thought.)

Re:Madden?

[Drachemorder]

Golf tends to lend itself to the Wii controller a bit more than football does, in my opinion. I'd also like to see a realistic baseball game for the Wii. Wii Sports baseball has an awesome pitcher-batter dynamic, but it doesn't have anything at all beyond that.

Re:Madden?

[Anonymous Coward]

Owning both Madden and Tiger Woods golf, I can tell you that Madden is FAR superior of a game as far as mechanics go.

The controls for Tiger Woods, while good, are just too touchy. Many game review sites have pointed out why this is, but basically, I find myself making many "half shots" where i end up stopping mid-swing and starting over.

I'd have to think that the reason MAaden isn't the leader is people waiting for the 08 version instead of buying the "old" 07 version.

Re:Madden?

[bomanbot]

Well, I think the problem with Madden last year was that the Wii was just released for the holiday season, whereas Madden traditionally gets released in August or so (just before the start of the season). So I guess a lot of people who needed their Madden fix already had the game for a different platform and did not want to shell out money again for the Wii version (what is also a problem is that Madden on the Wii (AFAIK) does not have an online roster update function yet, so it came late to the party and is not even upgradable.

Lets see how Madden fares this year on the Wii. I think it will do very well, since last years version showed that the controls work surprisingly well and are a lot of fun (as you mentioned yourself) and this year the Wii version should be out simultaneously to the other platforms.

Re:Madden?

[cowscows]

I think part of it is that Nintendo has been selling many Wii's to the more "casual" gamer, and golf is certainly a more casual and relaxed game to play than football. Even if the motion controls have simplified Madden, the series of options that the game of football presents to someone who's functioning as both a coach and a player is quite complex and the timing and execution required to make it work takes a lot of practice to get comfortable with.

It may take a significant amount of time to get really good at Golf, but any ol' idiot can take an occasional swing and hit the ball in the general direction that they're aiming.

Basically, the initial learning curve for any halfway realistic football game is going to be a good bit steeper than for a realistic golf game. It's just the nature of the two sports. If Nintendo's really making this big push into new gamer territory, it's certainly easy to see how golf would appeal more to many of those players (especially since they already got a taste of it with WiiSports golf).

Re:Madden?

[gstoddart]

Then again, one of the things I really wanted when I got a Wii was a true Mario Golf type of game. Perhaps the serious golfers all played the Wii Sports version and fell in love with the idea?

Yup. The games in Wii sports are uncanny; at least to me.

Bowling, I can do in real life (sorta). The Wii version feels exactly like that. It's fun. I spend a fair amount of time playing this.

Golf, playing it feels like if I focus on my swing the same way I do in real life, I shoot better. It feels like practice. It's uncanny.

Baseball, I can't hit a ball in real life either, let alone hit a home run. Same thing with Wii Sports. ;-) This, I don't play at all.

The thing about a game which has made really good use of the Wii controller is, the game play feels natural. Contrast this with previous golf games where you aim, press A to start the swing, and press A at the bottom of the swing, and this is a HUGE improvement.

Having stood in front of a 43" projection TV playing golf on my Wii, I can vouch for the fact that it just feels 'right'. It really is an immersive experience, and lots of fun to boot.

Now, if I could only figure out the motion for the pool game in Wii Play, I could start playing Wii pool as well as I do in real life. :-P

Cheers

Re:Madden?

[CopaceticOpus]

Of course, the nice thing about Madden is how quickly it depreciates. Just buy it in a year or two. I'm not much of a Madden fan, but it was hard to pass up when I saw Madden 2004 for my PS2 on sale for 83 cents. Yes, that was really the price!

Re:Madden?

[Drachemorder]

I agree with that. That's what I'm doing. But then, aren't they coming out with another Tiger Woods soon as well?

Re:Madden?

[WeeLad]

I considered Madden when I bought the Wii, but I was guessing that EA just square-pegged it into the round hole of the Wii. (I don't care what innuendo is read into that). I try to NOT buy the same EA game (with new rosters) every year. So, I figured I had a version or two to let them acclamate to the Wii and figure out what they're doing. Now it seems like they're going to put forth a serious effort. If it reviews well enough, the next version of Madden may be a Wii purchase.

Re:Madden?

[rimugu]

Maybe, golfers do play golf. While many NFL fans are just viewers.

Re:Madden?

[7Prime]

Demographics speak for themselves. Actually, the Wii is the favorite choice of the older and more serious gamer. It's also the choice of the casual gamer too. It's the 12-18 "extreme teen" gamer whose been left behind.

There's no doubt that Nintendo has a hold on the casual gaming market. But go check ANY weboard with gamers serious enough to spend significant parts of their lives discussing games, and you'll find that the Wii is the chosen system.

Re:Madden?

[buffer-overflowed]

The average household income of your typical wii-owning household is the highest, it exceeds 100k.

According to nielson, Wii owning households have the most disposable income, and play the console the 2nd least, just ahead of the PS3(but still frequently, it's not that big a difference).

They also trend towards older singles and families. With all members of a given family finding time for the console.

It's also the significant favorite(with the 360 just behind) of every gaming forum that doesn't have playstation or sony in the name.

You weren't the only one, EA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's have a show of hands here. How many people, prior to E3 2006, actually thought that Nintendo would be able to reverse their fortunes so spectacularly? How many times did everyone hear people talking about "PS2 and XBox" or "Sony and Microsoft" when talking about the new generation of consoles? It was clear that Nintendo was going for broke when they unveiled their control scheme, but I think it was simply impossible at that point to foresee a turnabout of this magnitude. Considering how risk averse developers are these days, it's hardly surprising that many of them elected to overlook the Wii in the beginning.

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[Volante3192]

Before E3 06? Dunno, I'm sure we were expecting a solid console, but then we were also expecting the PS3 to be a freakin monster. The thing is, even AFTER E3 '06, analysts and industry leaders were still backing PS3 as #1 and Xbox as #2.

The lines at E3 '06 should have been a clue to even analysts that their previous thoughts on the PS3 might be shaky. The problem is, everyone in the industry was gauging the success of the new consoles on past history and no one gave even passing acknowledgement to the excitement in the Ninty fanbase. Basically, the people that saw the Wii's success were the people that play games. Those that felt the PS3 would win were those that analyze and make games. ...sorta like Jon Stewart's summary of Ted Stevens: "You know jack shit about the internet, but that's ok; you're just in charge of regulating it."

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[AKAImBatman]

The thing is, even AFTER E3 '06, analysts and industry leaders were still backing PS3 as #1 and Xbox as #2. The problem is, everyone in the industry was gauging the success of the new consoles on past history and no one gave even passing acknowledgement to the excitement in the Ninty fanbase.

This guy pegged it. (See the section titled "Generation 6") Amazingly enough, he did it by following the trends of the past. The exact thing that the press didn't do. The press foolishly followed the "Playstation will always dominate" line of thinking, which is not much of an economic prediction.

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[ArmyOfFun]

That article is an interesting analysis. It does show that sales leaders don't stay that way for very long in the game market. So, there was a greater chance for a Sony downfall than a less historical analysis may have predicted (or at least one more heavily weighted on the recent past).

Yet, the trends didn't necessarily point out just who would replace Sony (if anyone). In fact, ignoring the criteria Carroll focused on (first to market, graphics capability), you'll notice Nintendo's market share decreasing at a rate greater than Sega ever experienced. In fact, there's no historical trend for any player to significantly increase their market share in successive generations (with the sole exception of Sega's move from the Master System to the Genesis). If anything, the trends pointed to the Wii doing about as well as the Dreamcast.

Another interesting thing in this generation, is it's the first since the SNES generation with only 3 major consoles competing and the first generation ever that has no new companies entering the market. All previous leader changes came from players new to the home console market (Atari-Nintendo-Sony). In this generation, the players are all established. Perhaps with Nintendo's radically different approach, they're playing the role of the newcomer.

In the end, I don't think the best bet was for the Wii to come out on top, even if that's what happens. What's becoming more clear is, at least from a historical perspective, betting the PS3 would dominate was a bad bet. It already lost market share from the PS1-PS2 switch, PS3 was the most expensive and it has the counter-intuitive disadvantage of having the most graphically capable hardware.

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[AKAImBatman]

Yet, the trends didn't necessarily point out just who would replace Sony (if anyone).

The trends clearly showed that the PS3 and XBox 360 were too technologically advanced to be the winners of this generation. That left Nintendo and a possible newcomer. Since no newcomer arrived, Nintendo got to take the crown.

It's an interesting thought experiment to think what might have happened if, say, Sega introduced a new console with a competitive price but more traditional controls. Would the Wii still be selling like hotcakes, or would it be playing a more modest role in the market?

The stiffest competition in history was between the Genesis and SNES. The two were similar enough technologically that their respective superiorities didn't much matter. They were both affordable consoles with strong game libraries. I have a sneaky suspicion that if such a competitor were available, Nintendo's magic Wii Remote would not have been as successful of a draw as it ended up being.

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[Khaed]

I've been arguing that the Wii would be more successful since it was called the Revolution...

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[Steve525]

Interesting analysis, but I'm going to disagree. I'm not sure a less expensive new console (essentially a Wii without the fancy controller) would have much of a draw. You might as well just buy a PS2 (which would have worse graphics, but has more games available).

Most people buy systems to play games. It's hard to predict how your imaginary console would fare, without the imaginary games to go with it. My prediction is that such a system would generate little interest from the 3rd party developers, and therefore have few interesting games and flop. The Wii is doing well despite being initially ignored by the 3rd party developers, because the controller is so innovative. It also is important that Nintendo is a big enough software house to keep it alive (although not necessarily wildly successful) until the other development houses catch on.

It's interesting that you bring up Sega, since the Dreamcast is close to being a good example of what you suggest. It was cheaper and less powerful than the PS2, but it got killed by the PS2. Sega was able to produce some good games for it, but many people figured all their favorite games (or at least sequels to them) were coming out on the PS2, so they waited to buy it instead.

If there were no Wii, I think we'd see a slow migration over to the new generation as the prices come down and more games are released. It would be hard to predict a winner between the PS3 and Xbox360 - a single blockbuster (like GTAIII) could completely swing things to one or the other. I think the PS3 would be the most likely to win because of better support and sales in Japan. Without the innovative controller, Nintendo would simply have another game console that sells in somewhat small numbers to people who want to play Nintendo games. (Not that there's anything wrong with that if Nintendo is making money). Any other companies entering the fray (without Microsoft's deep pockets) would get slaughtered.

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[AKAImBatman]

It's interesting that you bring up Sega, since the Dreamcast is close to being a good example of what you suggest. It was cheaper and less powerful than the PS2, but it got killed by the PS2.

In all reality, Sega killed the Dreamcast, not Sony. Sega was in dire financial straights around the time that the Dreamcast was released. Despite being a very popular system and a strong competitor in the market, it failed because Sega turned the lights off. Sega was forced to restructure, so the low-margins of a console were the first thing to go. Instead, they realigned around Nintendo's GameCube and have been making pretty decent money as a software house ever since.

The prevailing rumor that you hear about the Dreamcast is that it was killed by piracy. While it's true that it was incredibly easy to pirate Dreamcast games (once the CDROM boot codes were discovered, anyway), piracy had no material impact on the console during its lifetime. Piracy more or less killed the post-death market, but that was to be somewhat expected due to the perceived disruption caused by the EOL on the console.

It's hard to predict how your imaginary console would fare, without the imaginary games to go with it. My prediction is that such a system would generate little interest from the 3rd party developers

The Dreamcast had exceptionally good 3rd party support, though. That's why I used Sega as an example. My point was that another competitor would have softened the impact of the Wii Remote on the market. Instead, Nintendo was able to separate themselves from the pack by a full $150 difference. Combined with their blue ocean strategy, Nintendo was able to take the trophy straight out of the gate.

Remember, Sony added motion sensing to the PS3 shortly after it was realized that the Wii's Controller was a key selling point. This feature has yet to have a material impact on either Sony's or Nintendo's market.

Now if Nintendo had failed to deliver a compelling product (e.g. a Gamecube 2.0), then the XBox would have taken the trophy. But the trends of the market generally assume that all the competitors are balls-to-the-wall competing for your dollar. Soft competitors who don't have what it takes simply don't make it to the market. (e.g. Phantom, Indrema, Panasonic M2)

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[7Prime]

February 2006, baby:

"Why Apple Won and Why Nintendo Will"

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[7Prime]

I'm going to have to dissagree here. The 360 and PS3 are really no more a leap than any other generation, even if the companies have been acting like they are. But that's ALWAYS the case, isn't it? A company claims that their newest product is not only the best, but a bigger jump than any of their previous ones. Well, we're going on the 3rd generation of 3D gaming (the last MAJOR jump in game design) and nothing really extraordinary. Sure, we're one step closer to photorealistic graphics, but then, that's sort of a moving target, too. People said we were almost there when FF7 was released, believe it or not... but the more we go, the more attuned we are to the small inconsistancies between 3D modeling and reality. And even if/when we DO get there, will it mean anything? Do we really respond any differently to film than we do to 3D graphics? When we're absorbed in the game, I don't think we do.

But I digress. Nintendo truly offered something new, for the first time since the PS1 lept into the fray with full 3D graphics. It's the 360 and the PS3, while being more powerful, that don't offer any distinct course in the development in gaming. And people welcome a change of pace.

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[AKAImBatman]

The 360 and the PS3 are predicated on HDTV gaming. Which requires a ~10 fold increase in console processing power. That's a significant leap to make and have superior graphics to the previous generation of consoles.

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[7Prime]

Bzzzzz, wrong!

720p (which is the vast majority of HD titles) uses only about 3x the screen realestate as 480i/p, and thus requires about 3x more processing power. The leap to HDTV is not the first resolution change, actually, just the first one to require different TV hardware. The SNES to N64/PS1 required a 4x processing power boost when it went from 240i to 480i. A 15x processing jump between generations, when taking into account new graphical processing procedures, clockspeed upgrades, and everything else involved, is pretty much par for the course, even 20x or 25x is not uncommon. The SNES to N64 was an absolutely huge processing jump when compared to the one from the PS2 to PS3. The PS3 is pretty much in line with where it should be considering the jump from PS1 to PS2... it's just that Sony had to make a big stink about it, mainly because BluRay and Cell technology jacked up the price, more than people would be willing to pay for the realistic processing increase.

But the bottom line is... "is it worth it?" Sony and Microsoft can spout that there's a 25x processing jump, all they want, but does the system LOOK like it's 25x more powerful? That's all people care about. And no, I can't justify saying that anything looks 25x more godly on those systems. Well, the PS3 may only look it, only if because the PS2 looks so damn ancient by todays standards. I just played RE4 on my Wii (GameCube graphics), and went back to playing Shadow of the Colossus on my PS2... and as much as I love the artful construction of SotC, the games really look like two different generations, even if they basically came out at the same time. PS2 -> GC/XBox, now THERE'S a gap in ACTUAL graphical improvement that's immediately noticable.

Re:You weren't the only one, EA...

[buffer-overflowed]

I did. Also called the PS3 price(and it being a failure) before the E3 '06 announcement and called the success of the DS(which I was hoping would have the top screen be a sharp parallax display) before we even knew what it looked like. And the dreamcast dying. Microsoft barely beating Nintendo out last gen surprised me though.

Caught in ice

[Anonymous Coward]

remembered as a primitive electronic art form surprised by the unexpected innovation season

Re:Mario golf type game

[El Gigante de Justic]

While there isn't Mario Golf yet, check out Super Swing Golf. The mechanics in it are pretty good (although it takes a while to figure out exactly how they want you to swing the wii-mote), and it has the same sort of cartoony style that a Mario Golf game would have. I'm also an owner of Madden, and the controls are pretty cool. I'm tempted to get the 08 version when it comes out because they have apparantly cleaned up some of the problems from the 07 version, mainly that audibles are being made easier, and the only way to switch players on defense before the snap in 07 was to point and click, where as there is now a cycle button like the other versions.

Wouldnt a better headline be...

[bomanbot]

EA - Wii got caught by surprise? ;-)

Re:Wouldnt a better headline be...

[Fozzyuw]

EA - Wii got caught by surprise? ;-)

Yeah, they really got caught with their pants down on this one.

ouch!

[jollyreaper]

I suppose that's better than catching their wii by surprise.

"The exec" is fucking retarded.

[Ant P.]

The exec as much as admitted that they 'bet on the wrong horse' by focusing on the PS3 and 360 during the console transistion

No, he bet on the wrong horse by trying to use a business model for razors to run a games company. Gamers have voted with their money now that they have a choice - they choose not to have identical shitty games shoved at them every 12.0 months.

Hopefully EA will be gone for good when the next gen comes around.

Re:"The exec" is fucking retarded.

[Endo13]

Hopefully EA will be gone for good when the next gen comes around. While I share your sentiment, I'm highly doubtful that will happen. They're already second in sales percentage on the most popular system, and that while they're still trying to switch over to developing for that system. Nope, I don't think EA is going anywhere.

Re:"The exec" is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gamers have voted with their money now that they have a choice - they choose not to have identical shitty games shoved at them every 12.0 months.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the marketplace says otherwise. You may be shocked to discover that the vast majority of this country does not think exactly like you do.

Re:"The exec" is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for EA at the Exec level and Riccotello is a moron. He blazed thru 360 million with EA.com...killed UO2..(way to go John!!! Can you say WOW??) and is the most smug, "sweater over the shoulder dolt" you have ever met.

Re:"The exec" is fucking retarded.

[TroshBogre]

EA is not going to be gone for good, but they are learning a lesson about "the model" that they gravitated towards over the last decade (big, huge franchises only, massive marketing campaigns and huge bloated budgets to cover the asses of the people working on the game). It's that model that makes people around here get sick when they see "Standard EA Sports game '08". It makes a ton of money, minimizes risks and the exclusive relationships they forge protect that success as long as they can hang on. It works, but it kills the evolution of the games and makes it more and more difficult for innovation (look at the last two Maddens for example, they actually went BACKWARDS in features). As another poster said above, the success of the Wii is opening the doors for smaller developers and publishers to earn some money without "the model". That's really exciting for me, as a small scale game developer that there is a platform I can develop on that will actually get looked at by a publisher with me having to prove I have a $5 million PR campaign, Saturday morning cartoon and $50 million dollar dev budget.

Re:"The exec" is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

"they choose not to have identical shitty games shoved at them every 12.0 months."

Well, people keep buying the same damn Mario games over and over and over again every time a new Nintendo console comes out, so I guess that proves you wrong.

Re:"The exec" is fucking retarded.

[EACable]

Ignore the tag name I do not work for EA but think about this and your comment on Madden... when you have had a game in the industry and that game has a fixed amount of ideas, are you not going to eventually become stale? Sport's games are a clearly defined set of rules... the only thing you can really "create" is some new lame arcade mode game (pokemadden anyone?) that no one wants to even play. So what do you get to innovate after 15+ years of being a game that has defined rules? A 50 dollar a year roster update :D

Re:"The exec" is fucking retarded.

[TroshBogre]

Bug fixes.
AI. It's horrible. You can STILL repeat the same play over and over again and score TDs.
Coaching switches for decision making instead of the all or nothing switch.
Options on the rules of the games (there are some, but it's hardly fully realized).
Better playbook management / editing.
Better accuracy with actual game rules.
Interface improvements.
I could go on.

Really.
I don't care if they never add another game mode. I want what's already there (in 2004) to be finished first.

caught mii by surprise, too.

[tiedyejeremy]

I rallied against my kids getting a new game system. Then I saw the Wii on the release date at a local mall and went on the hunt. I bought it for myself, disguised as a Christmas gift for the kids. Honestly, it was the pure lack of same old games that drew me in. Now, I'm looking forward to what EA might do with the Wii, and think this slow adoption might be good for both companies.

Riiiiighttttt!

[realsilly]

Fuba!
Fuba!
Fuba!

Ding!

What'a a Wii?

Everyone was blindsided

[Graftweed]

I'm trying really hard to think of a studio that accurately predicted the Wii's success and oriented themselves accordingly, it wasn't just EA. Proof of this is that after all this time after the launch there are still very few truly stellar games for the system apart from Nintendo's titles.

Instead they're all running around in a panic and screaming: "Titles for the Wii are coming, don't worry!". The problem is that this is a re-deployment of resources brought upon by the unexpected market share of a system, instead of that system's uniques features. Or in other words, it was a bean counter along the corporate hierarchy who said "Holy cow, this is thing is selling like hot cakes, we need games out NOW" instead of some developer taking a look at the cool new control system and saying "You know, I could really do something amazing with this" and proceeding to annoy bean counters to realize his idea.

The end result is that this first flood of titles is crap, taking very little advantage of the Wii's control system. Things will get worse before they get better, as was the case with the DS's early life cycle.

Re:Everyone was blindsided

[johnsmith_12345]

Aside from Nintendo, Ubisoft was the only company to really push for the Wii at the beginning. They had Rayman, Red Steel, and some others I cant think of now.

Re:Everyone was blindsided

[LKM]

They had two mediocre car games that even included plastic steering wheels. So yeah, Ubi invested a lot in the Wii, even if most of their launch games were, well... a bit crappy.

Re:Everyone was blindsided

[Scudsucker]

Everyone? I thought it was obvious who was going to be on top once Sony released the price points of the PS3 and Nintendo showed off the motion sensing controller. Since this happened last year, I don't know why they are acting all surprised now.

Suprise! Wii

[theatrecade]

When i worked for a major entertainment distributor (blockbuster) i was singing the praises of the Wii the moment i saw the controller. i realized how important this milestone would be. I would talk to the HCG and they would say " but will i have the graphic power". then i remind them the DS is kicking the pants off of the PSP.

Anyone try Nascar 08? It's a joke.

[snsr]

EA doesn't have their sh*t together on the 360 or PS3, either. Nascar 08 is a joke- I deleted the demo after less than a lap. It looks, sounds, and plays like it's five years old. The last EA release I bought was Sim City 4, and it's looking like they're going to dumb that franchise down, too.

Really Old News

[sysadmintech]

When Nintendo announced at 2004 E3 the "Revolution", EA was right by their side giving full support. Each Christmas and tradeshow since EA has said that they were fully behind the Wii. I count at least a dozen times EA has announced they are fully behind the Wii.
Spike (Drangonball Z Bug Island), Square Enix (Dragon Quest, FF, Sponge Bob), Konami
(Elebits, Wing Island, Winning 11, DDR, Dewy), Hudson (Mario Party, Bomberman, Pilot Wings), Ubisoft (Rayman Raving Rabbits, Red Steel, Far Cry) , Ntreev (Pangya), Sega (Super Monkey Ball, Bleach, Ghost squad, Golden Compass, Mario Olympics, Puyo, Sonic, Alien Syndrome) ... there are hundreds of 3rd party developers, many small developing titles EA would never touch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_games
Comparing the 3 consoles titles, the other 2 are creating sequels of previous products much more often than Nintendo. The other 2 dislike retailers having the multi-console titles (i.e. Tiger Woods, Madden) running next to each other because they look and run exactly alike.

NHL Hockey on the Wii? :(

[markh100]

Can someone tell where my NHL 2008 on the Wii is? The controlling scheme would be so simple - Use the analog stick on the nunchuck to move, like every other NHL game. Configure the game so it knows whether you are left or right handed. Hold the wiimote and nunchuck in parallel, as if you were holding a hockey stick. Move the hockey stick around to stick handle. To help the Wii system understand what you're trying to do with the puck, hold down B to shoot and Z to pass. A quick flick of the wrists for a wrister, and a windup for a slapshot. It seems so obvious to me that this would be a killer game on the Wii. I almost want to get my hands on the Wii developer kit just so I can build a prototype of the controlling scheme to get EA Sports on the right track.

Right now, I'm stuck playing Nintendo Ice Hockey (circa 1988), and it just isn't cutting it. I've considered ponying up a few dollars for a couple Gamecube controllers and NHL 2006, but I can't say I'm that excited about the idea, since I already have NHL 07 on the PC.

Re:NHL Hockey on the Wii? :(

[cowscows]

I love that old school nintendo hockey game. I played the crap out of it. Also there was a code(it may have been with the game genie?) that made the ice frictionless, so you could just take a huge slapshot and the puck would bounce all over the place until it went into a goal. Awesome.

Re:NHL Hockey on the Wii? :(

[markh100]

Thanks for the heads up on the hint codes.

No Goalies - At The Start Screen: Hold A and B on Both Controllers and then Start on the first controller

Non-Stop Puck and No goalies! - On he title screen hold down the A and B buttons on controllers 1 and 2, then press start on controller 1, now you'll have a puck that never stops moving, and no goalies at the nets.

Source: Gamespot

Re:NHL Hockey on the Wii? :(

[LKM]

Well, you shouldn't be complaining, because Ice Hockey is clearly the best hockey game of all times :-)

I like your control scheme idea, though.

Re:NHL Hockey on the Wii? :(

[Physician]

Ice Hockey was one of my favorite games for the NES. Playing as the goaltender is done as well or better than any ice hockey game since its time. Now you're gonna force me to find my old cartridge.

Caught the fanboys, too

[Captain Spam]

Seriously, I consider myself to be perhaps more than a small bit of a Nintendo fanboy. I used to defend the N64 and the Gamecube against naysayers saying nay. Even I was cynical that Wii would get anywhere.

I can't blame EA for this. Less bizzare concepts than this have tanked in the past.

Re:Caught the fanboys, too

[Shados]

Same here, I've been with Nintendo the whole way, only getting a PS2 at the end of last gen's for KH2, and when Nintendo showed off the "Revolution", I was like "Bleh...I'm not getting caught THREE times in a row Nintendo, hell no!". Then E3 happened, and we can guess the rest: I was in line in November at midnight (and didn't get one until january...)

Re:Caught the fanboys, too

[7Prime]

11:40pm at -40F, launch at 1am. Day one Wii owner, and enjoying every minute of it.

The Sports Game Issue

[superbus1929]

See, when people look at a game and go "there's nothing different! It's a roster update!", most of the time, that's not really the case.

See, I am a BIG time sports fan. Watch them, play them, officiate some of them... I KNOW my sports. And for awhile - especially in the PS2 era - every EA Sports game was an improvement over the prior year's to the point where it made the game worth it. The changes seem subtile to the naked eye, but even simple AI changes affect the way the game is played, making each subsequent version different - and better - than the prior version.

Lately, that's not the case; ever since buying out the NFL and ESPN licenses, Electronic Arts has proven that they will not improve Madden except in minimal instances (and even those are stupid, like "Oh, your big kickers have a foot icon next to their name!"), and they don't have to, because people buy the same game as 2004, but only at 2007, $60 prices. NBA Live has gotten WORSE over the years, and EA is openly ignoring the PS2 and XBox now. Oh, they'll still charge you $50 for their game, but it's going to have no differences from the year's prior game for that system... at all.

Sports games don't need "innovation" as much as refinement. But EA's not even doing that right. Not recently.

EA is the whore of the video game industry.

[henry_the_h0rse]

EA's business philosophy is to create linear manufactured cookie cutter games that can be pumped out to the largest demographic in order to maximize profits. Regardless of the fact EA is one of the largest game companies they are also among the lowest quality of game companies. Them backing the "wrong horse" translates into them not making slightly more money and has nothing to do with making a better game. EA has diluted the gaming market with crap and in my opinion I'd back whichever console that monopoly wasn't focusing on. History has proven EA to be a back stabbing company time after time any way so why support them? They don't believe in building good business relations, instead they follow whoever they think will make them the extra dollar. If it wasn't for the Sega Genesis EA wouldn't be what they are today, but years later EA would end up putting strangleholds on the Dreamcast that contributed to Segas downfall. Sony will never see a downfall any where close to Segas but I feel EA is doing the same thing here. Sony helped push EAs product to the most masses over the last 10 years but that doesn't matter any more because a few extra bucks can be made elsewhere.

Re:Red Steel

[Psykechan]

Quick review for those thinking about buying it from someone who feels that they got their $50 worth out of the game.

Red Steel is mediocre. The graphics are so 5 years ago, the story is silly, the control can be somewhat flaky at times. The enemies' AI is terrible and they shout the most odd things sometimes. But there is some fun to be had. It's a good "first attempt" game and reminds me of Codename: Eagle.

The limited multiplayer has the potential for quite a bit of fun too. Honestly, a friend and I played it for over four hours straight and were still having a good time.

Re:Madden over Tiger Woods?

[trdrstv]

Golf tends to lend itself to the Wii controller a bit more than football does, in my opinion.

Agreed, and there are a number of things that help that. One of which being they dynamic of older players playing the Wii. Golf (like Bowling) only requires the Wiimote, is turn based (reflex speed isn't an issue) and from a basic rule stand point it's easier to explain the fundamentals of [how to play] golf over football so the sport is immediately more approachable.

I own both Madden and TW 07, and I LOVE how Madden simulates a game of backyard football, and the motion controls work great (the pointer, not so much but it's barely used) however when playing with my retired parents it is undoubtedly TW golf, or Bowling that gets played.

Still fails to get it

[onallama]

The firm said the recent company-wide reorganization and a focus on creating new IP and nurturing of current IP will help make money for investors in the future.

Um, dude -- your customers buy games, not IP. You may think of your games as IP, generic cash cows that you can slap a fresh coat of paint on and get people to shell out another $50 for each year, but lose sight of that fact that your products are games at your own peril.

Virtual Boy was too ambitious.

[Ayanami Rei]

We now realize that VR is not yet sufficiently bulletproof to sell it to Joe Sixpack. They tried for a stripped-down implementation of a hot new technology (over a backdrop of popular culture interest, Lawnmower Man and all) but the limitations were too severe.
At least Nintendo got a first crack at programming for a "real computer" and in 3D... took a do-over.
Once we can get head-tracking and goggles with OLED overlays working sufficiently well for augmented reality -- much less disorienting and doesn't require room for a fricking tripod -- then Nintendo or Sony can try again for such a product.

offtopic, slightly un-informed..

[Anonymous Coward]

>There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open

wouldnt pdf be considered a proprietary standard?

The answer..

[okinawa_hdr]

Fortune favors the bold. Congrats Nintendo, you deserve all of your success because you are gaming pioneers, and not corporate sleaze.

Stop with the mini-games flamebaits!

[LKM]

Oh, stop with the mini-games flamebaits. The Wii has more FPS than mini-games. If anything, it could use a bunch more mini-games, because Wii Sports, Wario, Super Monkey Ball and Rayman are slowly getting old. Where's Wii Sports 2?

The Wii is unprecedented

[LKM]

Even Nintendo had no clue that the Wii would sell this well. They still can't keep up with demand, and they will not be able to keep up with demand until after Christmas. Nobody expected the Wii to become the social phenomenon that it is, even considering how well the DS did. I never thought it would fail as badly as people claimed, especially after the E3 where it was playable, but really, the Wii's success is unprecedented. If you compare the aligned launches of the PS2, the SNES and the Wii (some of the most successfull consoles of all time), the Wii handily beats them to a pulp.

Even those who expected the Wii to do ok or even do well could not have expected anything of this magnitude.

A leap not in power, but in price!

[LKM]

The 360 and PS3 are really no more a leap than any other generation, even if the companies have been acting like they are.

If you're saying that the difference in power and graphics between the PS1 and the PS2 is not smaller than the difference between the PS2 and the PS3, then I would agree. In fact, I think the difference between PS1 and PS2 is bigger than the difference between PS2 and PS3. But what really killed the 360 and the PS3 (well, not killed, but hurt them a lot) is the difference in price to their predecessors.

Re:A leap not in power, but in price!

[7Prime]

$400 is not out of the question for a BRAND NEW console at launch, especially when there's also a $300 version. But $500-$600 is WAY out there. Wasn't the PS2 something like $350 at launch? The 360 isn't completely out of the question, although maybe a little pricey. The PS3 is completely rediculous though.

Re:A leap not in power, but in price!

[LKM]

The PS2 launched at US$299.99.

The PS3 is way too expensive. The 360 is too expensive. Even the Wii is a bit too expensive - although it's still selling so well that price cuts aren't necessary.

Consoles are basically toys. People view them as toys. They should not cost more than US$200. 200 bucks is, I think, the sweet spot for mass market acceptance. If you want to be the next PS2, you got to get the price below 200 bucks.

Re:A leap not in power, but in price!

[7Prime]

I agree. But, seeing how well the Wii is selling, it's kinda hard to point fingers at Nintendo. Honestly, they could have sold at $300, and they'd probably still be behind demand. You can't fault a company for selling below demand.

sigh

[Vacardo]

Old news is old

Just Make Sure I Can Use Regular Controls

[sherriw]

I have a Wii, and while the motion control is nice in some instances (Wii Sports, Trauma Center), it sucks for first person shooters. There, I said it. I have Call of Duty 3 and even with setting the remote sensitivity all the way down, it still sucks for fine aiming, doesn't return to center so you end up looking at your feet a lot, and god forbid you need to scratch an itch or reposition your hands.

Also, with the current nunchuck+remote setup there are WAY too few buttons within reach of your fingers and you have to stretch your hand up and down the remote to reach other buttons- which of course messes up your aim. Nunchuck has joystick plus 2 buttons. On remote you can reach the trigger, A button and down arrow without moving your hand. That it. Now you tell me how to fit: jump, crouch, run, grenade, flashlight, swap weapon, binoculars,... all onto those few buttons.(yuk)

I know many people love the remote for FPS games- and that's cool too, but I BEG all the game companies out there (are you listening EA?) to give us the option of remote, OR classic controller. Choice is good!!

Re:Just Make Sure I Can Use Regular Controls

[mink]

Have you ever tried to do any of those things while holding a real pistol/rifle?

I agree with you on the number of buttons/buttons being in reach issue.

It makes sense.

[J-1000]

It makes sense since it's easy to pretend the Wiimote is a golf club. With football, what are you supposed to do, pretend it's a football? That said, I wasn't too impressed with the swing controls in TW. The only way for me to get consistent swings was to choose the dumbed down control scheme.

Re:It makes sense.

[mink]

"With football, what are you supposed to do, pretend it's a football?"
Yes. Just like you pretend it's a bowling ball.