Jimquisition: Why the Wii U May Have Already "Won" Next-gen

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Jim looked delicious with ketchup on him.
Captcha: bacon and eggs

While I'm not angry about the Bayonetta exclusive, only slightly disappointed (what? I liked the first game), I detest exclusives on pure principle. They are bad for gamers, they are bad for developers, and they are in the end bad for the consoles themselves.

1) Bad for gamers, they force you to choose a side, and you better hope you pick the right side, or you're shit out of luck unless you want to drop another months rent on another console just to play the exclusives.

2) I get why some developers do it, the console makers trump up a bunch of cash to them in advance to purchase the exclusive rights to a game, which makes getting the game actually made easier, but it's bad for them in the end because it limits their audience to just those people who actually own that console. The people who will drop $500 on a new console just to get one or two games that are exclusive to it are few and far between, in the end they'd get far more sales supporting all the major platforms.

3) It limits competition. Rather then letting the consoles stand on their merits, such as hardware, price, services offered, etc. they use these exclusives to force people into things they might otherwise not buy. Just look at the early releases of the current generation. You want Mario / Zelda? You need to buy Nintendo, never might you might actually never play anything else on that console. If you wanted to play RPGs like Mass Effect you needed to buy a 360. If you wanted Uncharted and God of War you needed to buy a PS3. It wasn't about which console suited your needs, which best supported your style of gaming, it was about which games you could play. And that's bad.

The only exclusives I think are okay are the time-limited ones, like the Skyrim DLC, let console makers pay off developers for a few weeks or a month of lead time, that gives the developers a chunk of change they might need, it gives the console marketers something to crow about, but it lets everyone play it eventually.

Which is odd because that's how the magazine industry has been doing it for decades. If you subscribed you got your issue a few days before the news agencies, a valid incentive, but it didn't lock anyone else out.

TL;DR Exclusives suck and need to go away and die.

lord.jeff:
I still think the WiiU will lose, namely do to it's weak graphics, I'm not a graphics snug but looking at the Wii I believe that what hurt it the most the fact that it didn't even have the option to support multiplatform titles which directly led to it's tiny library that so crippled it in the long run. The WiiU may be able to offer a unique experience but if Nintendo doesn't have a plan to up it's capability when Sony and Microsoft come around, every developer is gonna jump the Wii ship again and move to a console that has the power to make what they want instead of a console with a novel gimmick. Not to mention releasing new console without Sony or Microsoft not even releasing rumors of is also gonna hurt it for two reasons that I can see, one it gives Sony and Microsoft a great chance to improve the WiiU idea and have it in the console right off the bat, which the Move and Kinetic proves both companies are willing to and capable of doing. The second reason is I think most people would rather campare consoles to make sure they have the best value I can imagine a lot of people not buying a WiiU simply becuase they want to see it stack up against the PS4 or Xbox720 first.

That's odd. Because people said the same thing when the Wii was being prepared.

I recall at the end of it all Nintendo ended up laughing all the way to the bank while Microsoft has become obsessed with casual market.

I don't know much about Sony's predicament so me got no other thoughts to share.

jpoon:
Yeah, not convinced at all, the WiiU looks like another shitbox kiddie gaming console. I'll be right where I belong...playing PC games, where you can still find all the "hardcore" you want to find!

I feel highly offended by your surprisingly predictable phrase.

I mean, there's no irony to it at all!

Foolproof:

GrimHeaper:

Foolproof:
So it was a dismal failure that managed to sell a third of what the Ps3 has, but they didn't even try to make a good machine, so they wouldn't sell at a good deal for the consumer.

Profits aren't determined by sales and the gamecube was more powerful than the ps2 THAT ERA and was sold at a good deal.
You're just being flatout ignorant of what actually happened.
The ps3 is a massive failure even with the huge amount they sold and so is the vita with the small amount they are selling it because they are SELLING AT A LOSS. A huge one at that.
Sony is literally circling the drain because of their tactics regarding their products and it's video game branch is the most profitable, that's sad.

Given it was sold for more than it cost to make, it wasn't a good deal for the consumer by default. Also, no, the Gamecube wasn't more powerful than the Ps2, the Gamecube had a higher CPU clock speed than the PS2 but there is more to a CPU's power than just clock speed, Use AMD vs Intel as an example. AMD's CPU's are almost always far higher clocked than Intel's yet the Intel's completely destroy AMD in every bench test.

Besides that, The PS2 had 32mb of main ram while the Gamecube only had 24mb. Not to mention the fact that it didn't use those stupid fucking smaller discs.

Also, given you're 6 years old, this may come as a suprise to you, but selling consoles at a loss is how you're supposed to do it - you make the profits back through software sales.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/11/04/gamecube-versus-playstation-2
Nope avi. You don't know jack.
@bolded http://www.drvl.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/heston.jpg

Vault101:

GrimHeaper:
The playstation 3 has 760 games.
360 929.
I'm sure if you actually went thorough them all it isn't as big as a gap as you would think Considering the Wii has the most games out of that gen.

so were on numbers now?....that doesnt mean jack

the Wii may have had alot of games but how many of them were actually worth one's time? because you can't deny there was mountaints and mountains of shovelware

and ok, taking out the shovel ware what decent 3rd party games were there?

the point I am trying to stress here is that the majority of games I've played have all been 3rd party titles...the Wii had jack shit in terms of 3rd party because hardly anyone was there to develop for it

heres another qustion...did you have a systm aside from the Wii?

Yes I do, a 360.
The Wii has enough good 3rd party games I don't want to spend my time listing them.
Several hundred good 3rd party games backed by a strong 2nd and first party is honestly enough.
There were plenty of good games they just weren't advertised.

Foolproof:

Vigormortis:

Foolproof:
snip

The hilarity of listing a small handful of "indie games" being on the PS3, and comparing those to the innumerable wealth of indie titles available on PC as a sign of the PS3 being "friendly" to indie devs, aside, I have to point out something:

The moment an "indie" game is funded and published by a major company, like in your example (Sony), it is no longer an "indie" game.

Oh, so you're a hipster who doesn't like indie games based on them being smaller and more creative, but on the fact that they pointlessly eschew corporate help that comes with no strings attached. That makes this argument a lot simpler.

And no, the Pub Fund is why Sony are more indie friendly, given its literally them giving free money to indie developers.

Wait...

I'm a hipster because I don't like creative games?

Seriously, when did the word "independent developer" come to mean cheap, low-budget, arcade-y games? Did everyone collectively forget what the word "independent" means?

If a developer, no matter the size, develops, funds, and produces it's own game that developer can be considered "indie".

Mojang? Indie. Chucklefish? Indie. TheIndieStone? Coincidentally, indie.

But, the makers of Journey? Thatgamecompany? Not indie. Giant Sparrow? No longer indie.

Why? Because the definition of "independent", when used in regards to a game developer, means that developer handles virtually all aspects of a games creation and publication. If they have funding and/or handle publication through another company, they are not independent.

It has nothing to do with being a "hipster". It's logical truth. If a company is not independently creating game on their own, they aren't "indie". To consider a developer to be "indie" by any other reasoning is ludicrous.

And before you say something even more hilarious like, "But Giant Sparrow is comprised of a small team! That makes them indie!" No. It doesn't. Would you say Portal or Portal 2 were indie games?

No? But, Portal had a design team of eight people while Portal 2 had a team of twenty eight. Teams smaller than some true indie developers. Doesn't that, by your definition, make them "indie"?

In fact, when one really considers what actually makes a developer "indie", you end up seeing many studios in a different light. For example, in many ways, Valve can be considered "indie". Being that they handle all development and publishing for most of their games internally.

So maybe, before passive-aggressively insulting people, you should do a little back-ground research before you start spewing "facts" about.

About the screen on the controller, I figured out a few years ago that one of the big reasons I gravitated more toward the computer than the console when I was a kid is that the computer had it's own dedicated monitor. Where as if I wanted to play the Mega Drive or the Playstation 1 I often had to fight with my family over the TV.

I like the idea of the "smart TVs". Even a mid range android phone should be able to handle things like Netflix and the like, and given that since TV's are always plugged into power and much larger than handheld devises they wouldn't need as much expensive miniaturized/power saving hardware. Thus being able to offer similar features with a lower cost. I think that's an awesome idea. The real trap I can see with that is the same as DVD when it first came out, with PR people claiming "value" for the inflated price point.

So basically in business sense, Nintendo is sticking to their core competency, while Sony and Microsoft are expanding out of it (in terms of games)to focus on markets they ultimately cannont get a competitive edge in? Here I was thinking that Microsoft made a name for themselves for cutting edge business strategies and Sony helped pioneer this exact strategy. Oh the irony.

Or you could, you know, get a ps3 that offers all those services for free as well as having good graphics and not just making constant remakes of games for babies and old ladies.

Vigormortis:

Foolproof:

Vigormortis:

The hilarity of listing a small handful of "indie games" being on the PS3, and comparing those to the innumerable wealth of indie titles available on PC as a sign of the PS3 being "friendly" to indie devs, aside, I have to point out something:

The moment an "indie" game is funded and published by a major company, like in your example (Sony), it is no longer an "indie" game.

Oh, so you're a hipster who doesn't like indie games based on them being smaller and more creative, but on the fact that they pointlessly eschew corporate help that comes with no strings attached. That makes this argument a lot simpler.

And no, the Pub Fund is why Sony are more indie friendly, given its literally them giving free money to indie developers.

Wait...

I'm a hipster because I don't like creative games?

No, I guess not, since hipsters can understand basic logic at some level.

See, I said that you like independent games because you like being contratian and refusing to associate with larger companies. Only by your own poor substitute for logic did you take me implying you don't like creative games from that.

But, the makers of Journey? Thatgamecompany? Not indie. Giant Sparrow? No longer indie.

Why? Because the definition of "independent", when used in regards to a game developer, means that developer handles virtually all aspects of a games creation and publication. If they have funding and/or handle publication through another company, they are not independent.

So you're choosing to argue semantics while logically admitting that on any semblance of a point, you're completely wrong. This was about Sony's capacity to attract smaller, creative studios and get their games. As you're now defending the idea that they can't because as soon as they come to Sony they're not technically independent, you're simply stalling and drawing this argument out.

1. If I wanted NOT to play games on my TV or PC I'd get a handheld.

2. WiiU is, technologically, so little above Xbox360 and PS3 that we could safely say that Nintendo is doing a second entry this generation.

The ketchup doesn't compare to chucking water all over yourself during the Hour of Love.

That bit at the end was just plain perfect. How he shifted from the spazout to just calmly clicking the bottle shut was great, and that perfectly comedicly timed bit falling off - Thank god he got through that one take without laughing, because you couldn't ever get that to happen again without it looking authentic.

Honestly, the reason I'm not planning on buying the WiiU isn't because I'm not liking the tablet concept, I actually think it's a brilliant idea, and it'll be interesting to see developers implement it. However, there weren't really any games that came out for the Wii that I really enjoyed, most of them just being kinda meh for me. I'll wait to see what games come out for a year or two, but until then, I'm just going to stick to my PS3.

Foolproof:
snip

Stalling and drawing out the argument? Talk about projecting. The only one "stalling" here is you.

Instead of actually refuting my claim, you simply throw into question how I provided my claim.

All but the very definition of a straw-man argument. And, in this case, an extremely weak straw-man.

For a game to be considered "indie", it had to be developed, funded, and produced independently. I.E. a single company handled the games production. If more than one company is involved, and more than one games company is credited on the box or in the opening credit screens, then it's NOT an "indie" game.

I don't care if the credits included a small company like Giant Sparrow and a large company like Sony, or two small independent companies like Mojang and Re-Logic. If more than one company is making/funding the game, then it's not "indie".

How you're failing to grasp that is beyond me. Perhaps, instead of just calling me names you can try regaling us all with your definition of what constitutes an "indie game".

Oh, also, I love how you're operating under the assumption that I "hate" "big corporations" and, because of this, don't consider "indie" games made under their label as "indie".

I've no qualms with big game companies. I play indie games. I play big-budget triple-A games. I don't discriminate.

But if you are honestly failing to grasp the difference between these types of games, and failing to understand what the word "independent" actually means, then I'm not sure what else to say. I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself in the futile hope you eventually understand my meaning.

Good day to you.

Foolproof:

Vigormortis:

Foolproof:
snip

Stalling and drawing out the argument? Talk about projecting. The only one "stalling" here is you.

Instead of actually refuting my claim, you simply throw into question how I provided my claim.

All but the very definition of a straw-man argument. And, in this case, an extremely weak straw-man.

For a game to be considered "indie", it had to be developed, funded, and produced independently. I.E. a single company handled the games production. If more than one company is involved, and more than one games company is credited on the box or in the opening credit screens, then it's NOT an "indie" game.

I don't care if the credits included a small company like Giant Sparrow and a large company like Sony, or two small independent companies like Mojang and Re-Logic. If more than one company is making/funding the game, then it's not "indie".

How you're failing to grasp that is beyond me. Perhaps, instead of just calling me names you can try regaling us all with your definition of what constitutes an "indie game".

Yes, and only an anal retentive accountant or a skull-crushingly annoying hipster would say that the semantics of what makes something independent is more important than the traits most commonly associated with a good indie game. The traits of which are the important things in this instance, not the fucking word indie.

You are arguing semantics - that is one of the purest ways to show you that you are completely wrong. Now just admit it.

Semantics, somethings actual meaning is semantics.
Hey maybe semantics doesn't mean anything here, his semantics are just semantics after all.
Semantic semantic semantic.

Foolproof:
Yes, and only an anal retentive accountant or a skull-crushingly annoying hipster would say that the semantics of what makes something independent is more important than the traits most commonly associated with a good indie game. The traits of which are the important things in this instance, not the fucking word indie.

You are arguing semantics -

And yet...you STILL fail to actually address my points. You still haven't given your definition of what constitutes an indie game.

No, all you've done (and indeed, what you've done with almost every one of your posts in this thread) is avoid the topic, toss insults around like they're going out of style, and call people stupid (in a round about way).

How is me pointing out the meaning of the word "independent", which is bringing up semantics, a bad thing? Seriously? That statement confounds me.

It's the equivalent of you and I arguing on what keeps us all on the ground and, after I bring up gravity, you say my point is flawed because I'm arguing semantics. Well no shit, that's the point. I have the answer to the question.

...that is one of the purest ways to show you that you are completely wrong. Now just admit it.

No. One of the "purest" ways to "show you that you are completely wrong" (love that superfluous you in there, by the way), is to avoid answering the question(s) presented to you and using straw-man arguments. Which, is all you've done.

You've offered no couter-points. You haven't shown any evidence to back up your claims. All you've done is insult me.

Classy. Really classy.

At this point, given you haven't actually done anything to prove me wrong, by process of elimination my stance is more "correct" than yours.

GrimHeaper:

Semantics, somethings actual meaning is semantics.
Hey maybe semantics doesn't mean anything here, his semantics are just semantics after all.
Semantic semantic semantic.

I see what you did there.

Jim's wife is one lucky lady.

HEY GUYS DO A MARIO!

@GrimHeaper - I just watched the intro to that show, I forgot that he turns into "fireflower mario" after touching the star. Used to debate that as a kid with my friends lol

Also, to steer the conversation back a bit more on topic.

With Nintendo's apparent push towards gaming, from both its new controller (new game play styles), and its ability to play games on the screen itself, do you think that smaller development teams who may not have the traditional "big money" resources will be prevalent on the WiiU?.

Games like Journey, Castle Crashers, and other smaller team designed games seem to make some good headway on XBLA, PSN, and Steam, does Nintendo have an answer to this? Or do you think they will continue to rely on their Nintendshop (or whatever its called) and sell digital versions of older Nintendo games.

Jimothy Sterling:
HEY GUYS DO A MARIO!

Oh Mr. Sterling. You assume I'm not doing the Mario all the time.

All day. Every day.

"Swing your arms, from side-to-side..."

he's right but i still won't touch the system till i see what the new ps and xbox are going to do not just rumors or till i know it will have enough games to make it worth getting

You and your wife in the same room while you play Maria she watches Mad Men. Are things so fucked up now in the economy that you can not buy a second screen to your house?! It's pretty stablished that if you can afford any console you can afford having more than one tv screen. Also you playing mario (imagine with audio) while someone else does another thing enterily sound as disruptive as chatting with someone while they take a dump or masturbate. Awful idea. People like to be engaged in an activity. WiiU is, sorry in advanced for my sincerity, a moronic idea, a gimmick for the mentaly retarded. Anyone know you can keep focus on two screens at the same time. One you suffer neglect while you pay attention to the other.

Given a topic I was engaged in within a week prior to this video, Jim's commentary on both the WiiU and the Bayonetta nearly killed me with the irony.

As fort his commentary on Smart TVs vs consoles...I kind of agree.
However, as long as regular, boring flat screens are relatively cheap, consoles will have at least another go at the market.

And despite what I've seen, I'm not terribly optimistic of Nintendo's latest gimmick.
Streaming the game to the tablet is pretty cool, but it isn't the sort of thing that sells a system for me. I'll wait and see if this develops any further, interesting design space, or if it's just going to be another design-fad like waggling.

Then again, I'm probably a minority market now seeing how I skipped both the 360 and the PS3 (only nabbing a Wii out of sheer idiocy), so what the hell do I know?

Vigormortis:

All but the very definition of a straw-man argument. And, in this case, an extremely weak straw-man.

He started at "Moving the Goalposts" waaaayyy back when he called the Gamecube a "dismal failure".
The warning signs were already there.

The reason why I'm not interested in smart TVs is because it doesn't give you the ability to swap out the functionality when needed.

Consoles do a great job in that regard. Not only can I switch out systems I don't like, but if no single system gives me all that I want, then I just connect them both.

Ironically, the ability to swap out the software in a TV isn't something that's technologically challenging. Depending on the design, the entire TV interface system, in every detail (right down to how you change channels), could be fully contained on an SD card and be swapped casually by the most untechnical of users.

I don't see the industry going that way, though. The TV manufacturers want to maintain an iron grip on which software is allowed, so they design it in precisely the opposite direction. They lock in their own software.

And that will be the undoing of the entire concept. The first time someone finds a feature that really annoys them, they'll shut off all the smart TV features, and plug in a console instead.

And what if your TV gets too old and the TV manufacturer decides not to bother supporting it anymore? Now they're stuck with this outdated system permanently glued into their TV. Is that person ever going to trust a smart TV again? Probably not. They'll just plug in a console, and never look back.

dbenoy:
The reason why I'm not interested in smart TVs is because it doesn't give you the ability to swap out the functionality when needed.

Consoles do a great job in that regard. Not only can I switch out systems I don't like, but if no single system gives me all that I want, then I just connect them both.

Ironically, the ability to swap out the software in a TV isn't something that's technologically challenging. Depending on the design, the entire TV interface system, in every detail (right down to how you change channels), could be fully contained on an SD card and be swapped casually by the most untechnical of users.

I don't see the industry going that way, though. The TV manufacturers want to maintain an iron grip on which software is allowed, so they design it in precisely the opposite direction. They lock in their own software.

And that will be the undoing of the entire concept. The first time someone finds a feature that really annoys them, they'll shut off all the smart TV features, and plug in a console instead.

And what if your TV gets too old and the TV manufacturer decides not to bother supporting it anymore? Now they're stuck with this outdated system permanently glued into their TV. Is that person ever going to trust a smart TV again? Probably not. They'll just plug in a console, and never look back.

There is no need to have "smart" functionality built into the TV, you can buy Blue-ray players with all of the features built in for less than £100 (including Sony funnily enough) and Android OS individual boxes for less than £70. Branded TVs from Samsung or Apple have a growing library of apps and digital content and allow you to swap or stream content between tablets, phones and your TV.

Anyone buying a console for multi media that didn't want a games console too needs their heads examined, there are far better options with much greater value. If you do want a console then it makes sense, the PS3 for example is great value with it being a Blu-ray player, console and media device all for less than £200.

MegaManOfNumbers:

That's odd. Because people said the same thing when the Wii was being prepared.

I recall at the end of it all Nintendo ended up laughing all the way to the bank while Microsoft has become obsessed with casual market.

I also recall massive hype for the Wii. The WiiU doesn't have half the amount of excitment surrounding it. Not saying that the WiiU will fail, but it won't be as successful as the Wii.

And people have to stop carrying this notion that Nintendo is "printing money" and "laughing to the bank". All 3 console manufacturers have lost money this generation. Nintendo actually lost twice as much money as MS this fiscal year, and after slumping 3rd party sales its not hard to see why.

AzrealMaximillion:

And people have to stop carrying this notion that Nintendo is "printing money" and "laughing to the bank". All 3 console manufacturers have lost money this generation. Nintendo actually lost twice as much money as MS this fiscal year, and after slumping 3rd party sales its not hard to see why.

This is true, but please take into account that this year was Nintendo's first ever fiscal loss. Before that, they were indeed printing money off the DS and the Wii. They were making money while the XBox and PS3 hemorrhaged it. You still have a point, that Nintendo's lack of 3rd Party support on the Wii as well as the Price Cut on the 3DS (Which resulted at them selling the units at a loss) was what caused them to loose money this year. Regardless, they were indeed "Printing Money" and "Laughing To The Bank" via 2006-2011.

Mr.Mattress:

AzrealMaximillion:

And people have to stop carrying this notion that Nintendo is "printing money" and "laughing to the bank". All 3 console manufacturers have lost money this generation. Nintendo actually lost twice as much money as MS this fiscal year, and after slumping 3rd party sales its not hard to see why.

This is true, but please take into account that this year was Nintendo's first ever fiscal loss. Before that, they were indeed printing money off the DS and the Wii. They were making money while the XBox and PS3 hemorrhaged it. You still have a point, that Nintendo's lack of 3rd Party support on the Wii as well as the Price Cut on the 3DS (Which resulted at them selling the units at a loss) was what caused them to loose money this year. Regardless, they were indeed "Printing Money" and "Laughing To The Bank" via 2006-2011.

I've taken this into account. I still find it hard to justify the use of phrases like that when if Nintendo really were "printing money" they would not have posted a loss. That loss didn't come from one year of lackluster 3rd party support. Wii sales took a massive nosedive 2 years ago and any software sales that weren't a 1st party title didn't move many units for about the same time.

To me "printing money" implies making money enough money to not post a loss for a long time.

Its gonna be a toss up. Products are always trying to catch up to another on the market.

lord.jeff:
I still think the WiiU will lose, namely do to it's weak graphics, I'm not a graphics snug but looking at the Wii I believe that what hurt it the most the fact that it didn't even have the option to support multiplatform titles which directly led to it's tiny library that so crippled it in the long run. The WiiU may be able to offer a unique experience but if Nintendo doesn't have a plan to up it's capability when Sony and Microsoft come around, every developer is gonna jump the Wii ship again and move to a console that has the power to make what they want instead of a console with a novel gimmick. Not to mention releasing new console without Sony or Microsoft not even releasing rumors of is also gonna hurt it for two reasons that I can see, one it gives Sony and Microsoft a great chance to improve the WiiU idea and have it in the console right off the bat, which the Move and Kinetic proves both companies are willing to and capable of doing. The second reason is I think most people would rather campare consoles to make sure they have the best value I can imagine a lot of people not buying a WiiU simply becuase they want to see it stack up against the PS4 or Xbox720 first.

If that were the case developers would have switched over to the PC long ago, as its graphics potential is FAR higher than even the Nextbox and PSnext could hope to offer. In general you'll find they probably hold a similar idea to gamers in such cases where whoever has the highest graphics doesn't matter too much. The WiiU has better graphics than the current PS3 and Xbox 360 from memory, so that'll probably count as good enough for most people - seeing as worse graphics count as good enough ATM.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here