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."

Comments

It makes sense really

[sopssa]

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.

Re:It makes sense really

[phantomfive]

In addition to that, half the games don't even make full use of the graphics capabilities already available. Zelda, for example, looked basically the same as on game cube. Right now I'm playing fire-emblem, and while it's a great game, the graphics aren't much better than you would see on PS1. It's kind of amazing to me now, that after all these years of chasing graphics, finally there is a console that ignores the race and still does well.

Re:It makes sense really

[Lussarn]

especially girls who usually don't understand why their boyfriends/husbands want a huge HDTV

I must be lucky, my GF already talks about 3DTV. Last year I tried unsuccesfully to hold her back on the home cinema system.

Re:It makes sense really

[bronney]

Exactly bro, ever notice the people in Pixar's film don't exactly look like people? Yet their movie completely rocks? It's always the content. The actors do play a part but if you've seen great actors in shit high budget movies you'd know what I mean :)

Re:It makes sense really

[Inda]

Are you two kidding? Full blown HD graphics with shadows, complex textures, high poly count and the like are what I want. I want to see blemishes on skin, blades of grass moving and reflections in water. I want to hear footsteps on metal, birds tweeting and monsters breathing. I want downloadable content, voice chat and massive multiplayer events.

Any gamer who's pulled out a GFX card and replaced it with a better model will say the same.

Wii? It's a child's toy. It's a child's toy that my child doesn't even play because it's a poor and expensive experience.

Re:It makes sense really

[hattig]

Never mind that this guy isn't about to Osbourne Wii sales.

Until they want to show it off, it won't exist. Simple really.

You don't see Microsoft talking about the XBox1080, or Sony talking about the PS4 - that's because they don't want existing sales to tank as people wait for the new product. I don't see why Nintendo would be any different. The only guaranteed thing is that all three companies are more than likely well into the design process for their next generation consoles.

Re:It makes sense really

[WillAdams]

A woman marries a man thinking he'll change... he doesn't.

A man marries a woman thinking she won't change... she does.

I doubt this will ever change.

Re:It makes sense really

[DrXym]

I've stopped caring about advances in graphics since about the time of the PS2. There are new things the current gen of consoles offer... networking, motion sensing, better storage... but if you look fundamentally at the games, I don't think the improved graphics make them any more fun. There's nothing on the 360 that couldn't have been done on the x-box, if the developers had just cut back the complexity of the graphics; and it would have been no less fun.

The "graphics don't matter" argument doesn't hold much water. If we go down that route, then through backwards induction there was nothing in the PS2 that couldn't be done on the PS1 with cut back graphics. And nothing on the PS1 that couldn't be done on the Sega Saturn. And nothing in the Sega Saturn to Sega Megadrive. And nothing in the Sega Megadrive to NES. And nothing in NES to Atari 2600. And nothing Atari 2600 to the Telstar. etc.

Except of course graphics wasn't the only thing that changed between console generations. Processing power, memory, storage, general throughput, controllers, number of players, modelling, animation, audio, networking, physics are all improved. Each generation was capable of delivering experiences that you simply couldn't get on the one before. Do all these things guarantee a better game? Of course not, but they are powerful tools that can and should be used to deliver the best experience.

An obvious example of this would be Dead Rising. The concept worked so well on the 360 because the console had the power to render hundreds of zombies. A veritable horde of them. When the game was ported to the Wii, even with cut down graphics, the game had been emasculated so you were lucky to see a dozen zombies at once. The game lost its soul in the transition. Some games simply do not translate well even if you cut down the graphics.

Re:It makes sense really

[Hurricane78]

I’ll make a bold statement:

I am a game designer. And you know which games I personally like to play most?
Small innovative (flash) games and the like! (Think kongregate.com.)

It sees that big budget games tend to go all aesthetics and technology.
But small games go more in the direction of good gameplay (mechanics).

I wish people would not forget, that it’s all four (story, gameplay, aesthetics, and technology) that are relevant.
And the quality of a game, is all those things, multiplied with each other. (With story having the biggest factor, but the others being not much less relevant.)
They have to support each other.

Re:It makes sense really

[Maxo-Texas]

Everyone learned the lesson of Osborne computers.

If they said there was a new WII coming out in 11 months or that the new Wii's controllers would impale your hand with spikes, sales would plummet.

So what he's really saying...

[myddrn]

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!

Re:Tapped out, eh?

[Toonol]

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.

Re:Tapped out, eh?

[magnusrex1280]

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.

Re:Tapped out, eh?

[quadrox]

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.

I'd like one change

[samael]

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.

Like they would really tell

[otie]

No savvy console manufacturer confirms a hardware upgrade before it's just about to hit. Otherwise it'll hurt sales before the upgrade date.

Re:Tapped out, eh?

[Burpmaster]

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.