Do you consider Wii a next gen console?

[Mendel]

I wanted to keep this one real simple. So yes or no? There is no "other"

[tongue_of_colicab]

Yes. Why? simple. In the dictionary next generation says the generation after the previous generation. Wich the Wii is so that alone would make it next gen. Even if you for some reason want to include improvements into the meaning of next generation the Wii still is next gen because its also faster and better than the GC. Just not by as big as a margin as the x360 and ps3.

Some people might have a different ''feeling'' about it but that doesnt change anything about the fact that the Wii is next gen, wheater you like it or not ;)

[Rolf N]

Every time I hear "next gen" I feel tempted to punch someo...thing.

Let me ask a counterquestion: do you consider the Sega Saturn to be multi-media?

[ninzel]

Yes it is a new console succeeding it's predecessor and is improved in almost every way.
The fact that it is not as powerful as the other next gen consoles is irrelevant,none of the console is as equally as powerful as the others. If turns it turns out the 360 is not as powerful as the PS3 does that make the 360 not a next gen system,of course not(and vise versa). There are no set guidelines written in stone as to how much more powerful a new system has to be relative to it's predecessor or it's competition. What matters is it improves upon it's past and is a new device.

[ManuVlad3.0]

IMO Wii is a expensive party game.

[Sis]

1) It's the system after the last, in this case the GameCube
2) It's more powerful than the last

Seems fairly straightforward that it would be considered next-gen. Unless you are putting restrictions on power increases, such be 10 times as powerful as the last system.

[Mendel]

Yes. Why? simple. In the dictionary next generation says the generation after the previous generation.

Yet there are people who wouldn't - for whatever reason - consider (insert a brand) (insert a product category), even if it technically clearly was (item of said product category)

[Skrying]

How could it not? It is the next generation of consoles from Nintendo. The term refers nothing to graphics or processing power other than what people like to throw in there because console manufacturers have told them that it must be so in the past.

[Dr Evil]

I voted no, as to me next gen implies significant increase in system power over the predecessor and in my opinion Wii doesn't qualify in that regard. The word next gen however is so vague that Wii does qualify being next gen in multiple ways and naturally different people emphasizes different things, so it's perfectly accurate to call it next gen.

[fearsomepirate]

Yes. It's the next generation after Gamecube. That it didn't have enough of a hardware upgrade to satisfy some people is irrelevant. The only way I could possibly consider Wii to not be Nintendo's next-gen console would be if either Nintendo was continuing to support Gamecube in parallel with Wii, or if Wii games were playable on Gamecube with an add-on.

[Falkster]

I guess it depends on how you interpret the phrase "next generation". If you believe that "next generation" is the equivalent of "state-of-the-art", then no, the Wii isn't a "next generation " console because it's lacking state-of-the-art technology. However, if you approach the phrase "next generation" from an evolutionary viewpoint, then the Wii can be considered even more "next generation" than any other console since it has changed the most from its predecessor.

I personally believe that it's best to include both of these interpretations when defining "next generation" which is why I believe that the 360, the PS3, and the Wii are all next generation (or should it be "current generation"?) consoles.

[infinity4]

in terms of technology, no
in terms of innovation, yes.

:smile:

[kyleb]

Nah, the Wii is a current generation console, same as the 360 and PS3. :razz:

[Readykilowatt]

I wanted to keep this one real simple. So yes or no? There is no "other"

Why did you create a thread to ask an irrelevant, often repeated and useless question? I'm shocked that this thread isn't locked yet.

[tongue_of_colicab]

Every time I hear "next gen" I feel tempted to punch someo...thing.

Let me ask a counterquestion: do you consider the Sega Saturn to be multi-media?

Games count as multimedia right? so yes. Your phone can be a multimedia device too, it might not be great at it, but it still is.

I voted no, as to me next gen implies significant increase in system power over the predecessor and in my opinion Wii doesn't qualify in that regard. The word next gen however is so vague that Wii does qualify being next gen in multiple ways and naturally different people emphasizes different things, so it's perfectly accurate to call it next gen.


The word next gen isnt vague at all. It are certain people who for whatever reason try to make it a vague word because they dont want <insert brand> to count as next gen for whatever reason. The dictionary states next gen simply is the next generation, nothing about specs or whatever. The people who are vague are those who try to give a word different meaning.

[Dr Evil]

The dictionary states next gen simply is the next generation, nothing about specs or whatever. The people who are vague are those who try to give a word different meaning.

Well dictionaries doesn't include everything. Words are just things that includes ideas and the language evolves all the time etc. Imo "next gen" has more meanings than just "something after the previous one" my voting had absolutely nothing to do with brands, but only to express my opinion that the hardware is not substantially different from the previous one.

[jandar]

in terms of technology, no
in terms of innovation, yes.

:smile:

Truth be told in this here post

[oli2]

I voted "Yes".

Let me precise immediately that Wii is the only "next-gen" system of the 3, IMO of course.

Obviously, my criteria aren't based on power consumption, fillrate, Ram size or whatever.

My reasons are fairly simple :
- PS3 and Xbox360 are marketted and engineered with the same main concept we have seen for 10 years, beginning the cycle with PS1.
- On the other hand, Nintendo did redefined their home console concept with Wii.

[tongue_of_colicab]

Well dictionaries doesn't include everything. Words are just things that includes ideas and the language evolves all the time etc. Imo "next gen" has more meanings than just "something after the previous one" my voting had absolutely nothing to do with brands, but only to express my opinion that the hardware is not substantially different from the previous one.

I wasnt trying to say you think something like that, its just that alot of people on other forums just have the brand as another reason.

You are right words evolve. I just wonder if you can apply that for next gen too. You could say because its technology next gen could, or should mean more than just the next generation and should also cover a bit of technological advancements. But in that case the Wii is also a ''big'' improvement to GC (2/3 times as powerfull). But its because x360 and ps3 are so more powerfull that people might compare the advancements to that instead of comparing specs in a more relative manner. Ps3 cost 800dollars or so to build, wii probably costs even less than 200dollars to produce so its not strange Wii is less advanced, you cant expect to have the same specs with 1/4 of the price.

I think if you look at production costs of a Wii, the controller, what the machine should be capable of when a dev actually builds a decent engine and the ''normal'' meaning of the word next gen does qualify in all ways as next gen.

[infinity4]

Truth be told in this here post

its purely my opinion. i said the innovation makes wii a next gen console because the console changes the way you play games. for tech side, i have no knowledge but graphics + sound looks like last gen

[Dregun]

Its funny that more people as of right now have voted "No" but hardly anyone has support the reason for that vote.

A curious question would be would you consider the Wii a next gen console if the only thing different was the Wii controller itself? Most people are playing the "next console from manufacturer" card, but would you consider a PS2+Eye Toy bundle next gen as well?

By only looking at past generations of "EVERY" console that has been released as "next generation" the Wii does not fit that category...sorry. I based my vote on what has taken place in the past and the Wii didn't follow the same path of even their previous consoles.

This isn't to say the Wii is a bad console but I dont think it can be called next generation.


Dregun

[Shifty Geezer]

Next gen = the next generation of some thing. The next generation doesn't have to be better to follow the previous generation.

Obviously these days 'Next Gen' has become a term like TrueHD; something with meaning though without definition. It's associated with lots more power than the previous set of consoles. This is an interesting poll to see how people respond to language,. but I think it'd be better on an English forum than a console forum! Don't see what it contributes to sensible discussion about consoles, and is likely to only get people's backs up when their definition isn't adopted by others.

[Rolf N]

Games count as multimedia right? so yes. Your phone can be a multimedia device too, it might not be great at it, but it still is.And yet, multimedia is a meaningless buzz-phrase that lacks any clear canonical definition and will bend to any salesman's will. I don't give a fuck if something is multi-media or not. If today a salesman stood before me trying to pitch me a device with its multi-media capabilities, I'd similarly feel tempted to just punch h...something. Because after ten years of useless buzz-phrasing it would be obvious that walking away has not worked so far, and different didactic techniques are required.
But that will not happen. Marketers don't use that word to pitch products anymore because it has run its course, people have understood it means nothing, become numb to it in the best case, and cynically bitchy as myself in worse cases, and as there was never a point to it, it can safely be omitted from conversations now.

It's the exact same thing with "next gen", with the sole difference that consumer (self-)education on that term is lagging a few years behind "multi-media".

[tongue_of_colicab]

OTOH because the Wii follows a differant path than the other consoles released does that mean its less nex gen because of that?

As far as the ps2+eyetoy bundle goes, if sony sold that as the ps3 I guess you could consider it the next generation product of sony. Though you do strike a very interesting point I think because if sony would sell it as the ps3 I dont think I would feel like its the ps3 as its basically a ps2 with eyetoy. So the exact same hardware you could already get with the ps2. OTOH I do feel the Wii is next gen because its not a GC even though it might not be all that different in design.

edit: This as a reply to Dregun

[LogisticX]

I feel that the Wii isn't the a next gen console for th reasons that have already been described by Dregun. It isn't next gen in the sense that we have come to know next gen.

Next generation implies something more in-tune with the way that games are going to evolve. With the jump from SNES to N64 for example, was the transition from 2d to 3d gaming, at least the feasible capability of it.

With the PS2, Xbox and GC, there were promises of movie-like experiences, where fully detailed models could be mistaken for something seen in the theaters. With the Xbox360 and PS3, this achievement becomes ever more real, but for the Wii, it seems to be stuck in the last gen presentation to gaming. Not only that, but regardless of what one might think, the extra horsepower does contribute to greater level of depth to gaming in terms of AI and just being able to render landscapes and situations that wouldn't be possible before.

A game that mimics the battles seen in Braveheart or the like become more real since the extra power will allow for enemies to react with more "intelligence" and also be better able to give the viewer a greater suspension of disbelief (a term used for movies meaning that the viewer can become immersed into the fake world presented to them). We can now have hundreds greatly detailed characters with (save maybe the limits of the developers artistic assets) their own unique characteristics which just serves to be a more immersive experience.


We've seen Wii-like capabilities before with various peripherals for game-specific uses, the only difference now is that with the Wii it is standard, so you'll get more games that reflect this sort of functionality. Regardless, the Wii will be doing what has already been done before.

Thats not to say that I'm a hater by any means. I am a sucker for Mario and Mario Galaxy looks great. So hopefully nobody is offended.

[Kaotik]

I see Wii as more "next gen console" than either PS3 or XB360 - they're both basicly just more of the same old stuff made prettier, while Wii actually brings something really new to the table

[Sis]

Next generation implies something more in-tune with the way that games are going to evolve.This is a good point. While I used a fairly strict dictionary form of the term 'next-gen' to mean "coming after and succeeding its predecessor," what you imply is that the vernacular of 'next-gen' is different than it's definition. So while the graphical leap for the PS3 and Xbox 360 both indicate a generational leap, the Wii is left with merely a small jump and an innovative controller.

It's a compelling argument that the Wii is more of a variant of last-gen, rather than a true next-gen system, though I'm still not sure I agree. The problem is that defining 'next-gen' in these terms feels very subjective...

[Shifty Geezer]

It's a compelling argument that the Wii is more of a variant of last-gen, rather than a true next-gen system, though I'm still not sure I agree. The problem is that defining 'next-gen' in these terms feels very subjective...Welcome to the English language!

BTW - when people talk about dictionary definitions of 'next-gen', which dictionary are they referring to?

[Sis]

I see Wii as more "next gen console" than either PS3 or XB360 - they're both basicly just more of the same old stuff made prettier, while Wii actually brings something really new to the table
Innovation really isn't a characteristic of 'next'-gen'. You can have in-generation innovations just as easily as transitional-generation innovations.

[Sis]

Welcome to the English language!

BTW - when people talk about dictionary definitions of 'next-gen', which dictionary are they referring to?
:smile: By dictionary definition, I meant more of the strict term combining "next" and "generation" being the dictionary definition; as far as I can tell there is no definition for "next generation". The vernacular of a word may not jive with the dictionary version of the word, which was my point...

[Kaotik]

Innovation really isn't a characteristic of 'next'-gen'. You can have in-generation innovations just as easily as transitional-generation innovations.

And prettier graphics is? How much more prettier does it need to be to be 'next-gen'? We do know that Wii can do better graphics than previous generation of consoles, even while it won't reach the level of PS3 & XB360 or even close to them.

[Sis]

And prettier graphics is? How much more prettier does it need to be to be 'next-gen'? We do know that Wii can do better graphics than previous generation of consoles, even while it won't reach the level of PS3 & XB360 or even close to them.
Pretty graphics implies performance improvements, so yes, prettier graphics is one indicator of a next-gen console, in my opinion. Which is why I consider the Wii to be a next-gen console; it exceeds its predecessor in a quantifiable way.

[tongue_of_colicab]

Regarding gfx, if I look wat a good pc could do in 2004 with games like fc and hl2, and now look at what ps3 can do in 2007 in europe, I dont think that is such a ''next gen'' differance as some like to call it either.

[Tahir2]

It is not Next-gen it is "now gen" (TM) as is PS3 and Xbox360.
The successor to Wii will be truly next gen!

[Acert93]

Wii is a next generation console with last generation components under the hood and is currently running distinctly last generation games.

I am inclined to change my mind once the Wiimote begins demonstrating its value other than being an alternative input for the similar results / EyeToy-esq party emphasis, but I would lean toward defining a console by the entire package, including the software. And right now the Wii screams, "GCN-esq hardware with GCN games with a different controller". Not much of a next gen product/experience at this point for my tastes especially at the price they currently are holding. $50 more gets you a console that makes the Wii look like 4 year old hardware with games designed for 4 year old hardware -- which it is and they are.

It is Nintendo's new console and it has a few unique advancements, but the overall hardware and software package is retro.

[oli2]

This question is very reminiscent of questions that will certainly remind you something : "Is the Xbox a console or a PC ?" or "Why is GC aiming at kids ?"

[ninzel]

Well if we are going to look at the entire package let's look at services as well. Clearly a step up from GC and close in many ways to it's competitors.
Internet browser(360 lacks), digital distribution service ,standard permanent storage(360 can boast that), avatar service,weather and news channel and an as yet to be rolled out online play service.
The only thing lacking in the Wii is relative power. In every other way it's actually quite a robust system.
Maybe we should defining a console by what it does for the consumer and not how it does it(power under the hood). Clearly the Wii does as much as for the consumer as it's competitors and does it in a smaller and more affordable package. Pretty advanced if you ask me.

[tongue_of_colicab]

That actually sounds pretty good too. Might want to add the price too as a less than 200 dollar to produce console cant be compared to one that costs over 800 dollars to produce on the spec front.

In the end it I guess it will always be hard to give one meaning to next gen as you will have those of fanboys, techheads and the ''normal'' people all having a different look on things. The fanboys will need a way to defend their console, the techhead will probably look more to the technicall aspect than what it actually does and the normal people just want something to play their games on and probably care little weater their console cpu has 100million or 1million transistors. To them a transistor is a transistor no matter if its from a 5 year old design or from a new highly complex design.

[Acert93]

Well if we are going to look at the entire package let's look at services as well. Clearly a step up from GC and close in many ways to it's competitors.
Internet browser(360 lacks), digital distribution service ,standard permanent storage(360 can boast that), avatar service,weather and news channel and an as yet to be rolled out online play service.
The only thing lacking in the Wii is relative power. In every other way it's actually quite a robust system.

Yet you could look at all the things it lacks compared to last gen consoles like online gameplay, DVD playback, and so forth as well as those features and services it is missing compared to next gen consoles (which is a huge list). And once you consider things like the browsing is going to eventually cost consumers it isn't so clear. If a browser alone is a defining trait of next gen then the 360 isn't and the Dreamcast is.

Whether you think Wii is or isn't really depends on what you, individually, are looking for. But you can break it up feature by feature and service by service and on the hardware and game spectrum it is clearly closer to the older consoles than the newer ones and almost all of its features and services have been done a long time ago.

If the Wii didn't have the Wiimote I don't think this would even be a question outside of, "It is Nintendo's newest so it is their next gen, just not next gen in the market". Which goes back to someone elses point: If Sony had repacked the PS2 with a couple EyeToys and promoted online out of the box for $249 would it make the PS2 next gen compared to the PS3 (or 360)? Looking at the very large standard HDD, much richer online environment, HD output and HD media, and huge leap in computational power I would scoff at the idea such a package is next gen compared to the real PS3.

I take my stance personally as a longtime Nintendo consumer and GCN owner. I have a GCN and Wavebird. Online is something Nintendo told me years ago to go do elsewhere and right now their offering is paltry anyhow (and gonna cost eventually). So I get a mild GCN update and a Wiimote. I could have essentially had that with "Wavebird II" if they chose to.

I personally don't consider Wavebird II (Wiimote) on hardware I pretty much already have and have had since 2002 to be next gen. Others are free to disagree but I don't feel like paying more for Wii hardware than I paid for my GCN ($149) when the only real significant meaningful difference in term of experience is the controller which from reviews is really hit or miss on the software at this time.

[Kaotik]

But isn't it a known fact that Wii is quite a lot more powerful than GC (I mean, higher clocks on similar or same architecture, tons of more transistors telling there is actually something more in the chips etc), which makes the PS2+eyetoy-comparison obsolete?

[Onkl Bjorni]

I voted for no, but having spent this Easter playing Wii Sports with my nephew's I think a better descrition would be that the Wii is a "new-gen" console. Because I have not played anything like it before. :-)
It's just a blast playing.

IMO of course.

[Deusp]

I voted no because that's how it is seen from a software development standpoint. Wii is getting the PS2/PSP ports, and Xbox 360 and PS3 get each others ports. There is very little inter-porting between the two, which means the power gap is too large to be bridged reasonable. This implies that the Wii is a last gen system.

[22psi]

Yes. Plain and simple.

[PARANOiA]

Wow, what a polarised issue. I voted Yes (thinking, of course, yes!) but it seems most of you disagree.

I definitely feel no one has been able to make the Wii sing yet visually. I don't think it'll knock the socks off the graphics fanboys, but when you start seeing games that beat the top-looking visuals of last-gen - say, Ninja Gaiden - then we will hear less of this "not next gen" talk.

Besides, I have no doubt now the Wii will outsell both MS and Sony... though I can't say I want one, since the games are 99% poor. Goes to show that price is definitely king.

[fearsomepirate]

And right now the Wii screams, "GCN-esq hardware with GCN games with a different controller".
If you're playing Zelda, yes. If you're playing Wii Sports, no. Now, how many early 360 titles mostly felt like regular Xbox games with more polygons and parallax mapping? How many early DS games felt like GBA titles with some tacked-on touch panel support?
Yet you could look at all the things it lacks compared to last gen consoles like online gameplay,
That's kind of a red herring, because it doesn't lack online gameplay in Japan, and it will cease lacking online gameplay in Europe once Mario Strikers comes out, and in the USA once Pokemon comes out. The Wii has online features, and online gaming has been annoyingly slow in coming, but then, the Xbox didn't launch with Live, either, though everyone knew it was coming.*
If the Wii didn't have the Wiimote
Irrelevant. The Wii does have the Wiimote. What if the Xbox 360 only had 64 MB of RAM? What if the PS3 didn't have a GPU, but still had a deeply-pipelined but otherwise primitive rasterizer? What if the Wii reverted to 64 MB cartridges?
If Sony had repacked the PS2 with a couple EyeToys and promoted online out of the box for $249 would it make the PS2 next gen compared to the PS3 (or 360)?
No, because you could play such "PS3" games on your PS2 if you bought a couple of used Eyetoys. However, it is impossible to play Wii games on your Gamecube, no matter how many accessories you buy. The comparison breaks down because the Wii is not actually the same machine as Gamecube. Also, note that the $299 Xbox 360 lacks the next-gen feature of being able to save your games. I wouldn't really call it a next-gen console until you buy some memory for it.

I do agree that I'm not particularly enthralled by the idea of a machine only moderately more powerful than what I've owned since 2003 with a controller that seems hit-or-miss, the need for one or two more buttons, and a rather poorly-thought online system. I'm not excited about Nintendo's decisions for their next-gen console, but that doesn't mean it's not actually Nintendo's next-gen console.


*Not equivalent to saying "Friend codes are an awesome idea"

[thatdude90210]

The only thing lacking in the Wii is relative power. In every other way it's actually quite a robust system.
Maybe we should defining a console by what it does for the consumer and not how it does it(power under the hood).
Yes, how ironic that at a site called "Beyond 3D" that many here can't look beyond 3D.

[Moonblade]

Maybe we should defining a console by what it does for the consumer and not how it does it(power under the hood). Clearly the Wii does as much as for the consumer as it's competitors and does it in a smaller and more affordable package. Pretty advanced if you ask me.

This whole 'Is wii a next-gen console?' is very subjective depending on the criteria you like to use. If I ignore what's under the hood like you say, the Wii doesn not give me a next-gen experience like it's competitors do at all. It's something weird, something fundamentally different, you either like it or you don't.
On paper, yes you could say that the wii is a new console because of the hardware and the controller.
But like I said, it all depends on the criteria you use and as long as people in this discussion don't agree about what defines 'next-gen', the question remains subjective and intuitive, based on how much you like the system.
And when I look at the poll results, the majority of voters don't like the system that much. So there's your answer. :)

[oli2]

I am more and more surprised by Joshua 's recent posts upon Wii ... Because the more i read you, the more i feel anger towards Nintendo 's new console and concept.
I am surprised because reading your posts for a long time, i was really expecting you to be a "defender" of this new policy.


Yet you could look at all the things it lacks compared to last gen consoles like online gameplay, DVD playback, and so forth as well as those features and services it is missing compared to next gen consoles (which is a huge list). And once you consider things like the browsing is going to eventually cost consumers it isn't so clear. If a browser alone is a defining trait of next gen then the 360 isn't and the Dreamcast is.
Since when the path to "next-gen" is adding multimedia capabilities to a console ? To make a proper list :
- Online gameplay : whatever posters in this forum think, this adresses to a niche.
- DVD playback : i don't care my consoles have this capabilities. Most console owners don't care much since they have more tailored devices to do that in their room (40$ DVD player anyone ?). You would have to pay "video whores" to read their video with their consoles. They'd rather use their high end video player or their HTPC (like me).
- Browsing capabilities : haha ! You must be kidding ...

Back on topic : these services a not the signs of "next-gen" but the signs that some manufacturers are trying to invade other markets by using brandnames.

Whether you think Wii is or isn't really depends on what you, individually, are looking for. But you can break it up feature by feature and service by service and on the hardware and game spectrum it is clearly closer to the older consoles than the newer ones and almost all of its features and services have been done a long time ago.
So ? Nintendo longly stated that consoles are not related to technology, but how you use it. Wii' hardware is outdated, there is no debate to that.
Do you really think the "proposal" has not changed from previous generation ?

If the Wii didn't have the Wiimote I don't think this would even be a question outside of, "It is Nintendo's newest so it is their next gen, just not next gen in the market".
But the Wiimote is there and the developers cannot "not use it". This "if" does not bring anything to your point.

Which goes back to someone elses point: If Sony had repacked the PS2 with a couple EyeToys and promoted online out of the box for $249 would it make the PS2 next gen compared to the PS3 (or 360)?
Would Sony have suppressed regular controller and show good demonstrations of gameplay (like Nintendo did) my answer would be "yes", undoubtely.

Looking at the very large standard HDD, much richer online environment, HD output and HD media, and huge leap in computational power I would scoff at the idea such a package is next gen compared to the real PS3.
I know the argument i am going to give here is not very popular here but again : DS ? Hasn't it prove that a path for future does not have to be generationnal leap hardware-wise ?

I take my stance personally as a longtime Nintendo consumer and GCN owner. I have a GCN and Wavebird. Online is something Nintendo told me years ago to go do elsewhere and right now their offering is paltry anyhow (and gonna cost eventually). So I get a mild GCN update and a Wiimote. I could have essentially had that with "Wavebird II" if they chose to.
No they could not. And you perfectly know that, that is why i don't understand why you say that...

I personally don't consider Wavebird II (Wiimote) on hardware I pretty much already have and have had since 2002 to be next gen. Others are free to disagree but I don't feel like paying more for Wii hardware than I paid for my GCN ($149) when the only real significant meaningful difference in term of experience is the controller which from reviews is really hit or miss on the software at this time.
First, whe are only 4 monthes after launch : give it time ! DS waited one year before descent use of touch screen, PS2 waited 18 monthes for descent games.
Second, calling Wiimote "Wavebird 2" really shows you have a problem with it.

[PatrickL]

You will have more games coming for the wii; Problem is most publishers were caught with their pant down:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amWmy6_JG16U&refer=worldwide

Electronic Arts Plays Catch-Up After Shrugging Off Wii's Appeal
By Michael White
April 9 (Bloomberg) -- Video-game designer Nick Earl spent eight months holed up with his development team rushing to adapt ``The Godfather'' for Nintendo Co.'s Wii.
The reason for the long hours: Earl's employer, Electronic Arts Inc., like some of its competitors, underestimated demand for the Wii, whose motion-activated wand lets players wield a virtual sword, mimic real golf swings or strangle a victim. Instead, game makers put most of their resources into Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 3, which was released two days earlier in November with a more conventional hand controller.
Now, publishers are scrambling to get titles to the 3.56 million U.S. and Japanese Wii owners who have made the machine the top-selling game console this year.
``Those companies are backtracking,'' said Anthony Gikas, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in Minneapolis. ``They're going to need to get their best-branded product on that platform. That will take a good nine to 12 months.''
A shortage of Wii games contributed to a 25 percent drop in sales in February from a year earlier at Redwood City, California-based Electronic Arts, the world's largest video-game publisher, said Todd Greenwald, an analyst at Nollenberger Capital Partners in San Francisco. Industry sales in February rose 28 percent.

[Entropy]

What is remarkable is how many online enthusiasts seem to have extreme difficulties dealing with the success of the Wii. It's worthy of its own thread into the psyche of the netizens here, which probably wouldn't be too popular.

The Wii shows that
- no, CPU or GPU complexity is not a strong sales driver.
- no, online gaming is not a strong sales driver.
- no, hardware support for complex shader programming is not a strong sales driver.
- no, HD output is not a strong sales driver.
et cetera, such as not being playable in testing kiosks (not done due to wireless controls), not being available without pre-booking, and so on that isn't all that tech-related.

Some of these are a bit surprising.

But what is even more surprising is the amount of posters that try to exclude the Wii from their thinking or try to confine it to a niche where the 360 or the PS3 doesn't have to be compared to it.

[Shifty Geezer]

What is remarkable is how many online enthusiasts seem to have extreme difficulties dealing with the success of the Wii. It's worthy of its own thread into the psyche of the netizens here, which probably wouldn't be too popular.

The Wii shows that
- no, CPU or GPU complexity is not a strong sales driver.
- no, online gaming is not a strong sales driver.
- no, hardware support for complex shader programming is not a strong sales driver.
- no, HD output is not a strong sales driver.
et cetera, such as not being playable in testing kiosks (not done due to wireless controls), not being available without pre-booking, and so on that isn't all that tech-related.This is going off into a tangential Wii sales thread, but before you can claim these things aren't necessary to sell a console, you have to make sure the Wii is away from any Fad phase and is actually a robust console. The world has had plenty of 'take the world by storm' products that were soon forgotten when the novelty wore off. If Wii is one of those, eventually those missing features will cause the product to be forgotten in favour of the machines with those features. If Wii isn't just a fad, long term sales will remain strong. The nature of Wii's acceptance by the market will only be proven by long-term sales. Until then, we can't say that such-and-such features aren't requirements. At the moment all we can say for certainty is Wii has a lot of immediate appeal. There's no way to gauge from initial high demand what impact low technical prowess will have.

[Kaotik]

Well DS kinda proved the concept matters more than horsepower, and Wii seems to be following it's trail closely, being still sold out everywhere

[oli2]

This is going off into a tangential Wii sales thread, but before you can claim these things aren't necessary to sell a console, you have to make sure the Wii is away from any Fad phase and is actually a robust console. The world has had plenty of 'take the world by storm' products that were soon forgotten when the novelty wore off. If Wii is one of those, eventually those missing features will cause the product to be forgotten in favour of the machines with those features. If Wii isn't just a fad, long term sales will remain strong. The nature of Wii's acceptance by the market will only be proven by long-term sales. Until then, we can't say that such-and-such features aren't requirements. At the moment all we can say for certainty is Wii has a lot of immediate appeal. There's no way to gauge from initial high demand what impact low technical prowess will have.

Again, since when "those features" are requirements to sell a console ? What was the lesson the last 5 years theached us upon them ?

Most important IMO, a device has not to bring "those features" to be "next-gen" or even to be called a console...

Future is uncertain : the points you raise upon Wii are correct, but so they are for XBox360 and PS3, don't you think ?

[Shifty Geezer]

Again, since when "those features" are requirements to sell a console ? What was the lesson the last 5 years theached us upon them ?
Most important IMO, a device has not to bring "those features" to be "next-gen" or even to be called a console...
They were last-gen consoles with last-gen features. As the console scene changes (or not) features may become expectations to define a genre. Like mobile phones. In 1995 Sony, MS and Nintendo release mobile phones for talking anywhere. In 2000 they all release mobiles with talking and texting added. In 2005 Sony and MS release phones with talk and texting and cameras inbuilt with multimedia messaging, while Nintendo releases another talk+text only phone.Just because cameras weren't a part of the mobile scene in previous generations, doesn't mean you can discount their worth this gen. The new gen of mobiles adds the features of cameras, and a phone without the camera is surely a last-gen design, no? You won't get anyone selling a mobile this day with the features of a few years ago, so why expect people not to care if their console lacks the features of its contemporaries?

Future is uncertain : the points you raise upon Wii are correct, but so they are for XBox360 and PS3, don't you think ?No, because the XB360 and PS3 are selling to the existing console market that we know likes dual-analogue inputs and existing games. Unless there's reason to think the existing 120+ million console gamers will suddenly not want to play console games like they have done, there's no reason to doubt XB360s and PS3's success. With Wii, Nintendo have taken a different, unproven course. At the moment it's paying dividends because people are lapping them up, but it's a different market to the existing and traditional console base, and it's unproven if the non-traditional gamers have 'staying power'. It's like Barbie versus Furbie. Barbie is traditional and can be trusted to continue to sell tothe people that like it. Furby was new and exciting. It appealed to a market Barbie never could and outsold Barbie by crazy margins...but then disappeared because it's market was quickly satisfied. Barbies continue to sell to the Barbie market - the Furby market was different to the Barbie market and the Furby market had no staying power. XB360 and PS3 are still Barbies in essence, though with more optional extras than ever before (and some would say still just as boring as consoles have always been). Is the Wii a new Furby or new Barbie? It has that uncertainty that the other consoles don't have.

[oli2]

They were last-gen consoles with last-gen features. As the console scene changes (or not) features may become expectations to define a genre. Like mobile phones. In 1995 Sony, MS and Nintendo release mobile phones for talking anywhere. In 2000 they all release mobiles with talking and texting added. In 2005 Sony and MS release phones with talk and texting and cameras inbuilt with multimedia messaging, while Nintendo releases another talk+text only phone.Just because cameras weren't a part of the mobile scene in previous generations, doesn't mean you can discount their worth this gen. The new gen of mobiles adds the features of cameras, and a phone without the camera is surely a last-gen design, no? You won't get anyone selling a mobile this day with the features of a few years ago, so why expect people not to care if their console lacks the features of its contemporaries?

Thanks for the clarification.
In short :
- The features brought are there for 5 years for the olders, 2 years for the youngers.
- If we can't compare portable gaming market to home console one, certainly we can't compare mobile one, no ? I with others tried to make some analogy between DS and Wii, which were described as false because "you can't compare !". Same applies there.

No, because the XB360 and PS3 are selling to the existing console market that we know likes dual-analogue inputs and existing games. Unless there's reason to think the existing 120+ million console gamers will suddenly not want to play console games like they have done, there's no reason to doubt XB360s and PS3's success. With Wii, Nintendo have taken a different, unproven course. At the moment it's paying dividends because people are lapping them up, but it's a different market to the existing and traditional console base, and it's unproven if the non-traditional gamers have 'staying power'. It's like Barbie versus Furbie. Barbie is traditional and can be trusted to continue to sell tothe people that like it. Furby was new and exciting. It appealed to a market Barbie never could and outsold Barbie by crazy margins...but then disappeared because it's market was quickly satisfied. Barbies continue to sell to the Barbie market - the Furby market was different to the Barbie market and the Furby market had no staying power. XB360 and PS3 are still Barbies in essence, though with more optional extras than ever before (and some would say still just as boring as consoles have always been). Is the Wii a new Furby or new Barbie? It has that uncertainty that the other consoles don't have.

The market has proven to be more or less in a "stagnation phasis". From stagnation to decline, there isn't much as the Japan market shows us for 2 years (on the home console market).

Plus i would like to have your definitive view as i have read posts from you where you were saying "I have to be proven that the people buying Wii are not the casual gamers". Basically, with your actual statement, you imply the other way round.

You furby analogy is nice but why would Nintendo have to choice between one of the two? There are aiming to be both. At least, that is what they did with DS. Why would they change that ?

[tongue_of_colicab]

This whole 'Is wii a next-gen console?' is very subjective depending on the criteria you like to use. If I ignore what's under the hood like you say, the Wii doesn not give me a next-gen experience like it's competitors do at all. It's something weird, something fundamentally different, you either like it or you don't.
On paper, yes you could say that the wii is a new console because of the hardware and the controller.
But like I said, it all depends on the criteria you use and as long as people in this discussion don't agree about what defines 'next-gen', the question remains subjective and intuitive, based on how much you like the system.
And when I look at the poll results, the majority of voters don't like the system that much. So there's your answer. :)

And thats exactly why you should have a relative look at the term next gen and not base it to much on your personal feelings. Besides that who defines ''next gen feeling''? For you that might be gfx, for me its not so much gfx as I found F1 2007 not next gen at all. Looks nice, but otherwise exactly the same game as on ps2. Same goes for some Wii games. Not next gen, but not last gen either but definitly something different.

Oh and about the voting, voting NO is something different than not liking the system.

No, because the XB360 and PS3 are selling to the existing console market that we know likes dual-analogue inputs and existing games. Unless there's reason to think the existing 120+ million console gamers will suddenly not want to play console games like they have done, there's no reason to doubt XB360s and PS3's success.

I guess you could also put it like this: They never had a other option so they went with it, now there is Wii and they might like it better. If you can tell anything by sales atleast a fair group is more interrested in motion controllers than standard controllers.

but it's a different market to the existing and traditional console base, and it's unproven if the non-traditional gamers have 'staying power'.

DS already proved ''non gamers'' have staying power. The question is more if they will also stick to Wii.

XB360 and PS3 are still Barbies in essence, though with more optional extras than ever before (and some would say still just as boring as consoles have always been). Is the Wii a new Furby or new Barbie? It has that uncertainty that the other consoles don't have.

I dont agree with that as all 3 consoles are in a essence very similair unlike barby and furby. The big difference is that with Wii instead of pressing a button you move. But you can also use the wii controller like a more traditional controller if you'd like. The godfather is a good example of mixing the old with the new in a good way. No overdone motion sensing but only were its usefull. For the rest you still use them to play a game and they can still all play the same games for the most part only the ones on Wii will look less impressive.

[Sis]

The Wii shows that
- no, CPU or GPU complexity is not a strong sales driver.
- no, online gaming is not a strong sales driver.
- no, hardware support for complex shader programming is not a strong sales driver.
- no, HD output is not a strong sales driver.
No, you can't make any of these statements based on the success of the Wii; that is, you can't find attributes that the Wii lacks and turn it around to mean that that attribute is not a strong sales driver.

[LogisticX]

Oh and about the voting, voting NO is something different than not liking the system.




Exactly. Nobody is trying to downplay the success that the Wii has been having. It's merely a discussion as to how one should characterize "next gen".

[Shifty Geezer]

- If we can't compare portable gaming market to home console one, certainly we can't compare mobile one, no ? I with others tried to make some analogy between DS and Wii, which were described as false because "you can't compare !". Same applies there.I wasn't comparing it to mobiles other than as an example of how feature set can't be expected to stay the same. Where devices, be they consoles, mobile phones, cars, or whatever, have more features added over time with new devices, that shows that the next generation of device tends to add features. If PS3 and XB360 add the same features, and Wii keeps the feature set of last-gen, the new features can be consider as differentiating the new from the old - to be a new gen mobile, you need to have 3G and in built camera; to be a new gen console you need to have cutting edge processing and online gaming. Not that I'm saying you have to, but that's the argument for one definition of 'next-gen'.


The market has proven to be more or less in a "stagnation phasis". From stagnation to decline, there isn't much as the Japan market shows us for 2 years (on the home console market).
People say that, but AFAIK it's been growing year on year since PS1 days. I don't know where the decline is...


Plus i would like to have your definitive view as i have read posts from you where you were saying "I have to be proven that the people buying Wii are not the casual gamers". Basically, with your actual statement, you imply the other way round.
I don't know who the Wii is selling to. That's why I can't guess if it's a Furby phenomenum or a Barbie phenomenum. Bare in mind a lot of my posts are playing Devil's Advocate, arguing the other POV without neceesarily subscribing to it myself. For the record I voted Yes, Wii is a next-gen console based on my definition. But I can see the argument against and thoght I'd weigh in to discuss it a bit further ;)

You furby analogy is nice but why would Nintendo have to choice between one of the two? There are aiming to be both. At least, that is what they did with DS. Why would they change that ?Sure, and maybe they'll get lucky that way. Whatever happens, it'll only be proven after a while. Until then, there's no point pointing to Wii's curent sales and saying 'no-one cares about the XB360 and PS3's complex features. Long term, perhaps they will, and Wii is just a cheap novelty experience until the others drop to fit the mainstream bank-balance.

I guess you could also put it like this: They never had a other option so they went with it, now there is Wii and they might like it better. If you can tell anything by sales atleast a fair group is more interrested in motion controllers than standard controllers.
As above, I'm not saying who is buying Wii or why. Only that you can't look at current sales and assume they'll carry on for years and Wii will be the biggest success ever.

DS already proved ''non gamers'' have staying power.Not to my mind. Are those who bought DS just for Brain Training buying into other games on DS? Or are the constant software sales of more traditional games on DS the same gamers who owned GBA - not 'non-gamers'?

I dont agree with that as all 3 consoles are in a essence very similair unlike barby and furby.Except they're not, as per Joshua's post. XB360 and PS3 have fancy HD graphics, online content galore, grandiose network plans, and 'stuff'. Wii has little interest in that stuff and instead offers a different control interface. The moment you lose the different control interface, you're left with something much closer to the PS2 and XB than the XB360 and PS3.

[Kaotik]

Not to my mind. Are those who bought DS just for Brain Training buying into other games on DS? Or are the constant software sales of more traditional games on DS the same gamers who owned GBA - not 'non-gamers'?

Looking how DS games dominate the software sales too, yes, I'd say they, or at least most of them, are into buying other games too for the DS

[Entropy]

The Wii shows that
- no, CPU or GPU complexity is not a strong sales driver.
- no, online gaming is not a strong sales driver.
- no, hardware support for complex shader programming is not a strong sales driver.
- no, HD output is not a strong sales driver.
No, you can't make any of these statements based on the success of the Wii; that is, you can't find attributes that the Wii lacks and turn it around to mean that that attribute is not a strong sales driver.

I can't?
While you do have a theoretical point, from a practical standpoint, I think I can.

Compare the 360 to the Wii - similar prices, 360 launched well before, has a larger number of games available, is readily available, can be hands on tested in most every games store, and scores on every single one of the points above.

Yet the Wii outsells the 360.
How could that be if the above items really were strong sales drivers?
Either you have to go through major intellectual contortions to explain this fact, or you can, however grudgingly, admit that my points above may actually be true.

[Entropy]

No, because the XB360 and PS3 are selling to the existing console market that we know likes dual-analogue inputs and existing games. Unless there's reason to think the existing 120+ million console gamers will suddenly not want to play console games like they have done, there's no reason to doubt XB360s and PS3's success. With Wii, Nintendo have taken a different, unproven course. At the moment it's paying dividends because people are lapping them up, but it's a different market to the existing and traditional console base, and it's unproven if the non-traditional gamers have 'staying power'.

You have a point here, but that point can be turned around.

One of the major worries that gaming industry and gamers alike shared (and which got a lot of attention before the next-gen buzz) was that extrapolating into the future along the established lines led to a place nobody really wanted to be.

Radically rising production costs, creating more complex products for an audience that risked becoming more closed and less likely to expand. The rising production costs lead to less risk taking, causing sequelitis and me-too products, risking longer term disinterest from the customer base (as well as disenchantment from producers and designers as evidenced by some individuals here). The number of console and PC game players probably change fairly slowly, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a substantial turn around, that is, there's constantly people quitting and new people coming in. If the number of new players is dropping, what path do you take? Do you sell more strongly to the ones already part of the scene, creating more-and-better-of-the-same? Well, by your argument, that is the safe path that Microsoft and Sony has taken, and where in all probability a certain customer base is guaranteed. But...

[Shifty Geezer]

Compare the 360 to the Wii - similar prices, 360 launched well before, has a larger number of games available, is readily available, can be hands on tested in most every games store, and scores on every single one of the points above.

Yet the Wii outsells the 360.
How could that be if the above items really were strong sales drivers?Because they may not be as strong sales drivers for a machine that costs $100+ more, as Wiimote is for a $250 console. If the consoles were the same price, there'd be an argument. But minimum price to get a useable XB360 with a game is about $400 (Core + Memory card + game) versus $250 for Wii (console + Wiisports). Wherever you have more than one variable in effect, you can't draw valid comparisons, and we have a price differential here, as well as a software library differential. One could argue that those XB360 features do act as strong sales drivers because as a console it's selling well with a pretty hefty price-tag. If it's not for CPU or GPU complexity, online gaming, hardware support for complex shader programming and HD output, why is XB360 selling at all? Why aren't gamers buying PS2's instead?

[PatrickL]

But what becomes the price argument when you consider that Wiis are sold at higher prices than the premium on ebay here ?

[T Ghost]

How would the Wii sell if it had a US$400~US$600 price tag?

Add 2 extra scenarios to that:

Wii @ US$400~US$600 with PS3/360 graphics+Sound

Wii @ US$400~US$600 with Wii graphics+Sound

How would the Wii sell at these 2 scenarios?

Personally I'm not convinced that the Wii is selling what is selling ONLY because of the wiimote.

Let's wait and see till one of the other 2 consoles hit the US$249.99 mark...

And let's wait for the 3rd pty publishers to produce and release games that are not only exclusive to the Wii but that were primarily designed with the wiimote as the ONLY controller to be used in that project.

In a new world order where fierce competition is taking the multiplataform develping strategy to be more than an option, to be a financial need, I'm very skeptic that publishers are going to invest in a project that can't be ported to another system without creating another whole game (gameplay, level developing, everything) using only the original ip of the first.

On the other hand the theoretical lower cost of production for Wii games may help the case, but again, to be really developed (gameplay, level design, etc) with the Wiimote being the only controller type on that project means no easy, fast, cheap ports to other systems to be possible.

Yes, it is somewhat plausible that 3rd pty publishers may think in investing and releasing REAL Wii exclusives and then "port" (read develop another whole game from the game design point of view) the sucesses to PS3 and 360, but will those ports (that will certainly cost more to produce than the original Wii game) sell on 360/PS3?

Will the sales on only one console be enough fot the 3rd pty, public co. publishers' stock holders ?

If you think yes, why do you think that?

What's your opinions on these 2 points?

My opinion is that Nintendo is gonna struggle to convince 3rd ptys to invest, produce and release REAL Wiimote exclusive games and without that support the Wii cannot become the revolution in gaming it was meant to be.

Remember that 1st pty strong sales on NGC didn't help on nintendo gaining 3rd pty support and probably will not make a case here too.

[oli2]

Not that I'm saying you have to, but that's the argument for one definition of 'next-gen'.
I totally understand the argument (even if i don't share it) of the "power" in the definition of next-gen. I was just fighting the idea of the feature set be part of it, because i don't get how low-end multimedia capable machines relate to "next-gen".

People say that, but AFAIK it's been growing year on year since PS1 days. I don't know where the decline is... I mentionned "decline" for Japan only, "stagnation" elsewhere. By the way, in economics, when the growth is slowling, it is never good ...


I don't know who the Wii is selling to. That's why I can't guess if it's a Furby phenomenum or a Barbie phenomenum. Bare in mind a lot of my posts are playing Devil's Advocate, arguing the other POV without neceesarily subscribing to it myself. For the record I voted Yes, Wii is a next-gen console based on my definition. But I can see the argument against and thoght I'd weigh in to discuss it a bit further ;) I knew ... but failed to express better my point.

there's no point pointing to Wii's curent sales and saying 'no-one cares about the XB360 and PS3's complex features.
I don't remember saying that ... I simply say i think this is less important than some here think. My view is backed up by the fact that the features were there for years. Of course, things may have changed and we will see millions people rushing for PS3 to be able to use "Home" and media streaming to PSP. Who knows ?


Not to my mind. Are those who bought DS just for Brain Training buying into other games on DS? Or are the constant software sales of more traditional games on DS the same gamers who owned GBA - not 'non-gamers'?
Maybe it is both of these.


Except they're not, as per Joshua's post. XB360 and PS3 have fancy HD graphics, online content galore, grandiose network plans, and 'stuff'. Wii has little interest in that stuff and instead offers a different control interface. The moment you lose the different control interface, you're left with something much closer to the PS2 and XB than the XB360 and PS3.I can't believe we are speaking about a console anymore ... Like i stated, people have lots of devices by their home now to do "these" far better ...

[Todd33]

I say no and I think it's a fad.

Next gen is always pushing the envelope. Faster CPUs, better GPUs, etc. If you want to slap a motion sensor on a N64, does that make it "next gen"?

The Wii is like the Tickle Me Elmo extreme my wife bought the kids. Everyone wanted one, everyone bought one, it sold millions. Now it sits in some bin getting ignored.

It's great that old folks and non-gamers are enjoying the Wii, but that doesn't make is a next gen console, that makes it accessible to non-gamers, who I hope never drive the game market.

I had great respect for the GC, but a $250 rebadge of the GC with some motion sensing seems like a rip-off.

[Kaotik]

I say no and I think it's a fad.

Next gen is always pushing the envelope. Faster CPUs, better GPUs, etc. If you want to slap a motion sensor on a N64, does that make it "next gen"?

The Wii is like the Tickle Me Elmo extreme my wife bought the kids. Everyone wanted one, everyone bought one, it sold millions. Now it sits in some bin getting ignored.

It's great that old folks and non-gamers are enjoying the Wii, but that doesn't make is a next gen console, that makes it accessible to non-gamers, who I hope never drive the game market.

I had great respect for the GC, but a $250 rebadge of the GC with some motion sensing seems like a rip-off.

Have you actually any idea what's inside Wii?
You think they put those extra transistors (IIRC the numbers were ~70% more on CPU >100% more on GPU?) there just for fun, without them actually doing anything, or the higher clockspeeds on top of those?

[Sis]

I can't?
While you do have a theoretical point, from a practical standpoint, I think I can.

Compare the 360 to the Wii - similar prices, 360 launched well before, has a larger number of games available, is readily available, can be hands on tested in most every games store, and scores on every single one of the points above.

Yet the Wii outsells the 360.
How could that be if the above items really were strong sales drivers?
Theoretical but not practical? Isn't that like saying, "2+2=4 in theory, but in practice we can bend the rules"?

My point is that you can't take the lack of an attribute of a system and extrapolate out that "attribute X must not be a system seller". You ignore things such as: price, marketting, brand recognition, press, games, market segmentation, and probably a few other dozen nuanced factors in what makes a product successful, any of which may be able to overshadow another product.

Again, here's some of the things we can extrapolate using your logic:

-- no, systems with "inhaled" shell designs are not system drivers
-- no, systems larger than 3 dvd cases are not system drivers
-- no, systems with controls with more than 4 buttons are not system drivers

The point being that you can't take a system's attribute in isolation and treat it as something more than a part within a larger system.

Either you have to go through major intellectual contortions to explain this fact, or you can, however grudgingly, admit that my points above may actually be true.I could also debate the points.

[LogisticX]

Has anybody drawn parallels to that of Apple's iWhatever series?

I don't know about you but something tells me that there is some kind of public perception going on. Maybe on some sub-conscious level, consumers attribute Nintendo's Wii in some manner to the quality that Apple products have. Whenever I look at the Wii, it just completely reminds me of Apple. I dont know how much or even if such perceptions would actually draw someone to purchase the console, but maybe something to think about.

It's weird.

[tongue_of_colicab]

why is XB360 selling at all? Why aren't gamers buying PS2's instead?

Arnt there actually sold more ps2's worldwide each month than x360s? Anyway if you want to go as far as comparing prices I think you should look at manufactering costs and also calculate that into the hardware of the machine. Lots of people tend to call Wii not next gen because it doesnt has ps3 hardware but fail to mention ps3 is 4 times as expensive to build.

Personally I'm not convinced that the Wii is selling what is selling ONLY because of the wiimote.

Price indeed is a ''large'' factor I think.

Let's wait and see till one of the other 2 consoles hit the US$249.99 mark...

By the time that happens the cards probably already've been dealed. Not to mention that the Wii will also be cheaper by that time.

Next gen is always pushing the envelope. Faster CPUs, better GPUs, etc. If you want to slap a motion sensor on a N64, does that make it "next gen"?

Well isnt that the whole point of this thread? when can you call something next gen? for you apperantly that is hardware.

[bomlat]

Has anybody drawn parallels to that of Apple's iWhatever series?

I don't know about you but something tells me that there is some kind of public perception going on. Maybe on some sub-conscious level, consumers attribute Nintendo's Wii in some manner to the quality that Apple products have. Whenever I look at the Wii, it just completely reminds me of Apple. I dont know how much or even if such perceptions would actually draw someone to purchase the console, but maybe something to think about.

It's weird.

Probably because the wii have the highest quality level from the new gen.
Probably the quality ofthe wii is even higher than the quality of the ps3.
(quality is not equal with the horsepower.The wii have gold coated connectors everywhere,example)

And from the other side, the wii is designed around the customer,but the xb2 and the ps3 need a customer,who designed around the machine.

The root of the succes is simple:fulfill the demand of the customer.And the only console that can do this is the wii.

[bomlat]

Oh,and on other thing:
the diference between the ps1 and the ps2 was hige,but between the ps2 and the ps3 the diference is marginal.Probably everybody can say that "but there is the 2 time more cpu,10 times more mhz and so on",but the reality is that the quality of the visuals are going up by a linear equatation,but the feeling is growing only by an invert square.So, the real diference between a 3 times more powerfull system and a 10 times more powerful system is only a few percent.(10-15%)

Of course,the reason of this is the not proper human eyes.If you want to use the picture of the xb2 to feed an optical analyser,it is more fine than the wii.


I remember for the V1/V2 transition period,when the pc gfx moved from the 480 line to the 600 line.That was a much smaller thing,like today this HD flame.And I think this HD thing have less importance for the avarage customer than a new AA method for the PC.

[Entropy]

Because they may not be as strong sales drivers for a machine that costs $100+ more, as Wiimote is for a $250 console. If the consoles were the same price, there'd be an argument. But minimum price to get a useable XB360 with a game is about $400 (Core + Memory card + game) versus $250 for Wii (console + Wiisports). Wherever you have more than one variable in effect, you can't draw valid comparisons, and we have a price differential here, as well as a software library differential. One could argue that those XB360 features do act as strong sales drivers because as a console it's selling well with a pretty hefty price-tag. If it's not for CPU or GPU complexity, online gaming, hardware support for complex shader programming and HD output, why is XB360 selling at all? Why aren't gamers buying PS2's instead?

First off, around where I live, the price differential between a Wii and a 360 Core is $50. Except for the fact that you have to queue for a month or so to actually get a Wii.

So if the Wii sells at a brisker pace than the 360 then all the technical advantages the 360 has over the Wii, combined is valued at less than $50 by the market. You can put that at $100 if that is the actual number where you live.

This is a fact, as of right now. What I find disturbing is that it seems that many have a hard time accepting that, preferring to try to ignore that the Wii even exists, or try to say that it lives in its own particular niche where it cannot be compared to the other two. When reality doesn't match your preconception, respond by denying reality rather than reevaluating your world view. This is pathetic.

The Wii is a small, cool and quiet little device that offers a novel control scheme that allows a more physical (and sometimes more intuitive) interaction with the games than its predecessors. Buyers seem to value that a lot.

[Entropy]

I could also debate the points.

I think that would be more fruitful.

[Diamond.G]

I follow what wiki has listed on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_generation_era). Therefore my answer is yes.

[Corwin_B]

"Next-gen" is a marketing only concept. Also, considering all "next-gen" offerings are now on the market, perhaps we could drop the concept entirely, or at the very least shelve it until we start speculating on the PS4, XBox720 and Wii2...

Anyway, I don't see how you can quantify "next-gen" as anything but "the systems coming after the current ones". Of course, if Sony or MS decide to go Nintendo's way for the "next gen" (ie add to power in a moderate way, focus on interface, profitable day one), you will see plenty of people change their tune on what constitutes next gen.

Here is a deal for everyone saying the Wii is not "next-gen" : give a list of measurable improvements from a generation to the next that the Wii lacks (ie "needs at least x times more FLOPS" or "needs to support a higher definition than the current gen" or "needs a storage x times larger than current gen"), and agree to have your benchmark applied to the next offerings from MS and Sony as well...

[fearsomepirate]

and agree to have your benchmark applied to the next offerings from MS and Sony as well...

As well as every console generation, ever. Might run into some trouble with Atari's 2600, 5200, and 7800 machines. ;-)

[Sis]

I think that would be more fruitful.Which I thought I did. If this is the extent of a dialog with you, I'll try to remember not to waste me time in the future.

[Readykilowatt]

This is a fact, as of right now. What I find disturbing is that it seems that many have a hard time accepting that, preferring to try to ignore that the Wii even exists, or try to say that it lives in its own particular niche where it cannot be compared to the other two. When reality doesn't match your preconception, respond by denying reality rather than reevaluating your world view. This is pathetic.

The Wii is a small, cool and quiet little device that offers a novel control scheme that allows a more physical (and sometimes more intuitive) interaction with the games than its predecessors. Buyers seem to value that a lot.

I've said this time and time again. Many of these people have already bought an expensive HDTV and a PS3 to play games they expect to come to their system of choice. Mentioning the fact that these games may be cancelled for the PS3 and moved exclusively to a console that does not support HD is too much for them to bear. Trust me, you dont want to be in their shoes right now, you should pity them.

April 9 (Bloomberg) -- Video-game designer Nick Earl spent eight months holed up with his development team rushing to adapt ``The Godfather'' for Nintendo Co.'s Wii.

The reason for the long hours: Earl's employer, Electronic Arts Inc., like some of its competitors, underestimated demand for the Wii, whose motion-activated wand lets players wield a virtual sword, mimic real golf swings or strangle a victim. Instead, game makers put most of their resources into Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 3, which was released two days earlier in November with a more conventional hand controller.

Now, publishers are scrambling to get titles to the 3.56 million U.S. and Japanese Wii owners who have made the machine the top-selling game console this year.

"Those companies are backtracking,'' said Anthony Gikas, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in Minneapolis. "They're going to need to get their best-branded product on that platform. That will take a good nine to 12 months.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amWmy6_JG16U&refer=home



There is no point arguing. Just sit back and watch the future "meltdowns". :lol: EDIT I'm still in shock that this thread is still open.

[Frank]

I voted yes.

Like with cars or videocards, not every console tries to be a Ferrari. Most people rather have the economic but fun variant.

[Todd33]

I've said this time and time again. Many of these people have already bought an expensive HDTV and a PS3 to play games they expect to come to their system of choice. Mentioning the fact that these games may be cancelled for the PS3 and moved exclusively to a console that does not support HD is too much for them to bear. Trust me, you dont want to be in their shoes right now, you should pity them.



There is no point arguing. Just sit back and watch the future "meltdowns". :lol: EDIT I'm still in shock that this thread is still open.

Most big titles are PS3, 360 and PC - companies are maximizing re-use of assets and profit this way. Good luck getting good games ported from these platforms to the Wii (Oblivion Wii anyone?). Each console will have good 1st/2nd party games to differentiate them, but the Wii will never get good next gen cross platform games. Enjoy games like Far Cry, ported from last gen and made worse by bad poor controls. The Wii will live or die depending on Nintendo made games IMO.

[LunchBox]

Yes.

[Frank]

The Wii will live or die depending on Nintendo made games IMO.
Like Super Mario Galaxy: very nice looking, and lots of fun to play for everyone. Which is the whole point.

If you want "realistic" FPS like GoW, buy a 360. And if you want the best hardware with the most possibilities, buy a PS3. If you simply want to have fun for a few bucks, buy a Wii.

And that's what consoles are for.

[Fu3lFr3nzy]

in terms of technology, no
in terms of innovation, yes.

:smile:

Thats pretty much how I feel about this :grin:

:lol: @ the no votes outweighing the yes votes :shock:

[ninzel]

So what's the number?
The point of contention seems to be around multiplication of power over a predecessor.One camp feels that the Wii's multiplication of power is lacking. The other side doesn't see that as the issue as the Wii is a multiple of power more than the GC anyway.
So let's deal with the elephant in the room. What's the number. 2x?...3?...3.5?.10X?...

[Frank]

So what's the number?
The point of contention seems to be around multiplication of power over a predecessor.One camp feels that the Wii's multiplication of power is lacking. The other side doesn't see that as the issue as the Wii is a multiple of power more than the GC anyway.
So let's deal with the elephant in the room. What's the number. 2x?...3?...3.5?.10X?...
I would ask: is it more fun than it's predecessor? And do people want it more?

Like with cars: doubling the cubic inches and horse power doesn't mean that it will be an instant (or ever) success.

[LogisticX]

I thought it was pretty clear that it isn't about a multiple applied to the previous gen that must be determined to define next gen.

I think Next Gen should simply mean, the possibility for games to advance. I know this isn't going to be a popular idea but the Wii, even if 2x more powerful than the Xbox, likely does not have the headroom to really offer much more than what was shown in the previous generations games. The scope and limitations will be closely related to that of the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox.

The main point is that the Xbox360 and PS3 should be considered next gen because they give artists and designers the ability to do something we haven't seen before. Of course, after that sentence people will jump in saying that this is true with the Wii as well, and that is true but only to a sense. The artists and designers will still be restricted to the same general constraints they were confined to before, so I don't think we'll see a huge leap in gaming in this respect.

The controller is different, this much is true. But like I've said before, motion based peripherals have been around for ages. With Wii's standard implementation and success, we're likely going to see stuff done with the technology we haven't seen before, so in that respect it is good.

But ultimately, when one looks at the games, it'll likely be more of the same. There's no definitive number to define this leap to next generation, but once a certain threshold is reached (where the threshold really need not be quantified), one can reasonably attain the ability to design a game that was never possible before.


Let's suppose the Wii got a title that was truly fantastic.....the point is, a developer who isn't tied to Nintendo could realistically convert this title up onto the 360 and PS3 with an add on peripheral as seen with Dance Dance Revolution or Guitar Heroes and the experience would be the same. You can't do that the other way around. A game built up on the PS3 or 360 and converted to the Wii will lose something.

That's why I cannot consider it next gen. It's not meant to say that I don't think it's a wonderful idea for a console (and very smart business-wise), but for the reasons I've mentioned above, I can't define it as a "next gen" (current gen realistically) system.

[Frank]

What makes a game fantastic? Really realistically looking graphics? In that case, you can scrap all Wii games up front. And most others as well.

Not that any game has realistic graphics, by any definition.

What makes games "fun"?

[ninzel]

I thought it was pretty clear that it isn't about a multiple applied to the previous gen that must be determined to define next gen.

I think Next Gen should simply mean, the possibility for games to advance. I know this isn't going to be a popular idea but the Wii, even if 2x more powerful than the Xbox, likely does not have the headroom to really offer much more than what was shown in the previous generations games. The scope and limitations will be closely related to that of the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox.

The main point is that the Xbox360 and PS3 should be considered next gen because they give artists and designers the ability to do something we haven't seen before. .

Like? I keep hearing that along with "next gen experience" and they are nice catch phrases but no one has qualified them yet. So far I have not seen it or felt it. Don't get me wrong I really like my PS3 and am more than happy with the games,but they're just souped up versions of last gen.....so far. They aren't fundamentally different in terms of gameplay or design than last gen or what the Wii is doing to a lesser degree. Higher polygon counts don't make a next gen experience IMO.
So that's why I ask what the magic arbitrary number or is this whole "next gen experience destined to live out there in the ether? 2x more powerful...3x...5x.?

[LogisticX]

It isn't simply about acheiving realistic graphics is something I should stress.


But lets suppose we have a game that has 400 enemies on screen at once.

With sufficiently added computational power, developers can attribute unique A.I. to each character and have them running at 30 fps and still maintain the ability to pull the gamer into the world they are trying to create.

Remember, its partly about trying to establish a suspension of disbelief. The part where graphics comes in is here.

There's probably no doubt that Wii could also have 400 models rendered but then how much would have to be sacrified to achieve what may be possible on the PS3 or X360? The suspension of disbelief would be compromised or threatened.

It's like Star Wars. When Star Wars came out, why was it such a phenomenon? The special effects mostly I'd say. People were able to believe that world because it looked real to them, and it seemed plausible in some sense.

That's a huge thing to try and achieve. I'm not trying to say what the PS3 or Xbox360 games will accomplish, i'm just saying what they have the potential to accomplish thanks to the added horsepower they have.

[Frank]

Immersion. Yes, definitely.

But, do you need realistic graphics to archieve that? How about Tetris?

[LogisticX]

No doubt about that. You can still have immersive games without having complex/realistic worlds.


The main point is that, yes, Tetris is an immersive and great game, but PS3 and X360 are fully capable of reproducing the feeling that tetris has to make it immersive.


However, a game on the PS3 or X360 that attains a level of immersion will likely not translate well if you scale it down onto a less sophisticated model.


Scaling up is not the problem, its when you have to scale down that you can lose something that makes a game special.

[Frank]

Atmosphere.

[swaaye]

I got a Wii on launch day. I'm not sure why anymore, considering the lineup currently is terrible. I know I was hoping for the machine to usher in a new level of game immersion thru its new controller. Unfortunately, this blinded me to its utter lack of more than like 2 quality titles. And that its future lineup is almost totally uninteresting to me! Heh.

I also am 100% behind the idea that Nintendo built the machine to look like Ipod hardware. That didn't really occur to me immediately. Hey, 360 is actually in the same boat IMO. Clean, white "solid" feel nonsense. But I think this new style is popular with a lot of people. And companies want on that bandwagon. Personally I would've preferred the Wiimote not look like some sort of medical instrument, but hey, whatever I guess.

Do I think it's a new console and not a rehash? Yes. But, I do think Nintendo went a bit too cheap on the hardware. I think they should've skipped the ubiquitous backwards compatibility and made better use of their transistor budget than supporting ancient Cube tech.

Are its sales a fad? Might me. The same sheep who drop to their knees for Apple music players might be out in force. I dunno. I don't think the machine deserves the sales it's getting, and I'm not sure the sales numbers are going to push the industry in a direction I'd prefer to see it go in.

I find it rather ridiculous that the publishers and devs out there didn't see the opportunities for new money-making ideas that the Wii brings. I did lol. We'll have to see if they just dump ports on it like during the Cube days.

[icecold1983]

imo, no it isnt next gen. its an overclocked gc with gesture recognition. if wii is classified as a next gen console, then by the same logic you would have to classify a 9800 pro as next gen compared to a 9700 pro.

[Diamond.G]

imo, no it isnt next gen. its an overclocked gc with gesture recognition. if wii is classified as a next gen console, then by the same logic you would have to classify a 9800 pro as next gen compared to a 9700 pro.

But the Wii is a next generation console (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_generation_video_games).

[icecold1983]

so if in 6 years, sony releases a ps3 with an overclocked rsx and a built in microphone it will be a next gen console?

[Diamond.G]

so if in 6 years, sony releases a ps3 with an overclocked rsx and a built in microphone it will be a next gen console?

Yup cause it will be apart of the 8th generation of consoles. Did anyone even read the link? From what I can tell it is pretty self explanatory. It should really be called by the numerical generation. That way no one gets confused. Next generation is the 8th gen, i.e. it isn't out yet.

[Emendo]

I follow what wiki has listed on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_generation_era). Therefore my answer is yes.

Yes, but I also noticed Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_generation_era) also listed Atari Flashback 2 and HyperScan in the 7th generation era. Whatever those should be considered next generation would be another interesting thread.:lol:

[Ben-Nice]

Wii is a next generation console with last generation components under the hood and is currently running distinctly last generation games.

I am inclined to change my mind once the Wiimote begins demonstrating its value other than being an alternative input for the similar results / EyeToy-esq party emphasis, but I would lean toward defining a console by the entire package, including the software. And right now the Wii screams, "GCN-esq hardware with GCN games with a different controller". Not much of a next gen product/experience at this point for my tastes especially at the price they currently are holding. $50 more gets you a console that makes the Wii look like 4 year old hardware with games designed for 4 year old hardware -- which it is and they are.

It is Nintendo's new console and it has a few unique advancements, but the overall hardware and software package is retro.


Couldn't have said it better myself. Ports that look worse than PS2 games and GC remakes with a new control scheme don't cut it.

[_xxx_]

Who cares if it's "officially" next-gen or not as long as it's fun. And that it is for sure :)

[Nesh]

I dont count Wii as a next gen console. But I do consider it as something different.

Something like a sideproduct to compliment and complete my gaming experience in terms of what is available

[tongue_of_colicab]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Ports that look worse than PS2 games and GC remakes with a new control scheme don't cut it.

You cant blame Wii for lazy devs doing bad ports to make a quick buck.

[bomlat]

We can see terrible wii games due to that reason this games was designed for the ps3/xb2/pc first and was ported with a small amount of money to the wii.
In the future,when the big money will pushed into the wii,and the small maoney to the other platform we will see good wii games and paintfully bad ps3/xb2/pc ports.
Possibly we will say after a few years, "the first bx2/ps3 games was better than the current one".
Anybody remember for the rebell strike?This was the case in the gc.The first games on the platform was better than the later ones.Right now the 20 million is spended on the ps3,and they spend only a few million onto the wii.Later,when the 20 million will psended onto the wii,and a few million onto the ps3 the ps3/xb2 owners will be humilitated,and we will say sorry for them.

[Entropy]

Which I thought I did. If this is the extent of a dialog with you, I'll try to remember not to waste me time in the future.

Might be just as well.
Since you seem big on logic, but didn't seem to appreciate my position, I'll spell it out in clearer form. A reasonably common trick in logic is to reverse positions and see where you end up - for instance the classical proof of the existance of an infinity of primes is to assume that there is a finite number, and show that this leads to contradiction. What I stated was that while the success of the Wii can't prove that my list was accurate, it does make holding the opposite opinion very difficult, i.e. the position that
- CPU or GPU complexity is a strong sales driver.
- online gaming is a strong sales driver.
- hardware support for complex shader programming is a strong sales driver.
- HD output is a strong sales driver.
becomes an extremely difficult position to support, particularly when the Wii is not playable in testing kiosks (not done due to wireless controls), can't be picked up by impulse due to lack of ready availability, and so on, and still manage to outsell the alternatives that score on all the above points.

And no, you never presented any particularly good arguments. You focussed on strawman logic rather than making a reasonable assessment of the situation.

Shifty Geezer and others are perfectly justified in questioning the sustainability of the Wii success on novelty-is-short grounds, on the other hand all industry accounts point to general game availability improving greatly in the future, availability of the console will obviously improve, Nintendo is well positioned in terms of being able to reduce prices if need be et cetera. Only the future can authoratively answer the question of market shares three years out. And it doesn't change the present.

This whole thread is based on questioning if the Wii is a "next-gen" console. Is it at all comparable with the other two contestants? The perpetual resurfacing of these questions, the unwillingness to acknowledge that the Wii apparently is the most attractive proposition to the majority of the stationary console buyers today, is not too impressive and leads nowhere. Far more interesting to figure out what can be learned from the success of the Wii, and extrapolate/speculate on future developments from there.

I don't own any of the consoles, btw. Been thinking to buy the PS3 to tinker with programming the CPU, but realize that I just don't have the time. There is no bias of ownership.

[schmuck]

Well non of the games look as good as the best on xbox or even ps2.

Perhaps it was released in the same time frame as 360 and ps3, but the hardware is as last gen as it could be.

And as far as the controller goes, i have yet to a single game make use of it in any meaningful way, beyond simple eyetoy like gimmicks..

So no i dont consider it next gen..

[Arwin]

I voted "No", but could have voted "Yes" just as well. I think the Wii spells the end of conventional console generations. You can only talk about next-gen if there is a clear shift in generations. As we've had comparable consoles being launched in a similar time-frame to a similar market in the past, we could talk about certain console generations. However, that requires a certain generalisation. And as generalisations go, they rarely do full justice to reality and ignores stuff, like, say, the SNES being launched in Europe 3 years later than in other regions, for example.

You could just as well talk about next-generation consoles in the context of the manufacturor. For Nintendo, Wii is its next-generation model. As I understand it, DS wasn't meant to be a next-generation GameBoy, but I now consider it highly unlikely that we will see a more conventional successor to the GameBoy, and so it has become the official next-generation handheld from Nintendo.

The only thing that helps making generation distinctions possible in the first place on consoles is the fact that consoles are meant to provide a fixed hardware platform for a certain period of time. This fact will probably help keeping the whole next-generation discussion alive for a little while yet. This combines with the advantage that exists for certain developers in releasing games that share assets across platforms, something which will always exist (but with new tools will also become easier to do and eventually become much less relevant than it is today, which is already less relevant than it was in the past).

The market is becoming more than large enough for competitors on this market to not have to target each other's generation directly with competing products, and the Wii is one first clear example of this.

In other words, my real answer would have to be "neither" or "both". It's Nintendo's next-generation console, but it doesn't belong to the multi-platform next-generation of PS3 or 360, but instead creates a new generation (let's call it the "Touch" Generation ... ha ha).

[-tkf-]

It´s the next gen console from Nintendo but i don´t expect next gen games from it.

Wii is the one night stand of gaming, quick satisfaction and funny controls. This time i´m waiting until it drops in price before i buy it, there just isn´t any games for i want to own, though the controller is a nice gimmick (with the current games) i think the Wii still needs games with depth.

[Ben-Nice]

You cant blame Wii for lazy devs doing bad ports to make a quick buck.

As opposed to what great looking Wii games? In general they are not pushing the hardware graphically or gameplay wise in my opinion.

[lion2]

Nope! The Wii is not a real next gen system. It's not much more powerful than the gamecube and the motion controls could've been easily implemented on the Gamecube (proof being that Gamecubes were early Wii dev machines).

The Wii can never match what the PS3 and 360 can do in terms of graphics capabilities. Microsoft and Sony (Sony already has) can add motion controls to their consoles easily. So No, the Wii is NOT next gen. And yes I do own a Wii and love it.

[whatever7]

I don't think Nintendo had a plan when they decided to go overclocked GameCube. This is the main reason I don't think the Wii is "next-gen". The way I see it. Nintendo couldn't get backward competability working on a faster CPU and decided to stay with GameCube+. I think the success of the Wii is more to do with its packaging than performance.

Now that's not to say that I think the Wii is a "fab". The cheaper the consumer electronic, the more important the packaging is. For example, iPod was never a better machine than its competitors (until maybe the Nano) but the packaging and overall software won over the market.

Another item I use to define "next-gen" is how forward looking the machine is. I don't think Nintendo is very forward looking at all judging from 1) How many unit they planned to make initially 2) genre of the announced Wii games (which are all sequels of the GameCube games)

The Brain Training phenomenon just doesn't happen that often. Maybe once in a decade. But Nintendo is welcomed to prove me wrong. :)

[theafu]

I really wonderi if some in here have had reasonable time with Wii. Since E3 I was skeptical of the system after launch and seeing my own reaction as well friends it be stupid to say this system is a novelty idea. Wii sports is proof this system can reach out to a older casual audience and reel them in. Godfather, blur, and zelda are all clear examples of how it can make tranditional gaming better. Also why is it some are using power of hardware as the only factor of what makes a system next gen, while ignoring controller interface?

[Sis]

And no, you never presented any particularly good arguments. You focussed on strawman logic rather than making a reasonable assessment of the situation.I don't recall making any "strawman logic". I was certainly using "reductio ad absurdum", similar to your thought experiment that highlighted things that Wii didn't need to have (affirming the consequent), my thought experiment demonstrated the fallacy of that reasoning.

But fine, let's argue the point:

You suggest that the Wii sales strongly indicate you don't need HD graphics and other high end features to drive sales. I say, the Xbox 360 has sold > 10 million units and that's nothing to sneeze at. So, apparently, HD graphics and other high end features apparently can drive sales. It just so happens that you don't have to have those features in order to also be successful.

[Farid]

Interesting topic, it reminded me about something I saw on a French online retailer website, Alapage (http://www.alapage.com/-/Selection/JeuxVideo/0501/) (a company owned by France Télécom for the financial blokes among us).

This topic about Wii being worthy of the "next-gen" moniker or not seems to be more than a forum topic of discussion only. The press discussed the topic, barely or badly, as usual with the gaming press; but now it seems that even a retailer is anecdotally confused about the, albeit nothing but symbolic, next-gen-ness nature of the Nintendo Wii.

http://xs514.xs.to/xs514/07153/alapage.png

It's just a an amusing anecdote, by the way.

Now, with that humorous part put aside, what do I have to say on the subject of the Wii being a "next-gen console" or not?

Simple, it boils down to what definition of a next-gen console do we agree with?

If one believes that a new product released on the public market and which succeed to an older product defines as being a next-generation product, or that the manufacturer of the product is the only one who can declare the nature of their product then yes, the Wii can be called next-generation.
Now, on the other hand, if someone considers that it takes a technological leap, not necessarily in terms of performances, since it can be architectural first and foremost, between two product to be considered a next generation product and not just a "refresh", then no, the Wii can't be called next-gen, seeing that the its architectural differences and the performance leap over the Gamecube are not not large, nor order of magnitude higher than the previous product.

So, the answer is just that, it's up to each and everyone to decide what they want to consider the Wii. A sizable chunk of the most technological versed folks, not uncommon in the B3D fauna, can be heavily tempted to go with the "if its technology, silicon wise, is not a lot more advanced compared to the product it replaces, then it's a refresh, not a next gen." Just as the gaming versed crowd could go with the "it plays new games, has a different control scheme, thus it's new" motto. But, the thing is, both are right when described in their own terms.


The sociology fans around there might try to argue, rightfully so, that everything is right when described in their own term. While true in nature, when it comes technology, unlike many other topics, strong consensus do exist. And whereas it would be considered completely preposterous to argue that in technological term the Xbox 360 and the PS3 are just refreshes of the PS2 and Xbox architecture, with some more RAM added to them, it would be considered as an valid topic, albeit simplistic in itself (and you probably know how much I do not appreciate simplifications when it comes to technology.)

With that said, I agree with the folks who say that it takes more than more performances to be considered "next-gen." Architectural changes are as much important, if not more. Well, that doesn't help the Wii case, though.
If we take a look to our other favourite subject of discussion here at B3D, the graphical chips and cards, we'll find interesting case studies. For instance, is the very low end part (64bit, cheap and slow RAM, slow clocks, small number of working ALU arrays, low number of ROPs etc...) of a new architecture can be considered "next-gen" when compared to the "last-gen" high end (256bit, fast RAM, lots of it, high speed, lots of working shader cores, high filtrate, etc...)?
There again, a debate could take place, although, personally, even in the unfair case of a comparison between a very low end part and a high end one, I would consider the new architecture as worthy of the term next-gen, even though the real world performances are ridiculous once put side to side with the last-gen high end part. Simply, because the new part represent a (relative, and more often than not, incremental) paradigm shit technologically speaking. Now, of course, it's easier to call something next-gen when it's both architecturally new and perfoms better than the last parts on the market, but it was a point I wanted to address, nevertheless, performances at not all, it's true. Just in Wii case, it doesn't have any to pledge in its favor, when its next-gen nature is argued on a technological level.

The tl;dr sum up
It's up to anyone to decide wether the Wii is next-gen or not. Someone who could follow the cannonical behavior of the technologists, could surely deny the Wii's right to be called "next-gen" and would refer to it as a "new product" or a "refresh." While someone, technologicaly savvy or not, who is more open to the gaming side of it all could be more eager to take things to face value, it's a new console that succeed to another one, it plays new games and it has a new control scheme, and declare that, of course, it's "next-gen," why not?

P.S.: you'll note that I succeed in writting a long post about the possible answer to a question without even responding to it. Awesome, isn't it?

[cthellis42]

Yes. And no.

To wit: the distinction is meaningless by itself, as it is subjective towards what an individual personally believes "generations" to be. Some can't distinguish iPod generations and mainly rely on product name changes. Some don't count "enhancements" or rebrandings, and look for major differentiations. Some have one very personal trait they feel like stressing, and think true "next-generation" should apply to only THAT, thereby making the term even more like arbitrary commentary rather than anything remotely concrete.

Personally, the surface answer is the best. "Yes, this is Nintendo's next-generation console." If you want anything anything more specific or informative, you're going to have to tell me what you're looking for.

[Moonblade]

You cant blame Wii for lazy devs doing bad ports to make a quick buck.
But you can blame developers for lazy nintendo doing low-end consoles to make a quick buck ofcourse.

The classical chicken or the egg dilemma. :wink:

At this moment, I agree with Joshua Luna but consoles can only look brighter in the future, whether they are 'next-gen' or not.

[tongue_of_colicab]

Oh please. Yeah we all know nintendo are a bunch of baddies trying to rip the consumers off will MS and Sony are giving away their hard and software for free.

Seriously its a poor attampt at trying to flame nintendo for building something you dont like and it has nothing to do with the point of devs trying to make a quick buck.

[Moonblade]

Seriously its a poor attampt at trying to flame nintendo for building something you dont like and it has nothing to do with the point of devs trying to make a quick buck.
Nope and .. nope.
I'm just saying that you can't blame developers for not being able to perform miracles. Part of it can be blamed on the developers but a part can also be blamed on the hardware including the controller.

[tongue_of_colicab]

In what way can you blame hardware 3/4 times faster than ps2 for generating mid range ps2 gfx because devs use ported ps2 engines?

[Moonblade]

1. I don't think nintendo ever released official Wii specs.

2. Even if it's 3 times more 'powerful' than a PS2, it still doesn't mean games can look 3 times better.

3. This is my last post in this topic since we're going off-topic and Vysez already summed it up really nice.

[tongue_of_colicab]

1. I don't think nintendo ever released official Wii specs.

2. Even if it's 3 times more 'powerful' than a PS2, it still doesn't mean games can look 3 times better.

3. This is my last post in this topic since we're going off-topic and Vysez already summed it up really nice.

1. That doesnt mean we dont know anything about the hardware. Alot more memory and 2x clockspeeds are basically confirmed so that would put it above GC and ps2 no matter what.

2. No but it also doesnt mean gfx actually have to look worse than the games on the last gen console. So you can blame that on the devs, not the hardware.

3. Seems like a good idea as you dont seem to be interrested in having a discussion at a worthy level and rather talk alot of nonsense.

[Diamond.G]

To lighten up the mood in here a lil bit.
http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Dave/comicwii1.png

[Kryton]

It's surprising the amount of novelty a new input device can offer. A bit like the DS, touch-pad was new.. did well. Personally, I think the media have ensured Wii's success by building it up as a 'revolution' since the internal code-word leaked. If it with this aspect (which I suspect has caused all the sales as people rush to find out what is so 'revolutionary'), I still view it as last-gen. Even the DreamCast had a motion sensing fishing-rod which everyone enjoyed :twisted:, if Sega brought it back with an "OMG" attitude and offered positioning capability they could easily give Wii a run for the money.

[Frank]

The next generation is simply that: the new kid. If it is decided the market wants something simpler, slower, smaller and cheaper, that would be next-gen as well.

[Kryton]

The next generation is simply that: the new kid. If it is decided the market wants something simpler, slower, smaller and cheaper, that would be next-gen as well.

I think people here take a more pragmatic view. The market may want a simpler, slower, smaller, cheaper console but nothing stops the heavy-weights offering such an experience in their games. What people seem to be intrigued about with the Wii is purely the motion-sensing, this is a novelty as much as it was in the 90s. It died then so people here (who remember it) are naturally sceptical over its reincarnated form.

[Entropy]

I think people here take a more pragmatic view. The market may want a simpler, slower, smaller, cheaper console but nothing stops the heavy-weights offering such an experience in their games.
Hmm. You're mixing "console" with "games" here.
The heavyweights may or may not be able to offer a similar experience in their games, but they cannot offer the same console ergonomics this generation.

What people seem to be intrigued about with the Wii is purely the motion-sensing, this is a novelty as much as it was in the 90s. It died then so people here (who remember it) are naturally sceptical over its reincarnated form.

It's a different implementation introduced to another demographic. But I'd like to point out that you are simply wrong in claiming that the motion sensing is the only thing that attracts customers. While it is instrumental in the fun-factor and party worthiness of the console, the fact that the Wii is extremely compact, offers wireless controls out of the box, and is silent are also big pluses in many peoples books. Being cheaper than the new Sony and Microsoft offerings doesn't hurt either.

The only one I know who has bought a PS3 sent it back because he thought it made too much noise. (Buying it partly due to Blu-Ray.) The 360 is no better. The low power draw and quiet, compact design of the Wii adds to its appeal. It may not be the most important factor, but it doesn't have to be in order to affect consumer attraction and satisfaction.

[archangelmorph]

It's a different implementation introduced to another demographic. But I'd like to point out that you are simply wrong in claiming that the motion sensing is the only thing that attracts customers.

It's definitely the fundemental defining point of the console and by far the biggest reason the vast majority of buyers (especially casuals and non-gamers) have jumped on board.. The second biggest being price.. The other factors you mentioned are significantly minor to most users and I definitely don't see them being in any way the driver of consumer purchase of nintendos little box (Especially since most casuals probably didn't know it had wifi or was quiet until they got it home and read the manual)..

The only one I know who has bought a PS3 sent it back because he thought it made too much noise. (Buying it partly due to Blu-Ray.) The 360 is no better.
He must have incredibly sensitive hearing because the PS3 is as quiet as a mouse.. The xbox360 on the other hand is a different story..
Plus your arguement isn't even relevant because if what you say is true then it's obvious your friend bought his PS3 because he was looking for a low cost Blu-ray device and not specifically for the gaming functionality offered.. In contrast neither the Wii nor the Xbox360 offers Blu-ray playback functionality at all..

[_xxx_]

Well for me it was not the price but rather the low noise/power and the sleek design.

Motion sensing a novelty? Have you actually played Wii Sports? To me, the motion sensing is THE best thing since sliced bread.

My shoulders and biceps are still recovering from a long Wii-boxing session with friends two days ago :)