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."
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!
According to MetaCritic, there are 26 Xbox games with 90+ ratings, 20 PS3 games with 90+ ratings, and 9 games on the Wii with 90+ ratings.
I don't see the value proposition in the Wii now that the more powerful and capable competition with better games have come down to a point where the price difference is largely irrelevant.
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
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.
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.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
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.
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.