Support NeoGAF

[Raistlin]

Nintendo would have launched a new console any way in the same time span. If it had launched when Pachter wanted it to, then I would agree with you.

If the system was bringing in the same revenue and profits of say 2 years ago, I really doubt they'd be launching next year.

Nintendo's history should show that. They've not really followed along with the timelines of their competitors. They launch when it makes the most sense for them financially.

 

[Linkup]

Hmm underclocked devkits...interesting.

Pretty sure this is typical. Also didn't the GC get a clock bump before launch? The same thing will probably happen here.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Pretty sure this is typical. Also didn't the GC get a clock bump before launch? The same thing will probably happen here.

The GC situation was different. They tweaked the speed, not underclocked. I think the lowered the CPU speed and increased of the GPU speed near launch. Either that or the other.

 

[antonz]

Early devkits are always never reflective of final performance.

Sure since the Wii U will use archtectures similar to whats out there they can use off the shelf parts for similar performance but it will still lack all the performance tweaks etc.

 

[Vinci]

Considering the extreme amount of money both MS and Sony have lost utilizing their strategy, it appears unwise to consider the strategy remotely intelligent. The truth is, if MS and Sony weren't the massive firms that they are, neither would have survived this generation. When one's strategy is only successful based on having other industries by which to prop it up, then it's not a very good one.

I agree with one thing though: So long as they've learned not to take stupidly large losses on each hardware sold, then they should be all right. I still feel in the end that both companies are mostly raising costs without figuring out how to significantly grow their markets, but I guess we'll see what they each have for next generation.

This is the thing I think most people latch onto when they predict that one small mishap will spell doom for Nintendo. However I still wonder where all that "war chest money" the folks at Sega were mentioning went (most likely R&D for WiiU and 3DS).

It went into guaranteeing the company's future for another two decades.

 

[Pimpbaa]

At the time PC games compared to PS2 games looked...as I would call it.... BLOCKY.
The geometry was poop, despite the hi-resolution and fast frame rates.

It wasn't until Doom3 and Half-Life2 that things started started to get WAY better.

And PS2 games at the time had poop textures and no texture filtering.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

360 also sported a custom made high end gpu with features other Gpus didn't have available 1 year prior to release.

However no speculation is even suggesting that the WiiU is going to be implementing a chip that high end. All speculation and insider word has been that it will be a custom built gpu based off prior released architecture. Therefore the comparison isn't really apt. You can provide developers kits that pretty much mimic exactly what you are going to have considering you are basically using already released tech as your final product.

I no doubt believe they gave developers gimped devkits because they want wiggle room for what is still an incomplete design, but to think that the final product will be orders of magnitude above what is in the kits right now is a little glassy eyed IMO.

We don't even know what amount of memory will be in the console, final hardware could come with a tessllator similar to the unit in the 5000 series. Just because of speculation and a lack of concrete info from insiders, doesn't mean the WiiU will have Xenos close cousin with slightly better genes.

 

[Jonm1010]

This is the thing I think most people latch onto when they predict that one small mishap will spell doom for Nintendo. However I still wonder where all that "war chest money" the folks at Sega were mentioning went (most likely R&D for WiiU and 3DS).

Vice versa people seem to ignore that Microsoft and Sony being businesses that aren't just games and console makers also means that they have motives other than just making a profit from the system itself. It's often helped in other divisions or played the role of stalking horse.

Even when Sony was bleeding money from the ps3 they simultaneously were winning a format war thanks to bluray inclusion and gaining royalty fees for sales of blu rays and blu ray players.

Even though the 360 was losing money it was simultaneously helping ensure that windows operating systems would continue to be a mainstay in peoples homes and in developers minds because it so dominates the field. It was also setting up a online network that helped drive revenue for other divisions and create a whole new revenue stream altogether.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

If the system was bringing in the same revenue and profits of say 2 years ago, I really doubt they'd be launching next year.

Nintendo's history should show that. They've not really followed along with the timelines of their competitors. They launch when it makes the most sense for them financially.

What is the longest generation for Nintendo hardware, has it ever went above 5 years?

NES Fall of 1986
SNES fall of 1990
N64 fall of 1996
GC fall of 2001
Nintendo Wii fall of 2006

 

[Grampa Simpson]

What is the longest generation for Nintendo hardware, has it ever went above 5 years?

Famicom 1983-1990.

 

[Sianos]

What is the longest generation for Nintendo hardware, has it ever went above 5 years?

Wii: 2006 - 2012

Spoiler

 

[Raistlin]

This is like watching someone take a toy apart, put it back together, and have a lot of 'extra' pieces.

go on

This is the thing I think most people latch onto when they predict that one small mishap will spell doom for Nintendo. However I still wonder where all that "war chest money" the folks at Sega were mentioning went (most likely R&D for WiiU and 3DS).

Well I certainly don't think one mishap would spell doom for them, but I think they are inherently less risk tolerant or at least prefer certain strategies that make more sense for them.

This is why they went after other 'poles' as people have referred to them. They want (need?) a successful portable so they have an offset revenue stream from their console. If they were entirely reliant on a console only, things would be pretty problematic given the current competition. It was fine when they were going against something like SEGA, but it becomes pretty difficult against the likes of MS and Sony.

 

[antonz]

Nintendo keeps a warchest really for a few reasons. Obviously for the stability a large amount of cash offers a company that doesnt have a million support branches for.

It also allows them in an emergency situation to mass buyback stock if someone decided to try and take over a significant share of Nintendo stock intending a takeover of the company.

 

[hellclerk]

Actually I suspect it had the opposite impact.

Sony and MS are running under a business strategy where they want their systems to be viable for a longer period of time. So far that's worked pretty well for Sony ... and while the original Xbox didn't meet this expectation things are looking good for 360. Ultimately it's unknown if this sort of model will work long-term, but I've seen nothing making it obvious they're abandoning this strategy.

Sure, I bet both Sony and MS were taken aback by the Wii's initial success. But look at how things actually ended up turning out? Even though Wii was far and away the #1 system for its first few years, profits and revenues have basically fallen off a cliff. So much so that the manufacturer of the #1 system has felt the need to launch first.

So if anything, I'd think Wii demonstrates the concept of releasing an under-powered system as not working for their business model. Will they consider taking less of a loss? Sure, but that really isn't a strategy change. It's already been noted that neither are expected to go nuts with R&Ding crazy custom stuff (and the current state-of-the-art makes it so they really don't need to). That in itself will save them a lot of money and risk out of the gate. That however doesn't imply it will be massively under-powered, nor that they won't take any loss on HW.

That's completely ridiculous. The Wii provided Nintendo with tons of profit from day one. While the raw revenue might not have been all that much higher than competitors, Nintendo was and still is doing good business with the Wii, and the only reason that the console isn't doing as well is because there's not as much compelling software coming out for the system coupled with some blood in Nintendo's blue ocean (Kinnect and Move). I'd say this is mostly because of industry politics and bad practices by publishers (they should have listened to N'Gai). The system is still profitable though, and people are still buying it, and for the past six years it's had far and away more mindshare than the 360 or PS3 combined. People will notice when the WiiU comes out simply because Nintendo's making it and it's branded with Wii. The Wii most certainly IS an exemplary example of the good business behind utilizing "withered technology". Don't even try and kid yourself.

 

[OMT]

This is the thing I think most people latch onto when they predict that one small mishap will spell doom for Nintendo. However I still wonder where all that "war chest money" the folks at Sega were mentioning went (most likely R&D for WiiU and 3DS).

They've been killed in the currency markets, because the yen's gone sky-high, and 70% of their capital reserves are in foreign currencies, while most of their liabilities are in yen.

 

[Raistlin]

What is the longest generation for Nintendo hardware, has it ever went above 5 years?

As others have said ... NES was quite long. SNES to N64 was nearly 6 years, etc. I think the reality is any console maker will stick with a system as long as it's viable. Why wouldn't they? New systems cost a lot, even if you aren't selling at a loss.

NES shows what happens when there's no competition - which is why I'm glad we have 3 seemingly stable companies regularly going at it.

 

[lednerg]

What is the longest generation for Nintendo hardware, has it ever went above 5 years?

Considering that the Wii is literally an overclocked Gamecube with a little more RAM, 10 years.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

Famicom 1983-1990.

NES launched in the US in 86, it took Nintendo nearly 2 years to launch in the west because of the Atari and failed negotiations with to help market the NES.

 

[onQ123]

What is the longest generation for Nintendo hardware, has it ever went above 5 years?

NES Fall of 1986
SNES fall of 1990
N64 fall of 1996
GC fall of 2001
Nintendo Wii fall of 2006

Gameboy 1989 - 2001

 

[gokieks]

360 also sported a custom made high end gpu with features other Gpus didn't have available 1 year prior to release.

However no speculation is even suggesting that the WiiU is going to be implementing a chip that high end. All speculation and insider word has been that it will be a custom built gpu based off prior released architecture. Therefore the comparison isn't really apt. You can provide developers kits that pretty much mimic exactly what you are going to have considering you are basically using already released tech as your final product.

I no doubt believe they gave developers gimped devkits because they want wiggle room for what is still an incomplete design, but to think that the final product will be orders of magnitude above what is in the kits right now is a little glassy eyed IMO.

If you really think a rumor of "based on RV770" means "basically using already released tech as your final product", then you really have no idea how the design and, more importantly, manufacturing of GPUs work. Taking into account making modifications to the RV770 architecture (likely) and being produced on a smaller process than the 55nm the desktop RV770 chips were on (basically a certainty), it is nowhere close to being a case of just sticking a HD4850/4870 GPU into a box and handing it off to the developers.

And I'm not sure why you interpret my post as thinking the final product will be "orders of magnitude above what is in the kits right now". My entire point is that the performance of the dev kits gives no indication for performance of the final product one way or the other.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

As others have said ... NES was quite long. SNES to N64 was nearly 6 years, etc. I think the reality is any console maker will stick with a system as long as it's viable. Why wouldn't they? New systems cost a lot, even if you aren't selling at a loss.

NES shows what happens when there's no competition - which is why I'm glad we have 3 seemingly stable companies regularly going at it.

What makes Nintendo different in console development, they immediately start R&D on the successor after launch of a console. Miyamoto has said this many times.

Edit indeed.

 

[jmdajr]

What makes Nintendo different in console development, they immediately start R&D on the predecessor after launch of a console. Miyamoto has said this many times.

It's the same for all the companies

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Considering that the Wii is literally an overclocked Gamecube with a little more RAM, 10 years.

Too bad that's not how it works.

 

[evilromero]

NES launched in the US in 86, it took Nintendo nearly 2 years to launch in the west because of the Atari and failed negotiations with to help market the NES.

Famicom launched in Japan 1983 and the Super Famicom in 1990. In the US technically some units in 1985 with a mass launch in 1986 with the SNES in 1991.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

It's the same for all the companies

Point, in over two decades Nintendo has released a new console in a span of five years.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

NES shows what happens when there's no competition - which is why I'm glad we have 3 seemingly stable companies regularly going at it.

It's probably rose tinted glasses talking but the NES had a great ratio of quality games. Not sure what you're implying with your statement shy of Nintendo strangling their competitors but my 6 year old self couldn't have given less of a fuck about that then.

 

[Bazza]

My 4890 is more than just "capable".

my 4890's crossfired have served me extremely well up until the witcher 2 was released.

Even if the Wii U only uses a 4850 its still several times more powerful compared to what is currently in the PS3 and 360.

The way developers do there magic turning out games like UC2 and crysis 2 on what is 6 year old tech i expect comparable graphics to what is considered high setting on PC's currently.

It seems consoles get maybe 2-4x the performance from the components compared to the PC equivalent during there lifetime and it makes it interesting thinking about what will be loaded in the next playstation and xbox.

 

[Jinko]

I doubt most games will be running at 1080p to begin with. I think 720p will be the standard.

Duno I would be pretty disappointed with that, R770 should be easily capable of putting out 1080p graphics as long as they don't have any significant bandwidth problems.

 

[lednerg]

Considering that the Wii is literally an overclocked Gamecube with a little more RAM, 10 years.

Too bad that's not how it works.

Actually, it kinda is. Nintendo didn't have to reinvest in brand new CPU/GPU architectures with the Wii, just the motion controls.

 

[Raistlin]

That's completely ridiculous.

o'rly

The Wii provided Nintendo with tons of profit from day one. While the raw revenue might not have been all that much higher than competitors, Nintendo was and still is doing good business with the Wii,

I don't seem to recall stating the Wii wan't immediately successful - quite the opposite. And I agree revenue isn't really important - what's important are profits. And Nintendo has made plenty, but it's been falling for 3 consecutive years ... with this last year showing a 66% decline. Obviously they felt that as a sufficient drop to move to the next gen.

and the only reason that the console isn't doing as well is because there's not as much compelling software coming out for the system coupled with some blood in Nintendo's blue ocean (Kinnect and Move). I'd say this is mostly because of industry politics and bad practices by publishers (they should have listened to N'Gai).

Seriously? You are honestly trying to argue that the industry just got together and decided 'hey guys, let's fuck over Nintendo'?

This wasn't politics or bad practices ... it was good, sound business practicalities. Wii exists on an island technologically. Look at it from the publishers' and devs' point of view. They can make games that target 3 platforms (PS3, 360, PC), or they can make ones that target Wii. Even with Wii being number one, the numbers just don't add up. So logically, they're going to go after the market that can get them more money.

This all comes down to them choosing to go with an under powered platform that makes it either impossible (for some games) or simply too costly to get a ton of ports. Hell, Nintendo as much said this, and it's part of their Wii U strategy - 'can run ports from PC and PS3/360? Check that box'.

The system is still profitable though, and people are still buying it, and for the past six years it's had far and away more mindshare than the 360 or PS3 combined. People will notice when the WiiU comes out simply because Nintendo's making it and it's branded with Wii. The Wii most certainly IS an exemplary example of the good business behind utilizing "withered technology". Don't even try and kid yourself.

You're the one kidding yourself, since you aren't actually grasping what I'm talking about. Wii was obviously a success, but it isn't the example you think it is. It's an example of how to make a console that last 5-6 years (and to be honest, assuming Nintendo will always hit a home run like waggle did is being ridiculous).

It isn't however an example of how to do the business strategy Sony and MS are currently going after. PS3 and 360 will have had a longer lifespan ... and most likely, will have some decent SW sales continue for a while after the new systems launch. Do you honestly think there will be a lot of Wii games sales after the Wii U launches? Do you think they'll extend as long after the successor hits as they will on PS3 and 360?


I'm simply not stating Nintendo has a wrong or bad business model. I'm saying MS and Sony have a different one. Which is 'better' or whatnot isn't really the discussion.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Actually, it kinda is. Nintendo didn't have to reinvest in brand new CPU/GPU architectures with the Wii, just the motion controls.

That's not accurate. They would have had to invest in the CPU/GPU, though to address the added processing power there in addition to power/heat concerns within the Wii form factor in addition to everything else even though the base architecture is similar. Plus other things to invest in that the GC lacked such as networking issues/WiFi, USB, the disc format and etc.

More goes into a new generation than just a CPU/GPU architecture change.

 

[Raistlin]

Edit indeed.

Huh?

It's probably rose tinted glasses talking but the NES had a great ratio of quality games. Not sure what you're implying with your statement shy of Nintendo strangling their competitors but my 6 year old self couldn't have given less of a fuck about that then.

Well certainly our 6yo selves didn't give a shit about that sort of thing

But yes, I think it's rose tinted glasses. There is a TON of shit on NES. Ton of great stuff too though, but I don't think the ratio was necessarily better than in other generations. Might even be worse? Honestly it's been too long.

As for implying it was strangling competition ... I guess, kind of. It was pretty much a monopoly at the time. Part of that was insufficient competition, some of it was some ... interesting ... practices they had with publishers. Really though, that isn't important to what I was getting at. I was simply stating that on their own, obviously console manufacturers would prefer to keep around their existing system as long as possible. They don't make new ones out of the kindness of their heart.

 

[agrajag]

Sure that is possible, but it's a complete what if. They aren't going to abandon their current strategy until there's a more concrete reason to.





That's backwards though. It's not like they're forced to do this, it's a conscious choice. Obviously they feel, potentially right or wrong, that they stand to make more money this way. I assume the logic is that there is always going to be some (substantial) base level R&D costs no matter what ... so they feel that adding a bit to it up front, and then stretching out the generation, will get them more money in the long-run.

If at some point they feel that going a more conservative route (but with shorter generations) is in their best interest ... obviously they'll do that. There really isn't anything preventing them. If anything, Nintendo is the one that has more constraints since they are a game-only company. MS and Sony don't have to rely on only their games divisions, so they are open to other strategies.

Even with a 10 year generation, PS3 will never catch up to Wii's number, let alone be nearly as profitable. Nintendo made more money in a short generation than Sony will in a long one.

 

[hellclerk]

I don't seem to recall stating the Wii wan't immediately successful - quite the opposite. And I agree revenue isn't really important - what's important are profits. And Nintendo has made plenty, but it's been falling for 3 consecutive years ... with this last year showing a 66% decline. Obviously they felt that as a sufficient drop to move to the next gen.

Well of course with a drop in revenue there's a drop in profits, but revenue's been dropping all across the industry for the past three years (more like two), which is a natural progression of console gaming. And I'm gonna keep saying it, Nintendo dropped off purely because of a lack of new, compelling software. It's the same reason the 3DS is having some woes. This neither surprising nor controversial, and yet regardless of all of this, Nintendo is still making money and is still sustaining their business.

Seriously? You are honestly trying to argue that the industry just got together and decided 'hey guys, let's fuck over Nintendo'?

This wasn't politics or bad practices ... it was good, sound business practicalities. Wii exists on an island technologically. Look at it from the publishers' and devs' point of view. They can make games that target 3 platforms (PS3, 360, PC), or they can make ones that target Wii. Even with Wii being number one, the numbers just don't add up. So logically, they're going to go after the market that can get them more money.

This all comes down to them choosing to go with an under powered platform that makes it either impossible (for some games) or simply too costly to get a ton of ports. Hell, Nintendo as much said this, and it's part of their Wii U strategy - 'can run ports from PC and PS3/360? Check that box'.

Sure they do. Costs associated with a high end Wii game tend to be in the ~$15 million range as a highball estimate. Costs associated with high end HD games tend to be in the $30-$100million range. Developers have been dying off and dropping out, and this was when we were seeing record revenue across the industry. That sounds to me like bad choices and bad politics to me. Were companies that risk adverse to not try and grow a market for their games that they risked and lost so many millions on the other consoles?

You're the one kidding yourself, since you aren't actually grasping what I'm talking about. Wii was obviously a success, but it isn't the example you think it is. It's an example of how to make a console that last 5-6 years (and to be honest, assuming Nintendo will always hit a home run like waggle did is being ridiculous).

It isn't however an example of how to do the business strategy Sony and MS are currently going after. PS3 and 360 will have had a longer lifespan ... and most likely, will have some decent SW sales continue for a while after the new systems launch. Do you honestly think there will be a lot of Wii games sales after the Wii U launches? Do you think they'll extend as long after the successor hits as they will on PS3 and 360?

I'm simply not stating Nintendo has a wrong or bad business model. I'm saying MS and Sony have a different one. Which is 'better' or whatnot isn't really the discussion.

It IS the example, do you know why? Because it's sustainable. It makes the company money to be able to expand and improve. It keeps mindshare and market share there if you have the compelling software to go with it. The reason the PS3 and 360 have a longer lifespan is because BOTH companies took multi BILLION dollar losses within the first few years. That is not sustainable, and both Microsoft and Sony know it. The Wii on the other hand, is entirely sustainable from day one, as long as you can get good software out for it, which is exactly what Nintendo managed on their end. Third parties however, did not pick up the slack across the board. THIS is why the WiiU is coming out, because the software is drying up. But the practice to make your console developer friendly, consumer friendly, and policy to make money off of it from day one is good business because even if you have a giant shit, you can still get up and try again.

You're saying that which one is better isn't the argument, but it IS, because you're asking whether or not the Wii is an example for industry practice. The model is economically sustainable, and you're not throwing money down the shitter, for what? Bragging rights of having the most powerful console that'll never get fully taken advantage of? Point is, the Wii was a success like no other home console ever was. Nintendo focused on what made people buy consoles: software over hardware, and compelling ways to interact with it, thus creating their success and anyone who ignores its example is a flat out moron. Sony and Microsoft are in the business of making money, not throwing it away for our sake. If you can't grasp that, I don't know what I can do.

 

[lednerg]

That's not accurate. They would have had to invest in the CPU/GPU, though to address the added processing power there in addition to power/heat concerns within the Wii form factor in addition to everything else even though the base architecture is similar. Plus other things to invest in that the GC lacked such as networking issues/WiFi, USB, the disc format and etc.

More goes into a new generation than just a CPU/GPU architecture change.

Going from a 180nm process to a 90nm one took care of the power and heat issues that the 50% overclock posed. Everything else you're talking about was existing technology; the biggest expense was most likely the R&D for the Wiimote. The Wii U, on the other hand, represents the first true generation leap Nintendo has made in 10 years.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Going from a 180nm process to a 90nm one took care of the power and heat issues that the 50% overclock posed. Everything else you're talking about was existing technology; the biggest expense was most likely the R&D for the Wiimote. The Wii U, on the other hand, represents the first true generation leap Nintendo has made in 10 years.

In terms of raw power, yeah. I'm just saying that Wii no matter how you slice it is current gen and a successor to the GC.

 

[OMT]

In terms of raw power, yeah. I'm just saying that Wii no matter how you slice it is current gen and a successor to the GC.

Depends on what you define as "current gen." There's no clear-cut, universally recognized definition. That's why this discussion comes up in the first place.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Depends on what you define as "current gen." There's no clear-cut, universally recognized definition. That's why this discussion comes up in the first place.

I take current gen as the consoles that are being actively marketed, sold and supported by a wide range of first and third party companies. That then changes when a direct successor is released for that particular piece of hardware. And of course it is possible for a current gen and next gen machine to coexist at the same time.

Nobody would call the PS2 still being supported and selling well in 2007 part of the new current generation with the X360, PS3 and Wii all on the market. I don't think at least.

 

[shadyspace]

underclocked dev kits:

http://www.next-gen.biz/news/wii-u-dev-kits-underclocked

Doesn't this deserve its own thread? Not even so much as "OMG WII GOT THE POWER" but it gives a good indication of where Nintendo's head is at if they actually cared what Wu games look like in comparison to PS3/360. Plus, it explains where all those pre-E3 reports of more games came from (i.e. they were true).

 

[ElFly]

Doesn't this deserve its own thread? Not even so much as "OMG WII GOT THE POWER" but it gives a good indication of where Nintendo's head is at if they actually cared what Wu games look like in comparison to PS3/360. Plus, it explains where all those pre-E3 reports of more games came from (i.e. they were true).

Eeeh, it's going to be a repeat of this thread.

 

[Raistlin]

Even with a 10 year generation, PS3 will never catch up to Wii's number, let alone be nearly as profitable. Nintendo made more money in a short generation than Sony will in a long one.

As has been discussed in numerous threads, PS3 was a comedy of errors as far as fab'ing issues. It wasn't planned to cost what it did. Similarly, the Wii was really an unexpected success.

Both were anomalies. You don't plan for such things. They are noise on the radar as far as business strategies go. There are lessons to be learned, but they weren't necessarily fundamental strategy lessons.

 

[Raistlin]

Well of course with a drop in revenue there's a drop in profits, but revenue's been dropping all across the industry for the past three years (more like two), which is a natural progression of console gaming.

Except the drop off has been far worse for Nintendo. As a matter of fact, it's been increasing for the competition.

And I'm gonna keep saying it, Nintendo dropped off purely because of a lack of new, compelling software.

Which is purely based on their HW ... not some conspiracy theory of the industry being against Nintendo.

It's the same reason the 3DS is having some woes. This neither surprising nor controversial, and yet regardless of all of this, Nintendo is still making money and is still sustaining their business.

oh boy

Sure they do. Costs associated with a high end Wii game tend to be in the ~$15 million range as a highball estimate. Costs associated with high end HD games tend to be in the $30-$100million range. Developers have been dying off and dropping out, and this was when we were seeing record revenue across the industry. That sounds to me like bad choices and bad politics to me. Were companies that risk adverse to not try and grow a market for their games that they risked and lost so many millions on the other consoles?

So your theory continues to be that it has nothing to do with financials ... this is purely everyone against Nintendo?

It IS the example, do you know why? Because it's sustainable.

etc

So Sony's prior endeavors before hitting massive cost issues with PS3 weren't sustainable?

Ok.

 

[pirata]

Eeeh, it's going to be a repeat of this thread.

New news, new thread. Should I make it if no one else is going to?

 

[Vic]

New news, new thread. Should I make it if no one else is going to?

Go ahead.

 

[hellclerk]

I'm just going to clarify here since you don't actually seem to be reading what I'm writing.

So your theory continues to be that it has nothing to do with financials ... this is purely everyone against Nintendo?

It has everything to do with financials, but more to do with the calculation of ROI. Publishers don't tend to like trying "new" things, and hedging on a Nintendo console with different software philosophy is "new" as it gets. I feel like it was a bad decision for these companies to press so hard for what they've been doing since the beginning: looking to make a "AAA game". They couldn't really do that on Nintendo's hardware to a similar extent, in part because they had to compete with Nintendo's software and in part because they'd always get compared unfavorably to "real" AAA games on HD consoles. However, that drive to make the next huge game is impractical and not something you can really predict. Focusing too hard on that sort of high budget, franchise focused game can backfire, and backfire bad. Look at Haze, look at Lair, these games crashed and burned horribly and the studios associated with them went under as a result of their failure. It has everything to do with financials, but it's the wrong perspective on those financials and an hyperfocus on unsustainable game making models, all because that's what these developers "know" and they don't really want to learn something new.

 

[lednerg]

Wii missed out on the major multi-plat franchises because of hardware limitations. In a few cases, it got severely watered-down versions of them, but for the most part they were non-existent. Without these titles, the dudebros avoided the system like the plague. 3rd parties didn't bother making exclusive AAA core games for the system because they knew the audience for them wasn't there, not because they don't like trying new things.

 

[Raistlin]

I'm just going to clarify here since you don't actually seem to be reading what I'm writing.

Well that's droll.

It has everything to do with financials, but more to do with the calculation of ROI. Publishers don't tend to like trying "new" things, and hedging on a Nintendo console with different software philosophy is "new" as it gets. I feel like it was a bad decision for these companies to press so hard for what they've been doing since the beginning: looking to make a "AAA game". They couldn't really do that on Nintendo's hardware to a similar extent, in part because they had to compete with Nintendo's software and in part because they'd always get compared unfavorably to "real" AAA games on HD consoles. However, that drive to make the next huge game is impractical and not something you can really predict. Focusing too hard on that sort of high budget, franchise focused game can backfire, and backfire bad. Look at Haze, look at Lair, these games crashed and burned horribly and the studios associated with them went under as a result of their failure. It has everything to do with financials, but it's the wrong perspective on those financials and an hyperfocus on unsustainable game making models, all because that's what these developers "know" and they don't really want to learn something new.

So what you're saying is none of Nintendo's 3rd party issues had anything to do with Wii not being one of the the 2 or 3 machines they could target at once to reduce risk?

 

[Neo C.]

So what you're saying is none of Nintendo's 3rd party issues had anything to do with Wii not being one of the the 2 or 3 machines they could target at once to reduce risk?

From this point on, it's only speculation, but if one or two CEOs of the major publishers had decided differently (AKA substantial support for the Wii), this generation would look totally differently. And I know from my history studies that sometimes it's just a question of the mood or a decision by a whim to make history totally different.

The industry had a chance for a more substantial growth, it missed it, now let's see how the next generation turns out.

 

[hellclerk]

So what you're saying is none of Nintendo's 3rd party issues had anything to do with Wii not being one of the the 2 or 3 machines they could target at once to reduce risk?

Nintendo's third party issues have to do with third party publishers deciding that the Wii wasn't one of the 2 or 3 machines they could target at once without risk. This distinction wasn't relevant until after such a decision had been made, and the decision seems to have been made before the console was even out, if you remember publisher reactions to the Wii's success after the fact.

 

[Hylian]

Just following this discussion with doomed and raistlin.

I think its easy to say at hindsight that thirdparties were unsightfull for not trusting the wii.
Its also easy to say that Nintendo should have trusted their plattform by giving it more grunt.

But considering the sitsuation Nintendo was in with the cube and its third party support. And the risks that the wii was as a whole. Its easy to see why Nintendo went with cheap hardware. And also why third parties were so reluctant to adopt to the platform in its critical birthing stages.

I think both parties were just protecting their bottom line with these decisions. The wii was risky enought , the way it was designed. Actually it was designed to create a "third pillar/Blue ocean". So it made short term sense to not baloon expences with modern hardware while maintaining legacy copatibility and quick library transport. Leaving out these advantages in this steep left turn , its easy to see the resoning and perspective that led them unconfident (Going over the hoops so bear with me).

But looking at MS and sony, they both are now seeking to capitalize that blue ocean that Nintendo created. With Move & Kinect.

So the question is what would be the best way nintendo could respond to this sitsuation. Well i think its differentation yet again with the new controller. If it works it works, if it does not work, then what. Its like an endless cat and mouse game. Nintendo keeps inventing new gadgets while the competition is adopting all the succesfull ones while invertably trying to drag nintendo in to their feature set /hw power war. Whitch leaves both nintendo MS and sony in a sitsuation where their financial stability is in a constant flux. There is no stable ground to build upon. The costs are going to go up and more and more good developers will go under because everyone is just looking at their self centred projects, not realizing that they will kill themselfs invertebly by causing this havoc to others this way (Look at the current financial reality that is unfolding). Not collaborating and creating an sustanable eco system for all parties involved. Just like the clobal financial arena has relized its interconnectivity, and how when a one country overspending can colapse the whole market. So will the gaming companies have to start to think about the ecosystem as a whole, in their invidual building projects. Learn how how to build an sustanable shared ecosystem, and that includes taking all parties along with the negotiations.

I think there is motivation to be found for exelence , when each one of them can just envole their unique dna and celebrate that in an collobative supportive ecosystem where they take in to account more than their invidual projects and build acordingly. What does retro have to gain from competing with nintendo, they gain exelence by just because they have a deep respect for Nintendo and for their craft. They want to build upon that legacy and that is their inspiration for exelence and they know that with this partnership they both can achieve things that they could not alone. This hardware/software feature checkbox rat race that leads to everyone copying and competing in an arbitary standard that restsricts differentation (Only the best wins), And limits how the whole system (Fragmented uncompatible invidual visions that dont take in to account the rest of the ecosystem). How did we even get to the point that we thought that this was the most efficient way to build something?. Or are we just excepted this low standard and learned to love the sorrow of the the drama that it causes?

I for one enjoy these conversations lot more, when the whole of gaf participates in ways that are respectfull of the whole.