5 Reasons why Nintendo where forced to develop the Wii

Oct 19, 2006
72
0
0
33
#1
That Nintendo have had a rough time on the Home Console market the last 10 years is not new to anyone. Infact, Nintendos most successful home console is the NES which was hot for over 20 years ago and sold 60 million worldwide. Since then it has just gone straight down in terms of sales with the SNES at 50 million worldwide, the N64 at 30 million worldwide and the Gamecube at 20 million worldwide.

But though it all started with Nintendo building up the structure of the industry as we see it today with the NES, they have not made much since then on evolving the market.

When Nintendo had to face the facts that they had totally failed with Gamecube, and had not reached the revenge on Sony as they hoped. They had also bad enough put them selves in a really hard postition.

Many thought and still think that the Wii was a bold and brave move by Nintendo to try to change and expand the market, and that they should have praise for doing that. What many dont think of is that the concept of the Wii was Nintendos only choice to survive in the home console market. They had put them selves in such a bad position that they only had one way to go to be able to compete. This is why:

We can start with the Nintendo hardcore fans. Once they where the biggest "group" of gamers and today they are consider as "outsiders". The thing is that Nintendo have always trusted the Nintendo hardcore fans. But the recent 10 years the group of Nintendo harcore fans have been shown to be much smaller than anyone imagined. Only 30 million bought the N64 and only 20 million bought the Gamecube even though it is ridiculously cheap today and have some good games. There are not som many Nintendo hardcore fans left today, so developing a console for that group is not possible today. As the market today is more being mainstream AND hardcore. Which Nintendo has never been before.

So if they should be able to reach more gamers and not only these 20 million hardcore fans, they have to become mainstream. And that means that they have to develop a high tech console. With great processor and great Graphics processing unit. But that is expensive and if Nintendo wanted to be a worthy opponent agaisnt Sony and MS when it comes to hardware they had to release a console that costed around 400$. Which would be a total change in Nintendos strategy they have had since 1980s.

Not only would the Nintendos next console cost 400$, they would also be heading straight into a allready crowded market with strong competition from both Sony and MS who already had experience from that market.

I have no doubt that Nintendo would be able to develop and build an equal console as Sony and MS when it comes to hardware.

BUT the main problem here is that Nintendo at this time after the failure with Gamecube had NO thirdparty support and bad communiaction with them as well. That Nintendo abanndoned the Gamecube made the thirdparty developers focus only on Xbox and most PS2 which together had a market share of like 80% so why bother about Nintendos Gamecube?

So if they should release a 400$ console to compete with Sony and MS they had to have the games. And at this time, Sony and MS had much better thirdparty support and the fact that most of the thirdparty games where released only on the PS2 and Xbox had made that many developers had their fans and buyers on the PS2 and Xbox consoles. So they would probably buy the PS3 and Xbox360. So at this time Sony and MS had all the thirdparty support and Nintendo where left out in the cold. So to release a 400$ console with bad thirdparty support and few games would not only be very costy and need huge economic backing, it would also be a disaster. That strategy was doomed to fail.

With such hard competition from Sony and MS, Nintendo would have to put a lot of money into marketing their console to able to become interesting for consumers and developers. And the fact that both Sony and MS would be haveing enormous marketing campains as well made it more difficult and more costy.

The last thing is that everybody knew after Xbox was released that online gameing would be a huge and important part of a console in the future. And with MS doing the Xbox Live and Sony pushing online gameing on PS2, Nintendo had done nothing with online on Gamecube and had after Gamecube no experience on onlinegameing.

And Nintendo knew that MS would be evolving Xbox Live even further and Sony would take huge leaps into online gameing and to be able to compete with Sony and MS they also had to have an equal or better online service from start. If they didnt, it would be even tougher to convince gamers to buy their next console. And Sony and MS had a huge lead allready so it would cost Nintendo alot of money AND time to be able to pull that of.

What Nintendo understood after seeing the Gamecube fail and when they began to look at what their next console had to be, was that they had no chance what so ever if they had to compete with Sony and MS on their conditions. They had tried that with N64 and even more with Gamecube and had failed big.

There where 5 reasons to why Nintendo had no chance to compete with Sony and MS if they had to compete on their conditions:
1. Few Fans There were very few Nintendo hardcore fans left after the disaster with Gamecube.

2. COST
It would be to costy to develope and produce a worthy competitor to PS3 and Xbox360.

3. NO GAMES Nintendo had no thirdparty support after the failure with gamecube and it would be really hard to steal thirdparty games from Sony and MS and without games Nintendo would loose hard.

4. MARKETING It would be to costy and hard to market the console to make it interesting for consumers and developers.

5. ONLINE Nintendo had NO experience on onlinegameing and that was going to be a important feature of any next gen console. If they didnt get that right from the start, they would fail.

So after the failure with gamecube, Nintendo were forced to change strategy or else they would be gone from the home console market. They knew they still had to reach out to the few Nintendo hardcore fans that still where out there and also reach out to the mainstream and to new gamers. And they had to make a console that had everything that consumers demanded at the moment of launch, to make it as compelling as possible and to be able to compete with PS3 and Xbox360. But they have to make it differently from what Sony and MS did. So they updated the Gamecube hardware, made it onlinecompatible and came up with the wiimote and set the price far below PS3 and Xbox360.

So with the PS3 and Xbox360 prices high they released a cheap and innovative and interesting console that made many wait with PS3 and Xbox360. And with the low price, there where no reason to wait to buy the Wii because there would make no different if Nintendo lowered the price 50$ next year.

The Wii was realtively cheap. So many Nintendo hardcore fans bought the Wii from start and many PS2 and Xbox owner bought it as a substinairy until the prices on PS3 and Xbox360 went down. And that is what has made the Wii sold so much during its first year. Its cheap compared to Xbox360 and PS3, innovative and interesting.

Even though there are very few good games on Wii, it still sell like crazy, and that is mainly because there are no reason at all to wait and buy the Wii. The Price is cheap today and wont be any cheaper next year. So why wait? So Nintendo made a cheap, interesting console that gave the gamers what they demanded today and Nintendo didnt give a **** about what gamers want tomorrow (where Sony with PS3 gave Gamers today what they will demand 2-3 years from now ex Blu ray, HD, Hard disc drive, free online gameing, best grapfics, good price).

I Think that Nintendos "Today" thinking will be a bad thing in the future. I think the Wii hardware is very limited and it will affect what type of entertainment Nintendo can offer the gamers in the future. Appart from the Wii Shop Channel, all the other channels are rubbish and boring. And even though Wii doesnt have Online gameing so far, it doesnt need it yet because the cheap price and innovation is taking the attention so far. But starting from next year, the buzz around the cheap price and Wiimote is gone and its all about the games, which Wii still is missing.

Nintendo had learned from N64 and mostly Gamecube that they could not compete with Sony and MS on their conditions. So they were FORCED to change strategy. And then the Wii came. Cheap, innovative and it gives the gamers what they need TODAY. Therefor it is selling great at the moment. When gamers demand more things than the Wii has, then the real battle begins.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
50
#2
Wait, you mean the gamecube which showed a profit of several billion dollars in its ilfetime, probably larger than the lifetime profits (not revenues; profits) of the PS2?

Apart from that, your analysis is pretty weak. Why on earth would you think it wouldn't make a difference if the price went down? There's no recorded case in the history of consoles of a price cut not mattering, and since the first Atari systems, sales have always been much better below $200 than above $200.

I also think you're rather missing the point on features. As a gamer, I don't care one way or the other about blu-ray or a hard drive. Those are implementation details. I care about the experience of playing a game; I don't care whether it's a blu-ray disc and a Cell or a hamster wheel and wax cylinders. What I care about is how much fun I have playing games.

Nintendo's made the guess that, this generation, HD will be enough more expensive that it won't be worth it. They have also noticed that, both in their sales and in Sony's, lower prices sell better -- so they went for hardware they could sell cheaply.

But in the end, those "few" good games mean that if no games ever came out for the Wii again, the ones I've already got would keep me happy and entertained for another two or three years, and there's plenty of interesting-looking games in the pipeline. And that's enough for me.
 

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
39
#3
i skimmed the analysis....

but here's a question:
Could Nintendo even compete with the likes of Sony and MS if they went the media center route???
Do they have the financial ability to throw in an HDD, a hi-def player, an online network?

Serious question. No need to get uppitty.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
50
#4
Do they have the ability to develop such a thing? Sure. They had enough money when they did the Wii that, if it completely bombed, they could try something else.

I don't think that anyone, right now, has the ability to make such a thing and sell it at a profit (or at least break-even) at a price the market will bear. Maybe next year.

Note that Nintendo does have an online network -- they aren't doing much with it yet, but MoH Heroes 2 has 32-player online. They're just not making a big thing of it, because the essential market for "online play" in consoles is multiplayer shooters, and Nintendo doesn't have that many of them.
 
Oct 19, 2006
72
0
0
33
#5
[QUOTE="seebs, post: 0]Wait, you mean the gamecube which showed a profit of several billion dollars in its ilfetime, probably larger than the lifetime profits (not revenues; profits) of the PS2?

Apart from that, your analysis is pretty weak. Why on earth would you think it wouldn't make a difference if the price went down? There's no recorded case in the history of consoles of a price cut not mattering, and since the first Atari systems, sales have always been much better below $200 than above $200.

I also think you're rather missing the point on features. As a gamer, I don't care one way or the other about blu-ray or a hard drive. Those are implementation details. I care about the experience of playing a game; I don't care whether it's a blu-ray disc and a Cell or a hamster wheel and wax cylinders. What I care about is how much fun I have playing games.

Nintendo's made the guess that, this generation, HD will be enough more expensive that it won't be worth it. They have also noticed that, both in their sales and in Sony's, lower prices sell better -- so they went for hardware they could sell cheaply.

But in the end, those "few" good games mean that if no games ever came out for the Wii again, the ones I've already got would keep me happy and entertained for another two or three years, and there's plenty of interesting-looking games in the pipeline. And that's enough for me.[/quote]

I can say with 100% certanity that PS2 has given Sony more money than GC ever gave Nintendo. The profit from all the games that where sold on PS2 is shrinking the profit from Gamecube. So yes, PS2 gave Sony more money than Gamecube gave Nintendo. By FAR.

And I see what you mean with Bluray, Harddisc drive, and that Nintendo is only after makeing a pure Gameconsole. And Sony is doing something between a Media console and gameing console. I think Sony has made a really bad job defining what the PS3 is. I think Sony should take the step full blown and make PLAYSTATION a brand for entertainement, not only games.

The hard disc drive is a very important piece when it comes to games. It makes us download new games directly online, download demos, buy and download new game stuff. The HDD is a very important feature of a gameing console. And its a shame Wii doesnt have one.

And you talk about the reduction in price. I think it is important. I think Wii will sell better when the price comes down but. I also think that the sales of Wii will decrease in 2008. The games are not there. Compared to loads of great games coming for PS3 and Xbox360 in 2008. The competition will be hard for Nintendo and they will have the worst game lineup 2008 as we know now.

I think Sales of Wii will decrease greatly in 2008, only SSBB and Mario kart Wii is good games and if Super Mario Galaxy couldnt raise Wii sales number than i dont think those two games will. But PS3 got Gran Turismo 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy XIII, Tekken 6, Killzone 2, Little Big Planet, Socom: Confrontation, Devil May Cry 4, Resident Evil 5, Silent Hill 5, Soul Calibur 4 and GTAIV and even if many of those are on Xbox360 as well. ALL these games will be exclusive to PS3 in Japan (Xbox360 is dead there). The Wii doesnt have games that can compete with all these in 2008, especially not i Japan. With Home being released in Spring and all these good games will keep coming during the year and maybe a pricecut next fall. I see that PS3 will have a great year. Mostly in Japan with these 12 great exclusive games for PS3. And Wii got not much to put against.

I just dont se how Wiis "today" hardware will be compelling next year and further when all the games are coming to PS3 and Xbox360. My borther have a we and he got the latest update. And the only fun thing is playing the game that is inserted, playing the games that he has downloaded or looking around the Wii Shop channel. I dont see how all that can be worth 300$ with one game. When Home comes to PS3 and they put more feautres in it the PS3 will grow to another level than Wii will ever do.
 
Oct 19, 2006
72
0
0
33
#6
[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 0]i skimmed the analysis....

but here's a question:
Could Nintendo even compete with the likes of Sony and MS if they went the media center route???
Do they have the financial ability to throw in an HDD, a hi-def player, an online network?

Serious question. No need to get uppitty.[/quote]

No but they could have developed a great processor and Graphics processing unit that matches the PS3 nad Xbox360, put a Hard disc drive in it, HD support, HDMI output, WiFi adapter inbuilt, DVD player AND still got the Wiimote and sell it for 399$. That would be more compelling to me.

I dont think the way to good games is by cutting down on Hardware and online and have a realtively advanced controller. Cutting edge hardware, superb online and Innovation is the best way. Nintendo took away the hardware and online to make it cheaper and therefor set the gameing world in chock and sell alot in the beginning. Later Nintendo will have a hard time when the price is coming down on PS3 and Xbox360.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
50
#7
[QUOTE="Nille88, post: 0]I can say with 100% certanity that PS2 has given Sony more money than GC ever gave Nintendo. The profit from all the games that where sold on PS2 is shrinking the profit from Gamecube. So yes, PS2 gave Sony more money than Gamecube gave Nintendo. By FAR.[/quote]

What are your concrete numbers on profits? Gamecube profits were somewhat in excess of $5 billion. Analyst estimates of PS2 profits have varied, some think they barely broke even, some think they made a couple billion. They lost a lot of money on that hardware early on, after all.

And I see what you mean with Bluray, Harddisc drive, and that Nintendo is only after makeing a pure Gameconsole. And Sony is doing something between a Media console and gameing console. I think Sony has made a really bad job defining what the PS3 is. I think Sony should take the step full blown and make PLAYSTATION a brand for entertainement, not only games.
But that's precisely the lack of definition that's hurt them so badly! Every product like that has been a dismal failure. The PS3 is doing okay as a game console, I guess, but it's not living up to Sony's stated expectations at all.

The hard disc drive is a very important piece when it comes to games. It makes us download new games directly online, download demos, buy and download new game stuff. The HDD is a very important feature of a gameing console. And its a shame Wii doesnt have one.
And yet, it is possible to download demos or games for it. Maybe not huge ones, but then, lack of HD means the games can be smaller.

And you talk about the reduction in price. I think it is important. I think Wii will sell better when the price comes down but. I also think that the sales of Wii will decrease in 2008.
This makes no sense, unless the price cut doesn't come until 2009.

The games are not there. Compared to loads of great games coming for PS3 and Xbox360 in 2008. The competition will be hard for Nintendo and they will have the worst game lineup 2008 as we know now.
No, we don't know that.

Nintendo, unlike Sony and MS, tends not to announce things very far out. We know only a little bit about what will be coming out in January and February or so; the rest of the lineup hasn't been shown yet, so we can hardly comment.

But, even if we grant that: The games available plus the ones we know for sure are coming out are absolutely sufficient to justify the console to many, many, millions more gamers, especially if the console's price drops.

I think Sales of Wii will decrease greatly in 2008, only SSBB and Mario kart Wii is good games and if Super Mario Galaxy couldnt raise Wii sales number than i dont think those two games will.
You missed Wii Fit -- and while you might not want it, other people will.

I'm somehow betting that you wouldn't have picked Brain Age or Nintendogs as system-sellers, either.

But PS3 got Gran Turismo 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy XIII, Tekken 6, Killzone 2, Little Big Planet, Socom: Confrontation, Devil May Cry 4, Resident Evil 5, Silent Hill 5, Soul Calibur 4 and GTAIV and even if many of those are on Xbox360 as well. ALL these games will be exclusive to PS3 in Japan (Xbox360 is dead there).
Of those, I might play FF13 and SC4. Maybe. I am going to get more Wii games next year than games from that list, certainly...

The Wii doesnt have games that can compete with all these in 2008, especially not i Japan.
Let's put this in perspective.

Wii Sports has outsold, in Japan alone (where it isn't a pack-in), the best-selling PS3 game worldwide. I think it's probably exceeded the Japanese sales of the top two or three PS3 sellers in Japan.

Wii Fit, like Wii Sports, or Brain Age, is likely to keep selling for a long time; Brain Age sales haven't exactly gone away entirely, despite the sequel being out. It's not like the "hardcore" games, which sell all their copies in the first month.

I would not be surprised at all if Wii software sales in Japan were much higher than PS3 software sales in Japan for 2008.

With Home being released in Spring and all these good games will keep coming during the year and maybe a pricecut next fall. I see that PS3 will have a great year. Mostly in Japan with these 12 great exclusive games for PS3. And Wii got not much to put against.
That's exactly what people were saying last year -- complete with listing MGS4 as one of the games that would be out. :) But the fact is, those games sell into a smaller market, and the Wii titles are selling into a much, much, larger market.

I just dont se how Wiis "today" hardware will be compelling next year and further when all the games are coming to PS3 and Xbox360.
Well, it'll still be fun. And since fun is a big feature when selling toys, I figure it'll still sell.

My borther have a we and he got the latest update. And the only fun thing is playing the game that is inserted, playing the games that he has downloaded or looking around the Wii Shop channel. I dont see how all that can be worth 300$ with one game. When Home comes to PS3 and they put more feautres in it the PS3 will grow to another level than Wii will ever do.
You're betting an awful lot on vaporware.

Really, though, the problem with your analysis is that you're assuming the entire market is just like you; that they all want the same things you do, that they're all interested by the same games, that they'll get bored with the same things. It ain't true.

The broader market does not always share our preferences. A lot of people are really interested in games that I think sound really boring. I don't turn around and post threads about how obviously sales for all shooters will drop off because shooters are dull; obviously, there's a lot of people who are interested in them.

There are a lot of people who are interested in the Wii, and who will get it as long as Nintendo does an interesting game every year or so, and anything past that is gravy.

Hmm. Actually, there's an even more serious problem with your analysis: You keep comparing the systems, as though someone who buys one can't buy the other. Why not? The Wii's cheap; there's no reason for someone who's into gaming not to get one once the supply issues ease. Of course, for some people, it still seems too expensive, but so what? My guess would be that the Wii will, before they replace it, get down at least to $150, maybe to $100. And that's where, historically, consoles have sold the most.
 

kingsam

Super Elite
Sep 1, 2006
2,415
0
0
35
#8
Key things to extract from this flawed analysis:
- Nintendo aren't Sega or SNK, Nintendo always make a profit and have massive cash reserves for such a small company.
- Nintendo don't like online.
- Nintendo do have a large hardcore fanbase if the Gamecube really sold over 30 million to hardcore fans.
- Nintendo could practically support their own system if they became sidelined into a niche.

They didn't need to make the Wii, but it was certainly preferable to them, especially with them getting confidence, safety and probably ego boost from the DS, it probably seemed to Nintendo a logical step.
 

Renzoblade

Superior Member
Nov 14, 2007
606
0
0
#9
i left the nintendo stable after i wasted my money on the n64 and gamecube, i bought these and seen all the great games go to sonys console so i made the switch.

nintendo, in the gamecube days were kept affloat by the GBA. I even bought more GBA games than i did gamecube.
 

hisame

Elite Guru
Dec 5, 2005
5,688
0
0
#11
Hey SE has maked their latest DQ on DS why not FF as well.
I mean the sale don't change much but you spend less the 10th of the cost.
With the kind of time and cost making FF on PS3, might as well make 5 FF in a year on DS.
Make everything on DS is the way to go, let's all drive the car backwards.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
50
#12
Except it's not necessarily "backwards" from a gameplay standpoint.

Doom was a beautiful engine, but it wasn't much of a game. Sometimes, the best games are the ones that get done after the engine work is done, and there's budget left over to do something interesting with it.
 
Sep 21, 2007
489
0
0
45
#13
[QUOTE="hisame, post: 0]Hey SE has maked their latest DQ on DS why not FF as well.
I mean the sale don't change much but you spend less the 10th of the cost.
With the kind of time and cost making FF on PS3, might as well make 5 FF in a year on DS.
Make everything on DS is the way to go, let's all drive the car backwards.[/quote]
I doubt Final Fantasy 14 exclusive to DS, will ever happen.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
50
#14
I don't know about DS, but... Square ditched Nintendo, after years of being 100% exclusively Nintendo, because the PSX outsold the N64, and they figured they'd make more money there -- and they said at length that they'd never work with Nintendo, ever again.

Now they're doing gamecube, and gameboy, and DS games, and making boatloads of cash in it. FF13's already announced for the PS3, and unlikely to move... But FF14? They'll have a team with Wii experience from their Wiiware game. Will they jump ship? Maybe, maybe not. But it's not as though Square's a company with a strong history of vendor loyalty. They're loyal to the money.

Kingdom Hearts should tell you all you need to know about their priorities.

(edit: Changed "Sony" to "Square", because I did mean "Square". Thanks to hisame for catching it.)
 

hisame

Elite Guru
Dec 5, 2005
5,688
0
0
#15
[QUOTE="seebs, post: 0]I don't know about DS, but... Sony ditched Nintendo, after years of being 100% exclusively Nintendo, because the PSX outsold the N64, and they figured they'd make more money there -- and they said at length that they'd never work with Nintendo, ever again.

Now they're doing gamecube, and gameboy, and DS games, and making boatloads of cash in it. FF13's already announced for the PS3, and unlikely to move... But FF14? They'll have a team with Wii experience from their Wiiware game. Will they jump ship? Maybe, maybe not. But it's not as though Square's a company with a strong history of vendor loyalty. They're loyal to the money.

Kingdom Hearts should tell you all you need to know about their priorities.[/QUOTE]

I think you meant square.
Anyway it's more complex then you think.
Actually Square waited for N64 for a long time.
NES 11/90 PS 12/94 N64 06/96
It was 1.5 years later then PS and half year later then the 5 year usual cycle.
Also SCE offered a fair a mount of money to make it exclusive.
Not only that SCE proved PS hit 10 million.
So Square change boat.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
50
#16
[QUOTE="hisame, post: 0]I think you meant square.[/quote]

Yup.

Anyway it's more complex then you think.
Actually Square waited for N64 for a long time.
NES 11/90 PS 12/94 N64 06/96
It was 1.5 years later then PS and half year later then the 5 year usual cycle.
Also SCE offered a fair a mount of money to make it exclusive.
Not only that SCE proved PS hit 10 million.
So Square change boat.
Yup!

And if they think there'll be more money on Nintendo platforms, and Sony's late to market or late to deliver a large installed base, they will most likely change back.
 

hisame

Elite Guru
Dec 5, 2005
5,688
0
0
#17
[QUOTE="seebs, post: 0]Except it's not necessarily "backwards" from a gameplay standpoint.

Doom was a beautiful engine, but it wasn't much of a game. Sometimes, the best games are the ones that get done after the engine work is done, and there's budget left over to do something interesting with it.[/QUOTE]

Any homebrew game maker can make games with great gameplay with bad tech.
The fact is in the last few years game industry is going for all tech no gameplay.
Now you say we should go back to the Ataria age when there is no tech only gameplay?
Be real and be a pro, FGS people are paying you big money in making games.
Only a real pro can make tech amazing games with good gamplay without either it's a crap.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
50
#18
Actually, I think that we should be looking for some balance; for instance, do a new engine, then do a couple of games using it, so you get time to get good with that engine, get a feel for what it can do well, and tell interesting stories ... while the engine developers are working on a new engine. :)

The fact is, most of the time, with finite budgets and the very low profitability of the industry as a whole, there's just not the resources to do more without sacrificing something; I think that a willingness to reuse engines can be amazing.

Baldur's Gate was fun, but Planescape: Torment was an amazing game -- which couldn't have had the depth of story it did if they'd had to write an engine from scratch.
 

hisame

Elite Guru
Dec 5, 2005
5,688
0
0
#19
Personally I think Wii is cheated in a way that it already has a well proven engine done in gamecube.
Quote from Capcom "we will just use our gamecube engine".
This means not only you halfen the develope time for initial games.
You line up can quickly appear because it requires minimum work.
This is why Wii is so fast in getting it'sline ups.
However other then very few 3rd party line up most 3rd party line ups are crap.
Frankly reason being they are jsut gamecube games.
The sucess of 1st party Wii games are all behind Wii remote, without it Nintendo is still in the ditch.
Frankly most 3rd party found it very difficult to make great use of Wii remote.
I don't think Nintendo did it in purpose but this combination of huge number of crap line ups
mixed with limited AAA 1st party game is the secret behind the explosive sale of both DS and Wii.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
50
#20
[QUOTE="hisame, post: 2255916]Personally I think Wii is cheated in a way that it already has a well proven engine done in gamecube.[/quote]

Only sort of -- really, an engine will need some updates to get good use of the hardware. Still, it's just "some updates".

On the other hand, even given familiar hardware, a new engine can be productive.

Frankly most 3rd party found it very difficult to make great use of Wii remote.
They'll get better at it once they're willing to try.

I don't think Nintendo did it in purpose but this combination of huge number of crap line ups mixed with limited AAA 1st party game is the secret behind the explosive sale of both DS and Wii.
I don't think so; I think the huge crap lineup is a result of explosive system sales.
 

hisame

Elite Guru
Dec 5, 2005
5,688
0
0
#21
[QUOTE="seebs, post: 0]Actually, I think that we should be looking for some balance; for instance, do a new engine, then do a couple of games using it, so you get time to get good with that engine, get a feel for what it can do well, and tell interesting stories ... while the engine developers are working on a new engine. :)

The fact is, most of the time, with finite budgets and the very low profitability of the industry as a whole, there's just not the resources to do more without sacrificing something; I think that a willingness to reuse engines can be amazing.

Baldur's Gate was fun, but Planescape: Torment was an amazing game -- which couldn't have had the depth of story it did if they'd had to write an engine from scratch.[/QUOTE]

I think all GDs know that, (somtimes I am not so sure but anyway).
The fact is it takes time to do that,
frankly it took 1st and 2nd party guys near a year to come up with a decent engine like we see in uncharted and R&C.
Koei is quick but their engine is bad, it's so bad that it's barely a next gen game.
Personally unless SCE is willing to dish out their 1st party engine freely to 3rd party,
I would found it very difficult for 3rd party to make any tech impressive games in near future.
UE is a good choice, frankly from UT3 it's great. But it does cost a piece of meat for even large GDs like SE.
DOn't even think about low budget developers using UE.
 

Syugo

Superior Member
Jun 24, 2007
654
0
0
42
#22
[QUOTE="seebs, post: 0]
They'll get better at it once they're willing to try.
[/quote]

... If 3rd party developers "try" their hardest on all systems, which system do you think would benefit the most? I don't think its the wii :rolleyes:

Anyway 3rd party isn't important to the wii, all it's got, and need, is nittty's tried and proven series ( anything with the word "mario" in it, Super smash, Link ect, ect )
 

kryton101

Dedicated Member
Sep 12, 2006
1,333
1
0
47
#23
I'm not sure what to make of this at all. You seem to play down the fact that Nintendo are responsible by a large degree for the expansive and diverse gaming industry you see today. They were by and large the creators in many respects. Hats off to them.

All companies go through phases of growth, saturation and decline after which they may even start the cycle again. It's very basic economics. They had been around for a long time before Sony came in a shook the market up. This in turn promoted Ninty to up their competative streak, as it did for MS. The cube was a great little console but was a victim of circumstance in it's timing and just the vast grip Sony had on the market.

The Wii was NOT FORCED as you try to make out. No body took a gun to their head and said do this! It was the product of innovation and creative thinking when facing a very large dominant competitor. Instead of fighting over the same old market and old customers that had defected to Sony they went out and carved a new market from nothing. Brave, bold and Nintendo all over. (More hats off to them.)

Nintendo have a really fresh feel about them. The company while large feels very mobile and able to adapt and change to a rapidly changing market. This is in stark contrast to the Sony behemoth that is firmly fixed in it's tracks. It's doing the same thing it's been doing for the last 10+ years and up until know that has worked. Remember one day that stopped working for Ninendo and one day may stop working for Sony. growth, saturation, decline and re-birth. Remember that my friend.
 

babybell

Elite Member
Oct 10, 2007
1,676
2
0
35
#24
Even though it is easy to install/add the DVD drives and all to the systems, dont they bump up the costs as they have to pay the movie studios or someone a fee?

Edit - Now after reading the OP, I have to say that Nintendo never acctualy set out to challange Microsoft and Sony as before. If they had Then they probably would have gone for a more powerful system. I think forced is far from the truth.

I think Nintendo have done very well this time round. It may not be the most powerful system, it may not have HD capabilities, but it seems that its MS and Sony that are having to fight to keep up. You could say that there the ones being "forced" to change there stratagies.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
50
#25
The drive in the Wii is almost certainly physically able to read DVDs. The issue is that it's $15-20 per system in royalties for the various licenses needed for playback. (This is the real reason DVD player prices don't drop much further than $40 except with special deals; at that point, most of the cost of the system is the royalties.)
 

YamNivek

Superior Member
Dec 13, 2005
967
0
0
38
#27
There is no doubt a higher price tag, but Sony owns one of the formats so theres no cost there and MS is one of the major backers of HDDVD (if im not mistaken) so they may not be paying the royalties there. Its an addon so teh cost will be absorbed there anyway.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
50
#29
[QUOTE="babybell, post: 0]Sony own blue ray? Thats news to me. But they would still be a royalty charge for having entertainment playback.[/QUOTE]

Blu-ray only exists to be Owned By Sony.

Think of it as being the spiritual successor to minidisc, UMD, and Memory Stick.
 

hisame

Elite Guru
Dec 5, 2005
5,688
0
0
#30
SONY only own about 70% of the Blu-Ray technology, this was an old number before BD launch.
I think it's even lower now since in version update BD group decided to put in a lot more software stuff.
And a lot of communication and use different material for disk.
I will estimate SONY is ownning less then 50% of BD's royalties rights.

Anyway Sony was piss off by Toshiba bried Warner and resulted a 180 degree turn in DVD gen.
Resulting a over 80% royalties rights owned by Toshiba.
It meant not only SONY and Philips has to pay the royalties but also watested all their development.
The fact is 60GBPS3 might be paying nearly $100 worth of royalties due to the mass number of media it can paly back.