Slashdot Mirror
Will Wright Opines That Wii Is the Only Next-Gen Console
PhoenixOne writes "In an article that will probably tick off a lot of PS3 owners, Will Wright calls the PS3 and 360 'incremental improvement(s)'. 'The Wii feels like a major jump - not that the graphics are more powerful, but that it hits a completely different demographic. In some sense I see the Wii as the most significant thing that's happened, at least on the console side, in quite a while ... I still, for the most part, prefer playing games on the computer - to me the mouse is the best input device ever. Every generation it's like 'the PC's dead! The PC's dead!'. But it carries on growing when consoles are flat for five years. At the moment I can get better graphics on my PC than I can on the PS3.'"
All about gameplay baby and NOT pretty graphics. While they're nice to have, I'd rather have fun and be somewhat active than sit and look at pretty pictures. Viva le Wii!!! Peace
Or perhaps it actually went and did something new instead of rehashing the same crap all over again this time slightly shinier. I'm just saying...
How the fuck does the creator of The Sims have any right to accuse people of rehashing the same old crap over again?
I'm not at all surprised. Here's a man who is famous for creative mind asked what he thought about the new consoles. Of course he's not going to find the PS2 + 1 and the XBOX +1 (well + 360 in this case) interesting. They simply are more of the same. Better graphics with HD support. Even more bloat trying to act as a media hub. Wireless controllers. These are all nice things but really nothing that took any creativity. Really those two consoles are the sum of minor upgrades to bring them in line with newer technology.
The Wii itself is actually even worse in this regard, it's the past generation of tech being sold...again. The innovation and creativity is in the controller and that's what he respects. In this way the Wii isn't a Gamecube + 1 it's more like a Gamecube + Demographic widening idea. Is he doing anything of note for the Wii/DS? I'd be curious to see what he comes up with.
I agree completely. I wouldn't care if graphics were stuck where Zak & Wiki and Metroid 3 and Mario are. They all look just fine. If someone could figure out a way to make actual curved surfaces fast, that would be an improvement, but those games look fantastic. Heck, even RE 4 and some of the other 'Cube games looked good enough.
The Wii is different. I read something the other day where someone important commented that we have 50x more power this generation than last (or something like that) and we are using it to calculate 50x as many polygons and stuff like that. They are mostly being used for better graphics. Not more physics. Not more AI. Just more stuff in the background of games that don't effect things as much. There are a few games doing things differently, but the average game is still a PS2 or XBox game with more polygons and shiny things.
This will improve some as people get more familiar, but the Wii is the only system that is trying to do something different at this point in more than 1 or 2 games.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
but, really, what it comes down to is semantics. I mean, look at the different generation iPods, yea, there were some leaps, but sometimes it was just an improvement in hard disk space and tweaks to the interface. the way people use the term "next-gen" is in terms of the competition available. the wii's competition has been deemed to be the ps3 and the xbox360. technically, it's competing with the ps2 and xbox as well, but its main competitors, the ones that everyone keeps an eye on, are the ps3 & x360. each generation is just the group of the current competitors of that era so to speak.
So, while he does raise a VERY good point, its really just a different use of the term next-gen. its the next generation of each console (sony's, ms's, & nintendo's). while the wii is revolutionary, it doesn't mean you *can't* call the other consoles next-gen. technologically speaking, they are quite revolutionary (ie: ps3's cell processor) in their own regards, but the basic concept behind them hasn't changed.
I don't know why it would tick off PS3 owners (or Xbox 360 owners, for that matter)....
1. If your point of view is that "next generation console" means "console that introduces a new model for interacting with the system", then it is generally true that the Wii is the true next generation system (though the PS3 does cautiously dip its toe in that water).
2. On the other hand, if "next generation console" means "console that provides the core functions of a next generation TV-based entertainment environment," then the Wii misses the boat and the PS3 (and perhaps the Xbox 360) is the true next gen console.
3. Now, if one asserts that what makes a console "next generation" is that it taps a new or expanded audience of users, then it is not the console that is "next generation" at all. In this case, one might understandably describe the audience as "next generation gamers".
In summary, having a new or expanded class of users means there is a "next generation" audience. Having a new or expanded class of functions means there is a "next generation" device.
Well, but you're not part of the core demographic of the Wii or of Spore.... The fact that you own all three consoles tells me you're not a casual gamer. I have a Wii, and my wife plays it more than I do. She wouldn't touch the other consoles with a ten foot pole, but she loves the Wii games. Even the simple ones that you're disparaging. The "audio quality, screen size, screen resolution, and general graphics quality" don't really matter to her as much.
True gamers have never liked titles like The Sims or Spore because they don't have an end goal. You actually have to be creative in these games to enjoy them; it has little to do with "involved skill".
HD graphics doesn't enable console games to do anything new; they do the same stuff as N64 games, but better looking (and with some features borrowed from PCs, like networked multiplayer). The wiimote enables games to do things that are truly new for mainstream consumer entertainment products.
How are the things you mentioned not "incremental improvements?" All of the aspects of video games you just mentioned have been around since Doom, they've just gotten better ever since then... incrementally. Motion control, in the sense that the Wii has it, is new, as in never been done before in a console. What can you do on the 360 and PS3 that you can't do on a PC? Nothing. What about on the Wii?
Maybe the wording he's using is a little off; "next gen" has always meant "incremental improvements" over a wide array of features and capabilities. But "next gen" in the context that Will Wright seems to be using it truly does only describe the Wii.
I'll respectfully disagree here, the article is reporting an opinion of an influential developer, not trying to define anything specific. Wright's echoing the same insight that everyone else has had on the Wii; Nintendo is playing a different game (pardon the pun) from the "Big 2" everyone was watching a couple of years ago, and winning new customers from the disaffected masses that aren't willing to sacrifice feeding their children in exchange for a high-polygon paperweight :) It's not just about the box, it's about strategy IMO.
When "The Sims" first came out, it really was a new game, and not a clone or rehash of other games. The thing that so many people find annoying about "The Sims" is the continued push of new content packs, and the expansions. Others dislike the community that revolves around the franchise because it is very different from the RPG or the FPS crowd, each of which has their own feel and community.
Many people also look at the content that has been made available for the consoles as being what the console is all about(because of marketing). That has to be seen as a very valid opinion, because without games, any console is just a piece of electronic junk in the same way that a PC without applications is a piece of electronic junk. The SOFTWARE is what makes any of these things worth buying. So, are the games for the PS3 or 360 any different in terms of gameplay compared to the last generation? The Wii has changed the gameplay(due to the controller(s) used), and the games available are different, and as a whole are not just newer versions of stuff seen in the last generation of console games.
Make no mistake, new shooters on the new consoles may have new graphics and have notable improvements, but aside from story, how different in terms of gameplay are games on the new consoles compared to game on the old consoles?
I do NOT consider the Wii to be next generation, but it's different. In many ways, the differences are an improvement since there is more to games than running around in a World War II game trying to play the hero, or shooting everything that moves while following a very linear storyline with no options or chance of changing via actions.
I think you missed some of his point.
It's not that the 360 or ps3 are bad systems. It's that what they really added to the previous generation was a little better graphics, a little more storage space, small upgrades in individual aspects of the product.
What the Wii did was introduce a really different way of playing the games, and in the process has tapped into a market the ps3 and 360 couldn't dream of. Ergo, the impact of the Wii on the console gaming genre is larger even through the technological advances involved aren't.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
it just won't hold a gamer's interest for long.
It seems that you do not know that the largest age group of gamers is 40+. And that their sex is female.
Hardcore gamers typically occupy the 18-34 demographic and are mostly male (not all, but most).
This shift happened years ago. Pogo and all those other Java-based games available online changed things as the internet became popular with the general population. It is no longer what system specs do you have, or what your frame rate is with those specs (or what console you own). It is about sitting down and losing a few hours playing a game that you had originally devoted only fifteen minutes.
Yes, many people do not consider anyone outside of the 18-34 demographic to be gamers, but they are. They are the ones that are being targeted with the Wii. These are people that have influence over others. If someone's mother, father or grandparent is wanting to play a game with them on a Wii, then that is saying something. That is saying that gaming is finally hitting the general population.
I am not saying that hardcore gamers are people to just let fall by the wayside. They are not. However, they are not the most important demographic anymore. There are not enough of them to carry a PS3 or Xbox 360 into profitable margins in the first few years. Yes, I did just read something about the Xbox division of MS making a profit during a quarter this year, but that is not for this conversation.
Hardcore gamers were the life blood of many gaming companies for years. Many have changed what they liked. They have expanded their horizons and found other games that can draw them in. I am one of them. Although I did not consider myself a hardcore gamer, I did play many games associated with the hardcore crowd. I played them ten to fifteen hours a day, sometimes more. However, I have moved on. I started playing RTS games, and have even moved on to TBS games now. I play RPG games and quite a few Java-based games, but not as much as years past.
So, although, there will always be a hardcore gamer market, the industry has grown beyond them. They will still have their games coming to them, but they will have to live for awhile knowing that what they consider to be the best is not what is going to be talked about. Almost feels like a videophile talking about how much better Beta was over VHS, only to watch VHS take off leaving Beta fewer and fewer customers and therefore releases and then availability.
Do you think that someone who spends more than $400 on a gaming system may be more likely to buy games on a regular basis than someone who buys a $250 gaming system? Do you think that systems which are selling so poorly because they exclusively targeted the "Hard-Core" gamer maybe sell more software because the small portion of the market that are "Hard-Core" gamers buy more games than the majority of gamers? Do you think that some people may have looked at the gaming drought (and low quality ports that were released by shitty third party developers) and decided to play some classic (and still enjoyable) virtual console games rather than support shitty developers?
The Wii's attach rate is really not bad when you compare it to the Playstation, PS2 and Gamecubes attach rates at a similar point in their life (and consider that the Wii comes with a pack-in game which will lower the number of games some people buy).
Seriously, next year these elitest gamers who have the misguided idea that the Wii's sales will just drop off or that third party developers care about attch-rates (see awful attach rate of PS2) are in for a rude awakening. 75% of PS2 owners spent less than $200 on the PS2 and at the rate Microsoft is dropping the price of the XBox 360 and the fact Sony is still losing hundreds on their $400 "Affordable" PS3 the PS3 and XBox 360 will (at best) sell at 25% to the PS2's audience; which means they will sell at the same level as the Gamecube did.
I go to Best Buy all the time to see the Halo XBox 360s that no one wants.
You do know the 360 outsold the Wii last month, right? Do you assume that because your supermarket always has bread on the shelf that no-one wants it?
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Why can't I have it all? Jaw dropping graphics and innovative controls (and compelling gameplay while we're at it).
I see too many people dismissing the importance of improved graphics, particularly in the face of the wii's novel controls. But graphics can improve the gaming experience (of course, I'm not saying that they automatically do; a bad game is a bad game, from text adventures, to sprites, to 3D). And I'm not just talking about hyper realism. Improved graphics can help immerse you in highly stylized games as well (see the upcoming Little Big Planet).
What I'm getting at here is that I think that the wrong message to take from the current generation of games is: graphics don't matter because the wii sold well. (Which isn't really what Wright is saying, but I see it a lot.)
What I want from the next generation of consoles is an amalgam of everything that is good about the current generation. And that includes graphics better than the ps3.
Every game ever was a rehash of Barbie, Doom, Brick Breaker or some random ass puzzle game (tetris, puzzle bobble, etc). They just end up with more FPS, more Polygons per whatever, and more BS graphics. Oh and three more guns if you buy the expansion pack.
Is Wii the only "next gen" video game system? I dont know. What is "next gen?" I dont think it has to do anything with graphics. But, Wii, as Nintendo does, is the only gaming system with a unique HID. Just like they did with the power pad, power glove, and the zapper gun.
I for one am not into a console because its ability to make 'realistic graphics.' I play video games for story line. Give me a unique way to play the same old game and I'm sold. Give me the same way to play the same old game with an upgraded look and 800000000 new weapons(!!(C)(R)(TM)) and woop de fucking do.
because as far as I can tell, he's only saying that the Wii is a completely different type of gameplay platform. Well isn't that just insightful?
If the criterium is as you say things "you can't do on a PC" - then it's an argument already lost. There are already 'wiimote'-style controllers for the PC and silly games that make use of them. But say that this peripheral didn't exist, then one could argue that the gun in duck hunt or the mat in DDR was 'next gen'. Puh-lease.
If the criterium is "smaller, more fun, games not necessarily with flash graphics" then you need not look any further than all of the online Flash / Java games that were raised to popularity long before the Wii was a glimmer in Nintendo's eyes. Oh, and.. pssst.. that's all on the PC.
Personally I don't think one can say that 'next gen' is supposed to mean 'different gameplay', and one certainly can't say that it is exclusive to a specific platform; especially if you include a PC as a platform.
But if one -must-... I'd say the Nintendo DS is 'next gen', at least on the hand-held platforms end. Using a stylus to draw your own characters, create walk paths, etc. etc. is something that, if executed well, is way out of the league of any other handheld platform and still not offered for any other platform; and not for lack of a stylus (a wacom penpal is $40 or so), a mouse would do just fine as well - there's simply no games that are played that way because nobody has had to become creative within the 'limitation' of a largely stylus-driven interface.
So, what your saying is, you wanna play the Final Fantasy series on Wii?
Course, this post started out as me being a wise ass, but wouldn't that actually be kind of cool?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
They're manufacturing a market out of essentially nothing; out of people who have written off video games or have never been that interested before. I'm not sure how you quantify that market, except by churning out consoles as fast as you can and see how many of them you can sell.
Nintendo was never going to win the hardcore market anyway. They've never catered to that and I don't think that stuffing a lot more processing power in the Wii so it could render blades of grass more effectively was going to make it appeal more to the Gears of War / Halo 3 set. Given that premise, the Wii has been amazingly successful. Moreso if they profit off of the consoles themselves and don't need to depend too heavily on downstream game sales.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Anyone who would label themselves as a "gamer".
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
It depends on who you think is on the right track. If Sony and Microsoft are on the right track, then jumping ahead on that road, while technically "just" an incremental improvement, represents an advance of the state of the art in the direction it ought to go. That can hardly be called "mediocre".
What Nintendo has done is like backtracking to take a different fork in the path. From the viewpoint that Sony and Microsoft are doing the right thing, Nintendo has just shot itself in the foot, setting its console back a generation against the competition and offering only a few gimmicks that will easily be duplicated or supplanted by the technology leaders. From that viewpoint, it is Nintendo that has produced a "mediocre" product.
If you strip the value judgments out, what you are left with is a question: who gets and retains the most customers? The Nintendo strategy has two things going for it. First, by making a cheaper device with broader appeal, they can broaden the market to people who have no idea what a "polygon" is, and still capture a few hard core gamers to whom throwing down a few hundred bucks for a console is nothing. Secondly, with deep pocketed conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft battling it out with similar strategies, the prospects are not promising for a third player with a "me too" product.
So, I think it is perfectly clear that with this strategy they end up with more users than if they produced a console designed to stand toe to toe with their competitors. The question is do they attract and retain a plurality of users? If so, they win not only the battle, but the war. Users of a platform fuel innovation, and fund more rapid investment in technology, and given time will erase any technical deficit they have. Having more users in the long run trumps everything when it comes to platform competition. Sony vs. BetaMax anyone?
In 1979, two historic microprocessors were introduced: The 68000 and the 8088. In comparison to the 68000, the 8088 was a joke; it spawned billions of dollars of expense in inflated software development costs as a generation of programmers was forced to master tricks for getting around around the 8088's memory architecture limitations. The 8088's sole advantage was that if you were putting together a cheap computer, it was a bit cheaper to wire up the 8088 to the other stuff in the computer. The rest, as they say, is history. Perhaps in no other time in the history of computing has such a minor margin in the cost to acquire trumped such a huge advantage in technological capability; but in principle a price advantage that leads to a higher adoption rate will, given time, erase any technical disparities. It certainly did in the x86 architecture. Generation after generation of x86 processor stayed competitive because of the ability to amortize greater investments in fabrication facilities over more users.
So far as I can see, the Wii is not technologically misbegotten like the early x86 CPUs. It's more like the difference between the early Japanese "rice cooker" cars and their more expensive and powerful American competition. A good low end strategy is always worth paying attention to.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You are doing it wrong. I think perhaps this is one of the reasons PC gamers suffer is because of the FUD spread around by people with regards to the costs. Is it more expensive than consoles? Sure. Is it thousands a year? Not even on the high end. Turns out you can get quite a good gaming experience with a $100 graphics card. Get one of those every year, and you'll find that you can do a decent job running all the games out there at a reasonable resolution. Nab some benchmarks on midrange cards some time, they do just fine.
I don't know why it is so often presented as "Ultra high end or nothing." You know what? Turns out you can have plenty of fun gaming on a PC without everything being as high as it can be. You don't have to have a 30" monitor and play at max rez to be happy, you can play at 1920x1200 or 1280x800 and be perfectly happy (and in line with the resolution consoles use). Not every graphics setting in every game has to be turned all the way up, and so on.
I am a PC gamer and have a whole lot of friends who are and none of us break $1000/year. I spend by far the most, probably averaging about $500-600 since I get a new pretty high end graphics card each year and usually upgrade something else. Most of them spend in the range of $150/year if amortized on a yearly basis (generally it's a bi yearly type of thing). Still more than a console, though you are arguably getting close, but not breaking the bank.
So if you want to always have the best of the best, fine, but don't pretend that's what PC gaming requires and don't pretend it's comparable to consoles. You already have a system far in excess of any console.
There is, of course, the additional factor that a PC doesn't just have to be used for games. My PC is also a word processor, an Internet terminal, a DAW, a video editor, and so on. If you own a PC purely for gaming, ok then, but I'm going to guess most people get secondary use out of ti and that does factor in to the price.
It barely outsold the Wii and the only reason it was probably able to do so is because there was already a mass supply of the 360 units out there in the first place. Again, this is only in one region as well which is the USA. Other regions have the Wii still being #1. The Wii has stood up to Microsoft's nuke being Halo 3 and came out practically unphased. The Christmas season sales are going to be interesting as we'll probably see the Wii far outpace the 360 unless they still haven't fixed the supply issues like last year.
I grew up with a mouse and keyboard to control FPS games. Then I tried playing Halo 3 at a friend's house, and couldn't control my character well enough and got killed way too many times. Give me the option to play with mouse and keyboard on the Xbox 360!
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my