WickedLaharl
Member
YOU GUYS SPOIL EVERYTHING :[
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fortune Magazine cover story: How Wii won
- Thread starter tnw
- Start date
- Status
I always look at it as one less book to read.WickedLaharl said:
The only way this analogy works is if they would allow Wii SD cards or blank DS carts with Flasm RAM for VC transfers to be used on a DS. Beyond that, you'd have to imagine things like a Wii DS reader.tnw said:
It's possible but Nintendo doesn't seem ready with it yet; I guess they don't want to do something like charge a fee for each transfer or something. They sorta did this in Japan already, with SNES carts, so I don't know what they're waiting for.
Otherwise this Apple/Nintendo comparison bullshit is getting tiring. There are tangents but they're rather loose.
titiklabingapat
Member
dog$ said:
The one thing they have in common, and the most significant, imo is that both Apple and Nintendo focused on the interface instead of banking on bleeding edge tech so the comparison still holds quite a bit of water.
Sony and Microsoft trying to compete with the iPod more or less still focused on the tech with the Zune and Discman.
titiklabingapat said:
An trait they do not, unfortunately, share is an appreciation for higher-end technology. Apple has not abandoned that in the same way Nintendo has. Apple has a more balanced approached to their product from interface to design to technology.
Looking at the suggested costs from that article only makes me sadder about the level of technology in Wii. They could really have afforded more, even with a hard constraint of breaking even, if that article is correct. I hope other companies don't take too many lessons from it in the future with regard to technology investment and cost-price-ratios at least.
titiklabingapat
Member
Perusing and hanging out in tech related sites and forums would say otherwise. Alot of people complain about the Pod's utter lack of "features" and other bells and whistles. Although I suspect you're saying that the Wii does not have "high end" tech with regards to its graphics card and raw power etc.gofreak said:
Besides, the cost you mentioned associated with the price and profit was only for the Wiimote, an accessory with higher than average markups in the first place. The $50 figure for the console pack on the other hand could mean that the economies of scale is already working in Nintendo's favor. Then there's R&D, marketing, etc.
Pureauthor
Member
HyperionX said:
Did you just say... the more mainstream coverage the Wii receives, the more likely it is to fail?
My brain hurts.
titiklabingapat said:
Of course.
Apple is not just the iPod, but even then, I would wager the iPod does a better job of keeping up with developments in its arena in that regard than Wii has. I cannot imagine the margin between iPod and other competitors being as wide as is now the case between Wii and the leading edge. But again, Apple is not just iPod, and if you look beyond you'll see plenty of products that will appeal to technology-lust.
titiklabingapat said:
R&D, marketing etc. applies to any product, so Wii shouldn't get any special allowances there. I would think it's a reasonable bet Nintendo was turning a profit on each Wii sold even from the beginning, and it's possibly not coincidence that this article suggests a profit that's in line with the difference between the actual price and what it was expected initially to be ($199). They're probably creaming profit here because they can, and fair play to them for that. But as a an end-user rather than a business analyst, it saddens me that they wouldn't even remotely stretch themselves for even a short initial period in order to make a better product.
Old arguments, perhaps, but it still annoys me, and it annoys me when I see the strategy trumpeted lest anyone else starts getting ideas about it
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
I definitely feel that this is going to happen, but the media is pushing this angle hard. They are going to push us to that point a lot faster than it would have if the wii didn't have the media on it's side.
gofreak said:Of course.
Apple is not just the iPod, but even then, I would wager the iPod does a better job of keeping up with developments in its arena in that regard than Wii has. I cannot imagine the margin between iPod and other competitors being as wide as is now the case between Wii and the leading edge. But again, Apple is not just iPod, and if you look beyond you'll see plenty of products that will appeal to technology-lust.
R&D, marketing etc. applies to any product, so Wii shouldn't get any special allowances there. I would think it's a reasonable bet Nintendo was turning a profit on each Wii sold even from the beginning, and it's possibly not coincidence that this article suggests a profit that's in line with the difference between the actual price and what it was expected initially to be ($199). They're probably creaming profit here because they can, and fair play to them for that. But as a an end-user rather than a business analyst, it saddens me that they wouldn't even remotely stretch themselves for even a short initial period in order to make a better product.
Old arguments, perhaps, but it still annoys me, and it annoys me when I see the strategy trumpeted lest anyone else starts getting ideas about it
The Apple comparisons are not about the tech inside. It's about the UI design, the industrial design of the consoles, and the marketing.
That being said, Apple has been behind the curve tech wise numerous times, most recently with the Apple TV. It is underpowered with half baked connectivity options, and has really irritated some Apple fans. As it stands right now, the Xbox 360 does a better job than the Apple TV, for the same price. That's saying something.
The iphone: The most hyped phone coming out this year, and it is coming out of the gate gimped. No 3g data, no flash memory card slot of any kind, no removeable battery, and a subpar(for the pricepoint) camera. The Nokia N95 is basically a full generation ahead in tech terms. So why is the iphone so hyped? The interface, design, and integration.
The ipod itself is famous for always being basically 1 or even 2 generations behind it's competitors tech, but it makes up for it with the tight UI and Itunes integration, as well as superior design for the case and controls. Go to any Apple forum and you'll see lot's of people bitching about the ipod tech. Old processor, no Wifi, no widescreen, but they buy them anyway because of the ecosystem.
gofreak said:Of course.
Apple is not just the iPod, but even then, I would wager the iPod does a better job of keeping up with developments in its arena in that regard than Wii has. I cannot imagine the margin between iPod and other competitors being as wide as is now the case between Wii and the leading edge. But again, Apple is not just iPod, and if you look beyond you'll see plenty of products that will appeal to technology-lust.
R&D, marketing etc. applies to any product, so Wii shouldn't get any special allowances there. I would think it's a reasonable bet Nintendo was turning a profit on each Wii sold even from the beginning, and it's possibly not coincidence that this article suggests a profit that's in line with the difference between the actual price and what it was expected initially to be ($199). They're probably creaming profit here because they can, and fair play to them for that. But as a an end-user rather than a business analyst, it saddens me that they wouldn't even remotely stretch themselves for even a short initial period in order to make a better product.
Old arguments, perhaps, but it still annoys me, and it annoys me when I see the strategy trumpeted lest anyone else starts getting ideas about it
Why should nintendo go out to appease the HC and developerbase for the 3rd generation in a row with a powerful 3d console and take a huge risk on hardware that will not be taken advantage of? Even then what you said isn't true. Nintendo really could've oc'ed the gc and given you that, they didn't need to beef up flipper and make hollywood, they didn't need to add in a 64MB bank of GDD3 ram, certainly weren't inclined to take out that crappy cxe 750 and go with a gx/fx level 750. I'm not pleased with the route they took, but consumers could've ended up with a lot worse.
eggs. scrambled
Member
gofreak said:
Call me a libertarian, but I'm sure this is something that market signals will correct. Consumers can't build long-term hopes on companies acting as altruists. The capital markets will kill them, and their spouses will leave them. In the long run, we'll all be better off if gaming is viewed by entrants and incumbents as a profitable market.
If you gave me two scenarios as a gaming enthusiast -- (1) no company is doing well financially, and (2) at least one company is proving to others you can make a profit on the hardware side, and is creating an ecosystem where software companies can make profits as well -- the second scenario leaves me much more optimistic for the future.
Merovingian
Banned
I have to stop reading this stuff. While i like the Wii, and the potential it has, i get scared when the idea of the Wii being the future of gaming pops up in my head.
;(
;(
AdmiralViscen
Banned
MattXG said:
OMG GAFFER
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Neo C. said:
Is Fortune not looked upon as a reliable source?
eggs said:
It works for certain markets. Computer printers are insanely cheap these days. But the ink costs more per ounce than Chanel #5, so Epson and HP aren't hurting.
The problem is, the razor-razorblade paradigm only works when people buy the razors. Nintendo figured they had no shot following the tech arms race, because you only make money as the market leader. They simply couldn't afford to gamble the company. Sony is learning this the hard way.
Merovingian said:
Sorry to pick on you, but statements like the one you made are just downright stupid.
Remember, you are playing video games. Video games. All these "Ho ho ho i'm a real gamer!" and "Wii is bad for the industry" makes it sound like it's coming from a 5 year old with a 'No Girls Allowed' sign on his tree house.
Ok, sorry. You can go back to fondling your Halo 3 pre-order.
Regardless of whether it leads Sony/MS in sales. The Wii has already "won". It's a profitable console that owns a significant mindshare in the public and its not laughed at. It's going to sell more than the Gamecube and possibly more than the N64 when it's all said and done. That's a success, my friend.
So, the story now is: instead of being everyone's "other console" .. will the Wii be a lot of peoples "only" console?
So, the story now is: instead of being everyone's "other console" .. will the Wii be a lot of peoples "only" console?
Rancid Mildew
Banned
Those points are very revealing of how Nintendo will do in the future. Ubisoft and EA singing praises to Nintendo is a nice change from the years before. All those points really do reveal that Nintendo has created the console of choice for the developer. I suppose it's sad that the Wii gave up HD to gain the advantages it has now but a Wii2 as powerful as a PS3 in 2011-12 is awesome as well. I guess the graphics whores needn't worry. The PS3 is supposed to last 10 years anyways so I guess Nintendo will be on par with Sony in time. :lol
dammitmattt
Banned
So a writer, who is most likely not a gamer, is essentially saying that any companies pursuing the standard video game course that we have been on for the last 30 years are following the wrong course?
And this is all because Nintendo has had 7 months of success with the Wii? I am disappointed in you GAF for not calling out this idiotic, misinformed statement.
Microsoft has done a very good job with the 360 experience and really has done a great job of satisfying most "hardcore" gamers. The price definitely needs to be lowered and there need to be more action/adventure/platforming/Japanese-style games that reach out to a wider audience, but they are nowhere near the wrong course.
As I see it, this industry has two futures: playing together online (hello Microsoft) and playing together offline (hello Nintendo). I'm glad that both companies are pursuing and excelling in different areas, but I would be highly depressed if the entire industry went the Wii route and abandoned the traditional video game.
For me, it is. Unfortunately, there are a few who don't believe it. They want something like an official source from a serious research group like the NPD. I often bring articles in discussions like some of the LA Times, NY Times, Facts (a magazine in Switzerland), or Spiegel, but those don't count for some.DeaconKnowledge said:
Hatorade said:
It's a personal complaint. To appease me
I'm a Nintendo fan who is just a bit sad that Nintendo's games won't technically compete with the best that's out there. I like the interface innovation etc. but I see no reason why we couldn't have that + the better graphics, the better audio etc. on top. Not even necessarily to go all the way to a 360 or PS3 level, but I was expecting something much better than what we eventually got.And I'm not sure how much of a risk it would be to go that avenue in the future, or would have been with Wii, I suppose it depends on what perspective you look at it from. Nintendo continued to fatten their warchest through the 'low' of the N64 and GC years. Financially they were hardly on shaky ground, this wasn't do-or-die. I guess you could say they'd be risking potential greater success versus unspectacular, if not still profitable, 'OK-ness' ala N64 or GC.
Here's an interesting question..if Wii was the same as it was today, but had better processing capability, was $250, and Nintendo was losing maybe $50 on the machine for the first few months, would the system be less successful than it was now? In my mind the answer is probably no, and that's a machine I personally would have preferred, and I think any right-thinking Nintendo fan would have preferred. When I look at the processing capability in the box, and I look at the financial strategy behind it, it just looks overwhelmingly miserly, far beyond even what I expected when I knew power was no longer going to be a focus.
eggs said:
I'm not asking for endless charity, losses with no end. Look at the models used before, and you saw initial losses balanced and eventually exceeded by profit. They didn't even have to go as far as others have with that model in the past (and present) for it to make a difference.
Rancid Mildew
Banned
gofreak said:It's a personal complaint. To appease me
And I'm not sure how much of a risk it would be to go that avenue in the future, or would have been with Wii, I suppose it depends on what perspective you look at it from. Nintendo continued to fatten their warchest through the 'low' of the N64 and GC years. Financially they were hardly on shaky ground, this wasn't do-or-die. I guess you could say they'd be risking potential greater success versus unspectacular, if not still profitable, 'OK-ness' ala N64 or GC.
Here's an interesting question..if Wii was the same as it was today, but had better processing capability, was $250, and Nintendo was losing maybe $50 on the machine for the first few months, would the system be less successful than it was now? In my mind the answer is probably no, and that's a machine I personally would have preferred, and I think any right-thinking Nintendo fan would have preferred. When I look at the processing capability in the box, and I look at the financial strategy behind it, it just looks overwhelmingly miserly, far beyond even what I expected when I knew power was no longer going to be a focus.
I completely agree. I don't even think Nintendo had to take a loss if they made it 720p capable with a far more powerful GPU/CPU. The hardcore defense of this clear penny pinching baffles the mind. For those with HDTVs, the Wii is pretty much incompatible since every game looks retardedly ugly.
gofreak said:It's a personal complaint. To appease me
And I'm not sure how much of a risk it would be to go that avenue in the future, or would have been with Wii, I suppose it depends on what perspective you look at it from. Nintendo continued to fatten their warchest through the 'low' of the N64 and GC years. Financially they were hardly on shaky ground, this wasn't do-or-die. I guess you could say they'd be risking potential greater success versus unspectacular, if not still profitable, 'OK-ness' ala N64 or GC.
Here's an interesting question..if Wii was the same as it was today, but had better processing capability, was $250, and Nintendo was losing maybe $50 on the machine for the first few months, would the system be less successful than it was now? In my mind the answer is probably no, and that's a machine I personally would have preferred, and I think any right-thinking Nintendo fan would have preferred. When I look at the processing capability in the box, and I look at the financial strategy behind it, it just looks overwhelmingly miserly, far beyond even what I expected when I knew power was no longer going to be a focus.
Yes it would definitely be less succesful for at least three reasons:
1) The development costs would be much, much higher elimintating one of the main attraction of Wii for developers.
2) The system would be so obviously less profitable then DS that question about why the **** Nintendo just does not shift its support to the DS would be asked again and again and would probably undermine the future of the system to a certain extent.
3) HD graphics means that people without HD TVs would feel that it's something not for them.
tnw said:
So how come Sony just comes across as a whiny bitch ("We are innovative too, waaaa")? And calling the Wii a re purposed gamecube just seems like stupid name-calling. I hate when video game companies act like they're politicians instead of video game makers. It's ok to give a complement your opponent without bashing them all in one breath.
Rancid Mildew
Banned
Wiitard said:
1) The bulk of developmental costs come from learning how to program on the complex architectures and to develop the physics and AI. Upping the resolution to 720p does not cost a lot.
2) That's ridiculous. Why would Nintendo abandon home consoles for the DS just because it is more profitable? The GCN was clearly harder to develop for than the GBA but Nintendo never abandoned it. Nintendo gave it some excellent games even though it was failing.
3) Why? A majority of PS3s are not even hooked up with HDMI cables. As long as the price point stayed the same, why would HDTV non-owners not buy a Wii?
I don't think anyone was asking for that much more. But slightly more would have made a world of difference and would not have cost Nintendo that much. I understand that they are a corporation in the end but as a Nintendo fan, I do wish Nintendo had gone a few inches further.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
gofreak said:It's a personal complaint. To appease me
And I'm not sure how much of a risk it would be to go that avenue in the future, or would have been with Wii, I suppose it depends on what perspective you look at it from. Nintendo continued to fatten their warchest through the 'low' of the N64 and GC years. Financially they were hardly on shaky ground, this wasn't do-or-die. I guess you could say they'd be risking potential greater success versus unspectacular, if not still profitable, 'OK-ness' ala N64 or GC.
Here's an interesting question..if Wii was the same as it was today, but had better processing capability, was $250, and Nintendo was losing maybe $50 on the machine for the first few months, would the system be less successful than it was now? In my mind the answer is probably no, and that's a machine I personally would have preferred, and I think any right-thinking Nintendo fan would have preferred. When I look at the processing capability in the box, and I look at the financial strategy behind it, it just looks overwhelmingly miserly, far beyond even what I expected when I knew power was no longer going to be a focus.
I'm not asking for endless charity, losses with no end. Look at the models used before, and you saw initial losses balanced and eventually exceeded by profit. They didn't even have to go as far as others have with that model in the past (and present) for it to make a difference.
I generally agree with what you're saying here Gofreak, however, my problem with it is the perceived value due to the expectations laid down by the 360 and PS3.
Julian Egglebrecht (sic?) said that the Wii "Is a beast for SD resolutions". When Nintendo was building the hardware, I think they said to themselves, "Let's build a system that will knock SD users socks off." The problem that this provides of course, are the purveyors of HD resolutions (720p, 1080p, etc) that want a resolution to match their greatest efforts.
We must ask ourselves the question now, "Is what Nintendo did miserly?" Almost assuredly yes in some respect, however the common player of these games won't care enough for it to make a large impact. The majority of the complaining about graphics are from people moving from the 360/PS3, and gamers that have been made elitist due to what those systems have accomplished graphically. We must also ask how much more of a jump the Wii would have needed to provide a worthwhile output; I ask you, would you rather have a Wii that does 480p well, or that hamstrings 720p?
I love Nintendo to death, and i'm jealous when a particularly beautiful game is announced for the 360 or PS3, however I know personally that it won't dent my opinion of a good game to the point of exclusion.
This FUD needs to die. The most beautiful game currently playing on my fixed-resolution HDTV is Odin Sphere, which may I remind you is a 4:3, 480i PS2 game. It looks jaggy, low res, and fabulous. I could choose to play it on my old 19" standard-def CRT if I had soft spots on my skull, because I would only be making the image blurrier, smaller, and muddier.Rancid Mildew said:
Rancid Mildew
Banned
crbowen said:
I'm not telling you what to think. Your sarcasm is misplaced. I'm not trying to dictate your tastes. I'm just saying that the Wii has graphics that degenerate as a result of playing it on a non-native display. If you like the image (HD CRT perhaps), good for you but for most of us, there is a noticeable decrease in quality especially in games like Twilight Princess where the jaggies are big enough to carve out your eyeball.
dammitmattt
Banned
Rancid Mildew said:
For some reason, a certain segment of the forum takes an orgasmic level of pleasure at the thought of Nintendo profitting. I've never seen anything like it and it absolutely baffles the mind.
Let's party because Coke is vastly overcharging us for soda water! Hooray for ExxonMobil's record profits! I am thrilled to be raped by Gillette's razor prices, just as long as they profit.
As consumers, this behavior makes NO ****ING SENSE.
And yes, most Wii games are fairly ugly on my HDTV, and that is just depressing.
Rancid Mildew
Banned
The Sphinx said:
It's not FUD. Odin Sphere is a 2D side scroller and it does look impressive like Wario Ware but for 3D games, Twilight Princess being the example, there is a major decrease in quality. Playing TP on my CRT makes it look awesome. I suppose it's just a convenience issue for me. I'd just want one TV that displays all my consoles gloriously.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
[Nintex] said:
The law of inertia, from the tone of this thread.
dammitmattt
Banned
DeaconKnowledge said:
The Wii has barely shown the capabilities to do 480p that well. There are still early generation Xbox (and even Gamecube) games that look better than anything on the Wii.
Pureauthor
Member
dammitmattt said:
It makes sense insofar that the longer Nintendo survives and on more profit, the more Nintendo games one gets. (Which I assume these people cheering Nintendo's financial success want)
Rancid Mildew said:
That goes 100% against everything I've heard. For exaple, if that INDEED were the case, porting a game from 360 to PS3 would cost not around 10% of the game's budget but around 50% or so (because the art assets are the same but the architecture is totally different).
OnWarmerMusic
Member
While I haven't been privy to this "orgasmic" pleasure that you reference, I expect that a certain segment of the forum is comforted when one of the major players is doing well financially. The very existence of this market is not assured, and since many people love the hobby / art / whatever, it's nice to know that we aren't headed for any sort of trainwreck in the near future.dammitmattt said:
So yeah, as a consumer who likes buying games, it makes perfect sense, because I'd like to continue buying them in the future.
Wiitard said:
It's not exactly been the plethora of developer support that has been driving Wii's success to date, though, has it? It's been a handful of titles, chiefly Wii Sports, that's been generating all the buzz.
Further, it's a slippery-slope argument. Obviously game development has to be a sustainable, profitable practise, but I don't think that necessarily means 'wii-level' development. And if it did, why not go lower?
But frankly, I would like to see Nintendo step up and invest more in 'big' titles. I remember having so many dreams about what a next-gen Zelda could be like for example, but I wonder now if we'll ever get there. Cheap games of limited scope/ambition aren't necessarily what I want. If tonnes of other people do, way-hey, happy days for Nintendo, but it's sad for me when I was hoping for more and I used to associate Nintendo with that kind of ambition.
Wiitard said:
As things stand now, you could probably already claim DS is more profitable than Wii (beyond hardware, for software publishers etc. etc.). That's another slippery-slope argument.
Wiitard said:
I don't think so. The fact that games could be played in HD and looked better also in SD probably wouldn't do the system any harm.
Quite asides from popularity, is there anyone here that wouldn't prefer such a system personally? I'm taking a very consumer-centric viewpoint here, but I don't think the scenario I suggest would be damaging to Nintendo's business to any great extent.
DeaconKnowledge said:
Well, if it gives you any idea, I remember AGES ago mocking up a revolution/ds networking idea, and having heard rumblings of nintendo's focus away from power, I used a screenshot from some PC game at the time as, what I thought, would be a reasonable expectation of what it would be capable of doing. When I looked at what PCs were doing back then I figured it quite reasonable to expect that from Revolution (taking into account its closed-box nature), even with a shift away from technical focus. But we're nowhere close.
DeaconKnowledge said:
I'm certainly not at that point either, I will still play and I'm sure, enjoy, Mario Galaxy, the next Zelda, Metroid etc. But I don't think that makes the approach 'OK', I'll still lament that these games could have looked so much better, or even been so much better via the possibilities that might have been opened by more power. Of course, it's a pointless lament at this stage since nothing can be changed now, but it comes back up when I see this back-patting over the strategy - in so far as I hope it doesn't become widely adopted in the future because of its market success now.
dammitmattt said:
FUD FUD FUD. has not shown != can not be shown, and you ****ing know this.
I don't give a crap if Nintendo makes $50 per console or $500, all I know is, my friends can afford the damn thing. Do you get it? People can afford it = people will buy it. All the rest of this is just bitchy whining about eyes bleeding.
- Status