tapedeck Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 We all know most developers want the more, more, more approach. Iwata said that Nintendo feel like Chefs cooking meals and the gamers are never full. Never really tasting the ingredients neither? Just gorging? Sometimes I really think that's the case. However, this could also be said for everything. Money, Love, Music. Our fast food world never slows. Consequently, I think what Iwata said holds reference to the developers in the industry too. Think back to what companies like Squaresoft and Rare got out of the Super Nintendo in the 1990's. If the 16bit era had moved to the 32bit era too fast we wouldn't have seen those games on those platforms. And it's the same today. That's why I think the industry needs the Wii. It needs to have something that developers understand. Something against the norm. This enables development to be pushed in other directions. History proves that when a systems graphical 'oomph' runs out, you tend to get something different. Animal Crossing was an N64 game, Mario 64 was originally meant to be pushed onto the Super FX chip. I agree we wouldn't have had the freedom of the DS Animal Crossing NOR the freedom the N64 afforded in comparison to the Super FX chip. (And an analogue control input) I also understand the need for the industry to move forward. Somethings point to the future (Starwing 2, Mario 64 becoming so much more) But the point I'm trying to make is that those games would have been fun regardless where they appeared. And so too they would have been well thought out and technically astounding on their respective consoles. Yet when a new tech comes along the developers start wanting that (to fully realise their games) and then the new generation comes along and the previous platform hasn't been fully realised. Just like the Gamecube which had so much more to offer - I feel Rogue Squadron showed us all the capabilities of the system. The fact is, developers want more POWER, POWER, POWER. Yet power can be whatever we want it to be. Whether it's in the power of emotion evoked toward the gamer or development put into an epic score etc.. I'm glad there is a wii...If only because it will force developers to look at other ways of entertaining gamers rather than through looks alone. There will always be change, that's the nature of the electronics industry. But a consoles lifespan should be so much longer. Is it any wonder we (historically) get the best games and graphics at the end of a consoles lifetime? No. I just wish the end wasn't the end at all but would last longer. I really wanted a Donkey Kong Country 4 for the SNES and a PROPER Dinosaur Planet for the N64 and Super Paper Mario for the Cube. The promise of something better took them away. One final point of interest!: If developers are always wanting more power...why does it go on a wrinkle on a guys face or a rock texture. A rock is a rock no? if you are a truly skilled artist you can immerse the viewer in anything. Not just because it looks real. Look how zany Rhoald Dahl's stories are, or Tolkeins..Yet totally immersive through one thing: Artistic craft. I wish the industry would have more examples of unique software, yet we are only at the beginning. The ones experiencing the beginning and the future of the industry all at once...It's in our hands to shape the future of our hobby. What do YOU think?
Daft Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 Im bored with the Wii at the mo (My personal opinion) and I play my 360 way more BUT I appreciate what the Wii is doing and I see it as a necessary step in the evolution of the games industry. I think it is good that graphics are being pushed on one front while innovation and ideas are being pushed on another.
Kav Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 I think that is a fantastic post tapedeck! I'd say I do agree, I'm so happy that the Wii is the way it is, I'm not fussed about HD, Twilight Princess is one of the most beautiful games I've ever laid my eyes upon! Artistic direction is the way forward!
Petey Piranah Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 A price cut in response to any competitor offerings shall ensure just enough longevity for the Wii to not have an early obsolescence date, regardless of the inferior horsepower of the console in question.
mcj metroid Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 I'm begging people to give the wii the chance people gave the 360. How long is the wii out around 6 months maybe? What did the 360 have in 6 months? Anyway consoles lifespan vary really. the average is 5 years but ps2 is now on 7 years. C64 lasted 10 years.
DCK Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 Well, if Nintendo's approach proves to be the better one, this fast food culture won't be as prevalent in the future compared to now. For one thing, I can see the DS lasting for at least another two years. Maybe even longer.
chhang7 Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 odd question but is the ps3 or 360 able to play crysis, you know that game on the pc. that would be good if they made a port, but can the ps3 and 360 handle it?
tapedeck Posted June 24, 2007 Author Posted June 24, 2007 Chhang...In relation to your question, it probably has deeper meaning than you possibly anticipated.. Crysis is seen as the next big thing on the PC. Graphically intense for sure -yet those graphics are translated ingame via destroyable jungle vegetation and advanced terrain and lighting effects ! Crysis also includes so much physics and AI development that I lost track a long time ago...It all sounded a bit "Emotion Chip" to me. There's no arguing that it looks good though. So you're asking if the PS3 or XBOX360 can run them? Probably yes. I see Crysis as another Farcry...in a few years why not? I'm sure it will only run on Direct X10 enabled systems for now...And so on and so on. Read the thread point though Chhang...Maybe Crysis is just another FPS? How long will you play it after the destroyable vegatation becomes expected? After developers move on to the next big PC FPS. I am slightly bitter about the FPS genre if only because fresh ideas are often lacking....I personally liked the different styling of XIII, the exploration of Prime and the RPG elements in Deus Ex. The Doom run-and-gun template sometimes still seems to be the pinnacle of FPS ideas. I'd like to see the FPS go in more taxing directions. Metroid Prime is a good example. Working around alienation and immersion via reflecting yourself in the real world in the visor/surroundings. Anyhoo, I'll stop now. I've gone off track and I sense a flame war from people who know the FPS genre better than me!
chhang7 Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 i was just thinking that crysis may be the ps3 and 360s graphical/(physics) limit and after game )and all its clones) that they would need to start working on a new console. anyway crysis is gonna be the new farcry but that aint no bad thing seeing as farcry on the pc is one of my best games ever and deus-ex cus theres more to do other than just shoot and kill. thats why no one liked doom 3. i did say it was a odd question
darksnowman Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 I think you're right tapedeck, and a great thread too. I'm taking an example from the Virtual Console/ NES: Kirby's Adventure. A great wee game, great looking and pretty class sound as well. This game came out at the end of the NES' lifecycle and is leaps and bounds ahead of the original Mario. You cited DKC on the SNES, imagine Nintendo had pushed on to 32-bit or 64-bit before DKC came about - what a shame that would be! It really shows when developers feel at home and know a system inside out, and its a pity when a great system comes to the end of its life when you still feel it has so much to offer. Personally, I think the N64 ran its course pretty well (though if we got the 64DD it coulda lasted a brave while!) and it was the right time for us to press onwards to the Cube. However, as much as I love the Wii and everything it promises to deliver, I feel that the Cube still had some legs left to it. Like Super Paper Mario, that DK Racer and whatever else there could have been. I know we're all obsessed with HD, and HDDs etc etc, but when you move to a new console the starting periods always pretty lean, and feels like a bit of a step back as companies have to forget everything that they knew before and learn new techniques and all. It can be annoying that everything keeps pressing forward, but I suppose we need to see progress. And progress is seen as upping the horse power and trying to take the kitchen sink approach to every single game!
jammy2211 Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 Great thread, it's sort of what I was trying to say in mine but in a different way. I've not looked at the Wii in this way, and I agree it's good in a way that seeing as it won't take companies long to max out the Wii's graphics they're going to have to focus on other aspects - unique gameplay, different art styles, just anything innovative really. With an environment for Wii developers to be either big companies of low key indie developers I think that we're in a great position to see companies focusing on this sort of philosophy. I've already seen some stuff that makes my jaw-drop on the Wii and I really feel this is only the beggining.
flameboy Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 Great Thread! I think one thing Sony is doing right with the PS3 is positioning as console that will exist for longer than the usual console life cycle. There is little doubt in my mind that Microsoft forced the issue with by bringing the 360 out so soon. I think given the chance Sony would have wanted longer to wait so they could potentially lower manufacturing costs for the PS3, rather than being in the situation now with high costs and few selling, meaning that the costs won't go down owing to economies of scale. I feel you only have to look at the success of both PS2 (I mean now in the current climate where it is outselling PS3) and Wii to see that customers are just not as ready for this current HD generation as Microsoft and Sony would have us believe.
tapedeck Posted June 26, 2007 Author Posted June 26, 2007 As consumers / gamers we get attached to the systems we buy and we try to validate those choices (sometimes ferociously!) What we also want is our system to have a natural curve which peaks with incredible software. I'm sure we all know the term 2nd/3rd generation software..Gobbledegook really....The Wii 'should' last a long time due to it's VC features/downloadable channels/updatable firmware and controller innovation (For how long is another debate). One area lacking is obviously horsepower and in three or four years developers will be itching to get onto the "then" lower development costs of the PS3/XBOX30. Who knows how it will pan out but I think the Wii could potentially be the longeest lasting console or the shortest. Difficult one to call. The PS2 (7 years and counting!!) got lucky with it's lifespan. The DVD functionality came at the perfect time for consumers and the sheer market share it had probably won't happen again. This generation is oo hard to call.The PS3 is a long haul console -- It will therefore be interesting to see if Sony keep the PS2 going (to recoup losses) and what Microsoft do in 3-4 years could be interesting too. Maybe Add-Ons are the future of the industry now that USB/RAM tech isn't as costly. The 32X or 64DD may have been ahead of their time afterall!
jammy2211 Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 As consumers / gamers we get attached to the systems we buy and we try to validate those choices (sometimes ferociously!) What we also want is our system to have a natural curve which peaks with incredible software. I'm sure we all know the term 2nd/3rd generation software..Gobbledegook really....The Wii 'should' last a long time due to it's VC features/downloadable channels/updatable firmware and controller innovation (For how long is another debate). One area lacking is obviously horsepower and in three or four years developers will be itching to get onto the "then" lower development costs of the PS3/XBOX30. Who knows how it will pan out but I think the Wii could potentially be the longeest lasting console or the shortest. Difficult one to call. The PS2 (7 years and counting!!) got lucky with it's lifespan. The DVD functionality came at the perfect time for consumers and the sheer market share it had probably won't happen again. This generation is oo hard to call.The PS3 is a long haul console -- It will therefore be interesting to see if Sony keep the PS2 going (to recoup losses) and what Microsoft do in 3-4 years could be interesting too. Maybe Add-Ons are the future of the industry now that USB/RAM tech isn't as costly. The 32X or 64DD may have been ahead of their time afterall! The Wii's lifespan is my biggest worry, and I guess that's where it'll be interesting to see how developers cope with that. Soon companies won't be able to take the Wii's graphics any further and it may be hard to think of any more original concepts, whereas the PS3 and 360 will still have so much left to do with them. Thing is, if Wii is dominating the market companies simply won't be able to ignore it, and I guess that's where it's the challenge to companies think of new ideas and innovations. I still think Nintendo have a few tricks up their sleeves for gameplay innovation on the Wii, to go with the Wii Remote, and anything like that will be vital. I feel the only thing that limits what you can do on the Wii is your imagination though, and it won't be hard for innovation to allow the Wii to continue to feel fresh all it's lifetime. The DS continues to go from strength to strength and so I think it should be able to hold up fine. Also on the note of developement costs, they will fall for the X360 / PS3 but I don't honestly think they're ever going to be comparable to the Wii. Wii's could easily fall to a tiny figure in the future.
tapedeck Posted June 27, 2007 Author Posted June 27, 2007 Also on the note of developement costs, they will fall for the X360 / PS3 but I don't honestly think they're ever going to be comparable to the Wii. Wii's could easily fall to a tiny figure in the future. Good point Jammy. I think this could be another of Nintendo's trump cards. As the cost to develop drops further down, more indie developers will jump on board. When Nintendo stuck to cartridges we saw price as an ongoing issue. The proprietry Gamecube format also wasn't cheap compared to DVD's neither. Now Nintendo have a good format for the Wii (and the DS in comparison to the PSP) and therefore constantly falling costs, this could; in theory again contribute to the longevity of the console. If casual consumers see software appearing on the shelf at a steady rate then the image of that console will always appear fresh to them no matter what the tech level inside the console is. I'm sure the development costs for the Wii will also fall way faster than PS3 and XBOX360 costs. Result!
Caris Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 it will be a average console life, Sony say the PS3 will have a 10year life but that's bollox. Whenever a new xbox or whatever comes out the rest of the companys will have to do the same, as people want new and exciting things.
tapedeck Posted June 27, 2007 Author Posted June 27, 2007 Interesting caris, in my other thread about gamers deciding when the next gen comes I touch on your mentioned subject heavily. Have a read there. I understand the "forcing hands" debate...But maybe Sony and MS cannot afford to keep losing money.
Fierce_LiNk Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 it will be a average console life, Sony say the PS3 will have a 10year life but that's bollox. Whenever a new xbox or whatever comes out the rest of the companys will have to do the same, as people want new and exciting things. Not neccessarily true. Sony actually have two home systems right now, with the PS2 and PS3, and the PS2 is still holding its own. Infact, it's doing rather well...
Cube Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 Not neccessarily true. Sony actually have two home systems right now, with the PS2 and PS3, and the PS2 is still holding its own. Infact, it's doing rather well... Yea. The PS2 has lasted well. I'd actually say that the Wii is helping the PS2 survive - Developers are choosing to make games for both the Wii and PS2 because of the gap between them and the 360/Ps3.
jammy2211 Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 Yea. The PS2 has lasted well. I'd actually say that the Wii is helping the PS2 survive - Developers are choosing to make games for both the Wii and PS2 because of the gap between them and the 360/Ps3. I haven't actually seen a Wii game which was then put on the PS2 in the way you suggest. Most of these Wii ports are just PS2 games which were in developement long before they planned for a Wii port. The next wave of games annouce are all Wii exclusive from what I can see; Zack and wiki, Soul Caliber Legends, Red Steel, Boogie, MySims, Project Rygar, Opoona, Godzilla:Unleashed etc.
Caris Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 Interesting caris, in my other thread about gamers deciding when the next gen comes I touch on your mentioned subject heavily. Have a read there. I understand the "forcing hands" debate...But maybe Sony and MS cannot afford to keep losing money. There not loosing money though?
jammy2211 Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 There not loosing money though? Sony lose around $200 on every console sold and the high developement costs of their games has meant only Motorstorm and Resistance have been profitable thus far (I think). Microsoft never saw profit off of the Xbox and the 360 was sold for a loss at launch. It's just above breaking even at a profit now, but it's not recouping the losses earlier struggled. When they're spending $50 million on GTA downloadable content I don't see where Microsoft are going to make their money back.
Caris Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 Are you serious? MS make a shit loads of profit... yes they loose money on every console, but every game they make money on, and Live subscriptions, Live points, DLC, accessories etc etc. And with Sony, yes your right but that's only for now, once they change there dev tools this fall, and other things they will be doing the same as MS.
jammy2211 Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 Are you serious? MS make a shit loads of profit... yes they loose money on every console, but every game they make money on, and Live subscriptions, Live points, DLC, accessories etc etc. And with Sony, yes your right but that's only for now, once they change there dev tools this fall, and other things they will be doing the same as MS. Microsoft never made any profit off of the Xbox, including games, Live, dev kit sales etc. Alot of this is due to the huge costs involved in developing the hardware, developing and setting up something the size of Xbox Live, setting up a number of First party development teams and the money lost per console though. They don't make money on every game, Viva Pinata never saw a return and I don't yet think they're making that much money off of games. There are very high developement costs and some of the launch titles probably didn't get a great amount of sales. Halo 3 will rake in the doe though. I don't honestly believe they're making much money, if any. They're hoping they can recreate the sort of the success the PS2 had, so in the future they can retake it all back in software sales. Thing is, the market doesn't seem to really be going much further then what they had before and the console has absolutely no appeal to Japan, the second largest gaming territory.
Caris Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 Microsoft never made any profit off of the Xbox, including games, Live, dev kit sales etc. Alot of this is due to the huge costs involved in developing the hardware, developing and setting up something the size of Xbox Live, setting up a number of First party development teams and the money lost per console though. They don't make money on every game, Viva Pinata never saw a return and I don't yet think they're making that much money off of games. There are very high developement costs and some of the launch titles probably didn't get a great amount of sales. Halo 3 will rake in the doe though. I don't honestly believe they're making much money, if any. They're hoping they can recreate the sort of the success the PS2 had, so in the future they can retake it all back in software sales. Thing is, the market doesn't seem to really be going much further then what they had before and the console has absolutely no appeal to Japan, the second largest gaming territory. Sorry but what you just said is totally wrong.
Recommended Posts