Support NeoGAF

[Bert]

*cut for post brevity*

You may be right, but look at this E3. MS goes where the money is. "Hardcore" gamers are hooked into XBL like normal people are hooked into Facebook, it's the network effect. I own PS3, and the one and only thing that makes me want to sell up and get a 360 is that all my friends have a 360 and I can't play them.

MS have the hardcore by the balls. Up against a battered Sony and a Nintendo doing their own thing they can pretty much do what they like and we'll have to like it or lump it.

Maybe it's my deep seated mistrust of monopolies, I don't like how Apple lock you into their ecosystem either, then do what they want. In an open world would iPad have been such a success with no Flash, no USB and originally no camera. They virtually define progress now.

MS will see this and see Xbox as their way to leverage games in the same way. Get people locked into a system then do whatever makes sense for profit, and that's usually give people the bare minimum to require an upgrade. Sony tried with PS2 being the least powerful and got away with it because of the massive mindshare lead PS2 gave them, but by the time PS3 came around XBL had matured and people wanted to stay with it.

Can you see many gamers faced with a choice of not a massive upgrade or lose all their achievements XBLA games, GamerScore, etc. choosing to start anew?

Like I say, it may just be me, feel free to post tin foil hat pictures.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

X-Box Live is significantly more valuable than Halo is, which should be clear based on MS's massive continued investment in its evolution. It's the one area neither Sony nor Nintendo will ever beat them.

And at the core of Xbox Live are games being played that generally popular partly because of their graphical fidelity.

Unless we start seeing Kinect games topping the Live stats, I don't see MS abandoning the "hardcore gamer" who is STILL their bread and butter.. and to release a low-powered Xbox 3 might do that.

edit: For the record, yeah.. definitely.. it's all about recurring fees for MS.. but Live is only a part of that picture... games like Madden and COD basically represent "recurring fees" for MS as well.. I don't think they are ignoring that as much as a lot of people suspect they are with their current focus on Kinect.

They've already "won" those dollars THIS GEN.. they haven't "won" those dollars for NEXT GEN. If anything they'd want to continue the trend of increasing their 3rd party games sales lead over Sony.. and they'd do that with hardware... and some heavy investment early on with the hardcore gamer to capture that userbase.

 

[Game-Biz]

this is damage control, and blaming the press is not the answer.

Iwata is starting to look like he has no idea wtf he's talking about.

I'm telling you guys, Yamauchi is controlling everything behind the scenes. And Iwata knows better not to fuck around with the Dark Lord.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

You may be right, but look at this E3. MS goes where the money is. "Hardcore" gamers are hooked into XBL like normal people are hooked into Facebook, it's the network effect. I own PS3, and the one and only thing that makes me want to sell up and get a 360 is that all my friends have a 360 and I can't play them.

It's not a bad point.. but MS is also making more money than the competition selling games... and at the core of Xbox Live are people playing those games. Every single thing Xbox Live does that they charge for can be done elsewhere for free.. including gaming.. but if you lessen the impact of gaming, I think it all topples for MS.

If Sony produces a PS4 that beats the Xbox 3 graphically by any wide margin, many of these people "hooked on Live" will abandon it.

You might be right.. but I think MS would be wrong to make the assumption they can low-ball hardware next-gen too much.

MS got ahead of Sony.. in multiple ways.. not dramatically with hardware.. but fairly dramatically with 3rd party software sales.. they then lessened their direct investments in the "hardcore" for the rest of the gen.

I don't think that means they'll continue that.. if anything, they'd repeat it.. invest early on heavily.. then focus elsewhere once your userbase is "hooked" on your product.

They don't want COD10 selling more on PS4 than Xbox 3.. The COD series alone has probably made MS well over $100 million simply in direct licensing fees for the games and DLC... let alone all the Live subscribers.. What is it, like $6-8 per copy of game sold?

And it's not like Sony isn't well aware of their PSN failures.. unless Sony is going to jump ship completely from the Playstation brand, they will HAVE to come up with something great next gen for online and everything else... if MS rests on their laurels we could see Playstation domination return.

 

[Host Samurai]

I have totally expected Nintendo to keep the Wii name. I can even say that the name Wii is almost as big as a name as Nintendo and Wii U kinda sounds like Wii 2. Would have been bad ass if Nintendo went with "Super Wii".

 

[ferr]

A new controller for the wii and a new version of DS that does some 3d stuff.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Doubtful, but who knows. A rumor/report came out a couple months ago saying it would easily be capable but Nintendo isn't going to push it.

So it would or would not be able to run a port of Super Mario 64?

Spoiler

mwahaha

 

[CaseyTappy]

It's always been like this:

1985: D-pad is introduced

1991: Shoulder buttons

1995: Analogue stick

1996: Rumble force feedback

2000: Dual analogues

2004: touchpad controls

2006: Motion controls

Intellivision had a Disc shaped D-pad and i'm pretty sure the Vectrex had analogue sticks long before 1995

 

[Roklie]

I have to count myself among those who first thought the new controller was the new console, and that you could stream the image to your TV. It's not like we're idiots, they just kept talking about the new controller and weren't the only images shown in the background entirely of the controller? Many people got it wrong, they didn't succeed in presenting it clearly enough. And yeah, if I hadn't known in advance that they would showcase the new console, to me that new controller would've just been an accessory to Wii.

 

[lwilliams3]

I think Nintendo's marketing idea was first to attract wii's audience through familiar images. They thought the best way to show how different the new controller is, was to put it in situations/games wii owners know by heart.

Beyond the familarity chord, they wanted to say all existing peripheral investments would still work on the new system.

More importantly, they had a strategic need, which was to give 3rd party developpers the impression Wii U is their sandbox. No Nintendo games shown, only demos to give them ideas. I think they have been extremely successful with this 2nd point.

Too bad for the conference and for us, I would have loved to see a Wave Race or FZero trailer. Nintendo just felt they should avoid positioning Wii U as a Nintendo game platform. They desperately need 3rd party support.

Few days later, after extensive thoughts, I love this new streaming machine. Adding a mobile second screen to videogames is a god send for creativity. Touchscreen, embedded camera on a fully equiped controller is cherry on the cake.

I know what to expect from high end PC games, but they won't make Wii U games obsolete anytime soon. Creativity is key in entertainment, and with these new controller abilities, with this second screen, I have dozens of ideas of enhancements for each genre I like.

Nintendo thought out of the box/out of the TV, and the result is a technology that is extremely attractive. Pure win from a concept point of view. 3rd party support confirms it already.

You made some good points. Before the E3 presentation, I wondered how Nintendo were going to make a "hardcore" game system without risk losing the original Wii's audience. The way Nintendo introduced the console had the Wii's original audience in mind was set-up to address that issue. Even if some may initially think it's a peripheral, the clarification of that will eventually come in time. The main point is that the Wii U appears approachable to the original Wii's audience while it also struck attention of major third parties and the "hardcore" audience.

 

[Vinci]

And at the core of Xbox Live are games being played that generally popular partly because of their graphical fidelity.

At this point, it has more to do with Live than anything else.

Unless we start seeing Kinect games topping the Live stats, I don't see MS abandoning the "hardcore gamer" who is STILL their bread and butter.. and to release a low-powered Xbox 3 might do that.

No, it wouldn't. At worst, they'll release a system that is just a smidgen more powerful than the Wii U - and guess what? That would be enough to retain their customers because of Live.

edit: For the record, yeah.. definitely.. it's all about recurring fees for MS.. but Live is only a part of that picture... games like Madden and COD basically represent "recurring fees" for MS as well.. I don't think they are ignoring that as much as a lot of people suspect they are with their current focus on Kinect.

They've already "won" those dollars THIS GEN.. they haven't "won" those dollars for NEXT GEN. If anything they'd want to continue the trend of increasing their 3rd party games sales lead over Sony.. and they'd do that with hardware... and some heavy investment early on with the hardcore gamer to capture that userbase.

Recurring fees are only part of the picture.

It's called network externalities, and that's what Live provides. The more people that use it, the more likely those people will derive greater value from it through community and other benefits. This is an area in which Nintendo and Sony cannot compete evenly because MS understands this and is pushing a great deal of effort and money into its continued development.

So long as MS doesn't screw Live up significantly, it will continue to be their greatest weapon against Sony and Nintendo. Hell, at this point they needn't have 1st party games at all.

 

[fabricated backlash]

If we're working with anecdotal evidence, why don't we talk about my wife who uses the Wii as well. She doesn't like traditional video games for the same reason as your Mom.

Yet, she uses the iPhone and plays games on there all the time. She uses the touchscreen and motion controls easily. The Wii U tablet is the exact same thing. The traditional controls are there but you can bet many games will be there that take advantage of the touchscreen/gyro controls. She is the typical audience the Wii went after. They're not going anywhere. They'll be buying this system as well.

And they won't have to buy expensive wiimotes over again. That's a huge plus in my poor financial student situation^^

 

[Bert]

If Sony produces a PS4 that beats the Xbox 3 graphically by any wide margin, many of these people "hooked on Live" will abandon it.

You might be right.. but I think MS would be wrong to make the assumption they can low-ball hardware next-gen too much.

MS have the luxury of not needing to launch early this time around, they can wait it out and see what Sony have. We'll have to agree to disagree but I can't see Sony producing a beast this time around, in fact I can see them milking this gen as much as possible. That and a low powered Wii U play right into MS's hands of hooking more and more gamers into XBL, first the hardcore, now the casual. XBL is MS's insurance against gaming's reset button.

We'll also have to agree to disagree on the importance of network externalities (thank you poster who reminded me of the proper term). By the way, it's nice to have an adult conversation after a week of E3 craziness

 

[Foxix Von]

No kidding, when they first showed the video of it I was confused and for a short moment I thought they were just releasing a new controller rather than a new system.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

At this point, it has more to do with Live than anything else.

Yes, because at this point, we have 2 systems competing directly (360/PS3) that are fairly equal in terms of hardware power.

The software and services currently are largely what separate the 2, ignoring exclusive games.

It would be a gamble for MS to not at least try to equal their competition when it comes to hardware for next gen is what I'm saying.

And I certainly don't think you can look at what MS is doing mid-late gen with the 360, and predict that is what they will do early on next gen. They don't have to invest any more than they have because they are the current leader with a certain type of gamer.. and the competition was losing steam already.. let alone with the recent PSN debacles.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

MS have the luxury of not needing to launch early this time around, they can wait it out and see what Sony have. We'll have to agree to disagree but I can't see Sony producing a beast this time around, in fact I can see them milking this gen as much as possible. That and a low powered Wii U play right into MS's hands of hooking more and more gamers into XBL, first the hardcore, now the casual. XBL is MS's insurance against gaming's reset button.

And I think that all equates to MS launching Xbox 3 pretty late.. I've been arguing that for a while now across many forums.

I also think MS is taking a wait and see approach.. but that's more about "when" they will launch.. not how powerful the system will or won't be. I imagine they have plans.. but they are flexible... I can imagine they have a cost/price plan, and the POWER will depend on the "when" aspect. They think in terms of dollars.. and as time goes on, dollars get you more power.

They want to milk the 360 for as long as possible for sure.

If it were up to these companies.. they'd never have to release new hardware... but the consumer still has it's demands, and competition pushes us forward. There is some worry that Sony won't be that competition any more.. but I just think both MS and Sony are going to wait as long as possible to launch.. not stop the trend of releasing powerful hardware.

We'll also have to agree to disagree on the importance of network externalities (thank you poster who reminded me of the proper term). By the way, it's nice to have an adult conversation after a week of E3 craziness

I'm not saying they aren't important. You guys are just saying that importance is going to cause them to consider the hardcore gamer less important.. I simply dissagree.

Could MS be sitting back and waiting to see if it's possible for them to have continued success with really cheap hardware? It's certainly possible.. it wouldn't absolutely shock me or anything.. it's just not my take on the current state of things, or what MS has been up to lately with Kinect.

Either way.. the idea that Xbox 3 won't be significantly more powerful than Xbox 2 is a little off to me in general.. you basically think they'll pull a Nintendo with GC->Wii?

 

[Parch]

It was obvious there needed to be more info, and there was nothing stopping Nintendo from calling a press conference after the presentation to clear things up. Especially when the gaming media was still all in one place.

Don't complain about not having enough time. Don't purposely be vague and then blame the media. If Nintendo was trying to be all mysterious and create a frenzy, they were seriously mistaken. Of course there was going to be questions after that debacle. Nintendo screwed up, and there was plenty of opportunity to clear things up.

Just be up front with the intent and progress of the system. Be honest. Don't be vague with the hopes that hype runs rampant. Jeez, sometimes the gaming industry treats people like idiots.

 

[Pyrokai]

Not sure else where to post this, so I hope you guys don't get aggravated with this post, but I haven't been on GAF the past day or so and haven't talked about the Wii U yet at all...

Okay, so here goes:

I know specs aren't everything, but they are something, right? What I'm a little confused about is where this system will fit in lieu of the competition. Now, since it is clear the competition isn't releasing their new consoles for a few years (right? I'm assuming 2013/2014 at this point), that puts the Wii U in a very awkward release period of being extremely early. Not only that, but it does have tech only slightly ahead of their current machines. So, at least for the first few years of its life, all I'm expecting are ports of third party games to the Wii U from PS3/360 with the occasional exclusive that won't do much at retail. Thinking about this, I can see the situation where a third party game comes out on all three systems, sells the worst on Wii U because everybody already has a PS3 or 360, and then third parties eventually tinker-off support. How will Nintendo get people who already have a PS3/360 to buy a Wii U for something other than first party games, even if the third party games are there, because there is already an established community online and such on PS3/360.

THEN, there's the impending releases of the PS4 and 360 to exacerbate things. Now, I'll be the first to tell you that I think it's foolish to assume both Sony and Microsoft will have a full "generational leap" the way they did from PS2-->PS3/Xbox-->Xbox 360 instead of a Wii-esque one because I believe most third parties aren't ready to have Pixar-level budgets for Pixar-level graphics. BUT what if they do the bold thing and leap so far ahead (however far that may be, because I know, diminishing returns of graphics, etc. etc.) that they once again lock-out Nintendo from ports the same way the Wii was. What happens then?

It rattles my brain and I can't think of answers.

 

[plagiarize]

It's not a bad point.. but MS is also making more money than the competition selling games... and at the core of Xbox Live are people playing those games. Every single thing Xbox Live does that they charge for can be done elsewhere for free.. including gaming.. but if you lessen the impact of gaming, I think it all topples for MS.

If Sony produces a PS4 that beats the Xbox 3 graphically by any wide margin, many of these people "hooked on Live" will abandon it.

You might be right.. but I think MS would be wrong to make the assumption they can low-ball hardware next-gen too much.

MS got ahead of Sony.. in multiple ways.. not dramatically with hardware.. but fairly dramatically with 3rd party software sales.. they then lessened their direct investments in the "hardcore" for the rest of the gen.

I don't think that means they'll continue that.. if anything, they'd repeat it.. invest early on heavily.. then focus elsewhere once your userbase is "hooked" on your product.

They don't want COD10 selling more on PS4 than Xbox 3.. The COD series alone has probably made MS well over $100 million simply in direct licensing fees for the games and DLC... let alone all the Live subscribers.. What is it, like $6-8 per copy of game sold?

And it's not like Sony isn't well aware of their PSN failures.. unless Sony is going to jump ship completely from the Playstation brand, they will HAVE to come up with something great next gen for online and everything else... if MS rests on their laurels we could see Playstation domination return.

i don't know, i mean history shows us that the console that sells the most isn't necessarily the one with the best graphics. Wii did really really well for being really underpowered next to the PS3.

last gen, PS2 satisfied more core gamers than the Gamecube or the Xbox and was demonstratably less powerful than both.

i really doubt Sony are going to make another PS3. their next console will start at, at most, $400. and i bet you that there is no way that they will take a large loss on it this time, even if they don't take profit on it.

they've seen the mistakes they've made. again, i'd be surprised if the PSV was being sold at close to the loss that the PSP was (if at all). loss leading can work, but it leaves you incapable of reacting to your competitors.

the PS2 and PS1 didn't ever need to react to their competitors... so it took the PS3 for them to see why leaving yourself without anywhere to go price was, is a very bad idea.

a $400 PS3 that was about as powerful as the 360 and sold for little to no loss, would have done better than the PS3 did, and would have made them a lot more money.

Nintendo lowered that bar for how underpowered you could be, and the only reason it's really hurting them now is because the Wii has terrible IQ. if the Wii could output it's games at 720p with the same models and textures and everything else, i don't think sales would have tailed off so quickly.

it wasn't a big problem when it came out, but as HD penetration really increased, and specifically, as HD LCD screens started selling really well, it made the Wii look worse. not just in comparison to the HD twins, but in comparison to how the Wii looked on a good rear projection or CRT TV.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

i don't know, i mean history shows us that the console that sells the most isn't necessarily the one with the best graphics. Wii did really really well for being really underpowered next to the PS3.

That doesn't mean I'm going to be disappointed next gen. Or that these companies are going to release consoles that aren't decent graphical leaps.

last gen, PS2 satisfied more core gamers than the Gamecube or the Xbox and was demonstratably less powerful than both.

The PS2 also launched earlier.. it was easier for both Nintendo and Sony to best the PS2.

And the graphics weren't THAT noticeably different.

I'm not claiming we are going to see the kind of losses we did last gen from Sony and/or MS.. I'm just not buying this idea that we aren't going to see a generational leap graphically from them.. and I've repeated that it's my opinion that they can launch a system that graphically matches what is right now 3 year old PC tech and still be a generational leap for consoles.

By the time Sony and MS launch, games like Crysis, and PC's that could power them, will be how old? 6 years? 7 years? 8 years?

I'm not claiming they aren't going to be cost conscious next-gen. I'm just saying I don't think they are going to dissapoint me personally.

Both companies don't want to abandon their current consoles too soon either way.. and want them to continue to sell even after their next-gen systems launch... which would include in their strategy a higher-priced "new" console that could easily have $400 or $500 SKUs and be loss-leaders, etc.

 

[plagiarize]

Both companies don't want to abandon their current consoles too soon either way.. and want them to continue to sell even after their next-gen systems launch... which would include in their strategy a higher-priced "new" console that could easily have $400 or $500 SKUs and be loss-leaders, etc.

if the economy has recovered enough in a couple of years, perhaps that would work, but i do honestly feel that this generation has shown that the loss leading approach is much too risky. the PS3 won't necessarily disappoint you, but i wouldn't expect anything more than $400's worth of tech for the time of release, and i wouldn't expect a price any higher than $400.

i'm sure there'll be a noticeable leap, but i doubt we'll ever see a leap like PS2 to PS3 ever again.

 

[grandjedi6]

Shoulda called it the Wii Too. Cheesy but people would have gotten it.

 

[Cromat]

The big question is whether the Wii U would receive exclusive and substantial 3rd party games. Will developers find themselves in a position where they say "360 and PS3 are too weak for this game, we'll make it for Wii U and PC instead".

If it doesn't happen, or if the Wii U turns out to be only on par with the current consoles, all that would happen (at best) is that the Wii U will get major multiplatform releases day and date with 360 and PS3 and ports of older 360/PS3 games.
That won't be enough to get PS3 and 360 owners to get another system and let go of their existing online profiles. So basically, the only people who should be excited about Mass Effect coming to Wii U are people who only owned a Wii last generation, and basically that means Nintendo won't regain the market they are hoping to regain.

 

[wondermega]

I have to count myself among those who first thought the new controller was the new console, and that you could stream the image to your TV.

It absolutely seemed that way; and were that true, the new unit would be very incredible in a way that none of it's competitors are. Instead, it almost feels like an iPad with buttons, which is dependent on being within range of a set-top box

I thought iPad was a ridiculous when they announced it "who would buy this thing" and now I am seeing Nintendo try to catch up to it.. crazy

 

[UltimaPooh]

The big question is whether the Wii U would receive exclusive and substantial 3rd party games. Will developers find themselves in a position where they say "360 and PS3 are too weak for this game, we'll make it for Wii U and PC instead".

If it doesn't happen, or if the Wii U turns out to be only on par with the current consoles, all that would happen (at best) is that the Wii U will get major multiplatform releases day and date with 360 and PS3 and ports of older 360/PS3 games.
That won't be enough to get PS3 and 360 owners to get another system and let go of their existing online profiles. So basically, the only people who should be excited about Mass Effect coming to Wii U are people who only owned a Wii last generation, and basically that means Nintendo won't regain the market they are hoping to regain.

Or if Wii U allows for publishers and developers to have their own online structures which could be free to play.

What if the Wii U version of Battlefield is also 64 players like its PC counterparts and it's not limited to the constraints that PSN or XBOX Live have.

 

[KevinCow]

The big question is whether the Wii U would receive exclusive and substantial 3rd party games. Will developers find themselves in a position where they say "360 and PS3 are too weak for this game, we'll make it for Wii U and PC instead".

If it doesn't happen, or if the Wii U turns out to be only on par with the current consoles, all that would happen (at best) is that the Wii U will get major multiplatform releases day and date with 360 and PS3 and ports of older 360/PS3 games.
That won't be enough to get PS3 and 360 owners to get another system and let go of their existing online profiles. So basically, the only people who should be excited about Mass Effect coming to Wii U are people who only owned a Wii last generation, and basically that means Nintendo won't regain the market they are hoping to regain.

I think Nintendo's best hope in this matter is being able to say, "We have the best version of the game! We have better graphics, plus all of these Wii U exclusive features!"

This alone won't get people to buy the system - the exclusives are what will sell the console - but it would be considered added value by a potential buyer. Someone might need five must-have exclusives before they decide to take the plunge, but if they see that it's also getting better versions of the PS3/360 games they're currently looking forward to, that might bump it down to four must-have exclusives.

We should also keep in mind that the core gamer isn't always the one buying the system in the house. How many times have you read here on GAF something along the lines of, "Yeah, we have a Wii, but it's just my mom's/wife's/kid's"? A lot of core gamers have access to a Wii, they just don't use it because they perceive it as inferior. If Wii U has a similar kind of penetration (though I doubt it will ever be as deep as the Wii), we'll have a similar situation. Except word might get around that, hey, this game actually looks better on Wii U, and you can do cool little stuff like manage your inventory on the touch screen, so they might start getting the Wii U versions of multiplat games.


What Nintendo really needs to start doing is getting developers to show off the Wii U versions when they show off their multiplat games. Don't ask them to make a big deal about it. Just, when someone comes to the booth at TGS or E3 or whatever trade show, they get handed a Wiipad instead of a Dualshock or 360 pad.

 

[Davidion]

That was just straight up a poorly conceptualized presentation. A two-three sentences background explanation could have cleared everything up and still let them focus on the controller.

The idea behind the console is interesting, execution is a bit questionable but they have time to work on that. The presentation to introduce it to the world really was just sheer crap. Someone should have been reprimanded to high hell for planning such a textbook case of style-over-substance.

 

[Christine]

Recurring fees are only part of the picture.

It's called network externalities, and that's what Live provides. The more people that use it, the more likely those people will derive greater value from it through community and other benefits. This is an area in which Nintendo and Sony cannot compete evenly because MS understands this and is pushing a great deal of effort and money into its continued development.

So long as MS doesn't screw Live up significantly, it will continue to be their greatest weapon against Sony and Nintendo. Hell, at this point they needn't have 1st party games at all.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this still "reset" to some extent on a platform transition?

Not to say that Microsoft isn't in a position of considerable advantage, as they're sure to face a much smaller challenge in retaining users in a transition from 360 to its successor than their competitors do in attempting to get users to switch their primary platform for online play. The attachment to gamertag, gamerscore/achievements, the friends list, and probably DD content is definitely considerable.

On the other hand, early adopters of an Xbox successor will not be able to play its new online games with people on their friends list who are still using 360. I think there's still a hurdle to be jumped here.