Slashdot Mirror
Wii Hardware Upgrade Won't Happen Soon
As high-definition graphics become more and more entrenched in this generation of game consoles, Nintendo has had to deal with constant speculation about a new version of the Wii that would increase its capabilities. Today, Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime bluntly denied that a hardware revision was imminent, saying, "We are confident the Wii home entertainment console has a very long life in front of it." He added, "In terms of what the future holds, we've gone on record to say that the next step for Nintendo in home consoles will not be to simply make it HD, but to add more and more capability, and we'll do that when we've totally tapped out all of the experiences for the existing Wii. And we're nowhere near doing that yet."
Wii has a large userbase of casual gamers. There wouldn't really be anything that new for then. HD sure, but I know many people who really aren't that interested in it. I am, sure, I would love a Wii HD with Motion Capture Plus. But thats probably not the case for majority of people, especially girls who usually don't understand why their boyfriends/husbands want a huge HDTV.
The only thing Wii was missing was the better motion sensors, but it wasn't possible financially at that point, the technology was too costly for competing with better priced console. After that it would be just everything that more hardcore players would want, and that isn't Nintendo's largest market.
In terms of what the future holds, we've gone on record to say that the next step for Nintendo in home consoles will not be to simply make it HD, but to add more and more capability, and we'll do that when we've totally tapped out all of the experiences for the existing Wii.
Translation: We still have MOUNTAINS of shovel ware to sell!
I just can't read far enough into what all these execs say when they talk about the "long life" of their consoles that remain entertaining for 2.5 years at best.
I think I disagree. Why upgrade, if the only difference is going to be better graphics? That doesn't make games any better. The weakest console, graphically, won this gen by a landslide. The weakest console, graphically, won last gen by a landslide. It's the games, not the hardware, that make a console enjoyable... and the games get BETTER throughout a console's lifespan.
If a new console cycle started, we would be in for two years of really bad games before developers got back on an even keel. The games would become ANOTHER 400% more expensive to create, and probably shorter. Is there any game you want that can't be made on current hardware?
I would love to get another five years out of ALL the current consoles.
The games on the Wii are the weakest part about it. The novelty is what sells Wii consoles, not the games.
Obviously you haven't played any of the numerous Wii games that are really good. Are there also a bunch of Wii games that are gimmicky and simple? Yes. But don't assume that just because there are some crappy games for a console, that said console is successful only because of a unique feature. No console does as well as the Wii has without GOOD games. I own a PS3, a top-of-the-line gaming PC, AND a Wii, so this isn't just some Nintendo fan boy sounding off. I'm pretty picky about what games I buy, and the Wii has a bunch that are lots of fun, and have actual replay value.
I have a wii, and I regret getting it so far. The Only thing I play on it is Guitar Hero, and I certainly don't need a wii for that. Wii sports gets boring rather quickly.
Then I have one of the Resident evil games. This one is fun enough, but the graphics suck balls so much it's unbelievable - mostly due to the low resolution. Most of the other games I see in the stores don't look even remotely interesting, and those that do usually have very bad reviews.
If you know of any good games, please tell me.
An HDMI cable. Every other device connected to the TV has one, but the Wii insists on converting to analogue and back again. I can't think of any reason why this would be terribly expensive or difficult to do. They wouldn't even need to support higher resolutions - just the same ones over HDMI.
My Journal
No savvy console manufacturer confirms a hardware upgrade before it's just about to hit. Otherwise it'll hurt sales before the upgrade date.
That's all good and well if you agree with the results of the MetaCritic. However, this might not be the case: as a car-related analogy, while 90% of the people might love black cars, you might hate them.
That's silly. Let's say you're going to get one console and the top twenty games for it. For the 360, the game 20 has a score of 90 (Bayonetta). For the PS3, game 20 has a score of 89 (WipEout HD Fury). For the Wii, game 20 has a score of 86 (Punch-Out!!). You're making a big deal out of literally a few points in a 100 point scale, even though each console has a largely different set of reviewers, judging the games by different standards.
What's more important is variety. Are you really going to get both Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2? If you look at the 26 Xbox 360 games with 90+ ratings, about 10 of them are first-person shooters. Do you need that many shooters? In fact, if you pare down your 90+ list for each system by eliminating games that play similarly, you'll shorten the 360 and PS3 lists severely.
Speaking of paring down, the 9 games scoring 90+ on the Wii include both Metroid Prime 3 and Metroid Prime Trilogy. Trilogy includes corruption, so subtract 1 from the Wii's count. Oh but Trilogy is a pack of three 90+ games, sold for the price of 1, so add back 2.
Now with that correction, the Wii has 10 games with 90+ ratings. And that points out the problem of lasting value, totally unaccounted for by your metric. Game scores generally measure how good a game is while you're playing it, but completely ignore how long you'll be playing. There's no real difference between two games with a score of 90 where you'll play each for 10 hours and one game with a score of 90 that you'll play for 20 hours. Well, except the individual game has twice the value for what you pay yet counts half as much by your metric.
And that's the problem. What you're doing is similar to taking a bunch of objects, measuring their density, and summing the quantities. The result is meaningless. It will go up if you simply cut something in half. What you want to do is measure the mass, the actual entertainment value.
Except most of the most beloved anime were those that pushed the art envelope, giving us amazing visuals to match the story.
My experience is pretty similar - we got a Wii the Christmas before last (well it was a gift to my other half, even though I was pretty sure she wouldn't play on it but I thought at least I might get some use out of it). We played it for a couple of days over Christmas while all the family was together but already after a few hours I was bored, and in terms of tactile response the controller felt cheap and uncomfortable to use for prolonged periods - we've not touched it since then (I was half tempted to try the new Motion Plus, but until the killer game comes along I think I'll pass).
Meanwhile I play my 360 regularly - I'd say the biggest difference is that the Wii bridges the gap between the non-gamer and the hard core gamer and lets them play together, but coming from the hard-core gamer end of that spectrum, playing the Wii solo just wouldn't be a rewarding experience for me. Playing it with the family slightly increases the fun quotient, but no more than, say, playing a board game together (and a lot more expensive in that case).
Having said that, I'm sure a lot of other people love the Wii (the sales figures seem to suggest that's the case), my biggest concern is that the more hardcore gaming console manufactures are looking at that much bigger pie and wondering how they can get a slice, I'd hate to not at least have the choice of a more "serious" gaming machine (other than going back to the configuration hell of PC gaming which, frankly, I don't have the time or stamina for these days).