Japanese Mag: Wii vs PS3

[Shifty Geezer]

The tech advantage that ps3 has over Wii will not play a role for the majority of these unique games released in Japan and in fact the ps3 hardware is a limiter in comparison to Wii for unique titles on two fronts:

1) User interface
2) Developer interface (cost)

I can argue against this a bit (for the sake of arguing!). Interface, you're right on the whole, but EyeToy has a lot of potential. Look at that EyeToy game. Consoles+Monster Card Games has to be appealing to mainstream Japan! Depending where EyeToy fits in, and what devs do with DS3, there's as much potential there for different. Unlike Wii, different isn't the primary development approach for the console though - PS3 is more about options. Similarly for develop interface (cost), if you're not writing a super technical game, you don't need to spend the money. Any dev can limit themselves to the PPE and RSX, with conventional code, and outperform Wii in all likelihood. You don't need to master 6 SPE's for Mahjonng and whatever J-titles these devs want to produce. As you say, most titles are simple, and PS3 doesn't have to be complicated.

But overall lower dev costs and higher profitability will lead these unique, different titles to Wii. This title diversity that has historically been on ps2 will lead others to bring their bigger titles to Wii as well. While they may not compare graphically to ps3, they will still be there and will still sell because many users will not be able to pay the price of admission with ps3.

That's a possibility. But I think you're confusing my argument. The 'tech card' was played against PC999 in regards to key titles. On lesser titles, the masses of J-games that never make it across to the west because they too darned wierd for us and would be about as commercially successful as French art-house movies in Hollywood, tech isn't so important. Devs can produce cheap games on Wii. They could also produce the same cheap games on PS3. Maybe not as cheap, but they don't have to extract every resource out of the console. When designing a game, design the game, and then worry about what the hardware needs to do. The only people who start their game design trying to extract every drop of performance from the hardware should be 1st parties who are paid to showcase the machine! So development cost shouldn't be a deterrent to developing on PS3. Hardware cost of course is the major issue and that might draw away developers from PS3. But as has been said, 3rd parties don't tend to do too well on Nintendo hardware, and maybe they'll prefer to stay out of Nintendo's playground? Or maybe the Wii controller gets on everyone's nerves after the firsts month and the machine never gets any playtime, at which point devs avoid the machine as a turkey? Or maybe in some unexpected turn of social economics, PS3 is viewed as the toy to have, and everyone saves like mad to get one?

So yeah, the greater software library could well go to Wii. Plenty of reason to think it might. Or it could not. Plenty of reason to think it won't. You never can tell with Woozles.

 

[KimB]

I was having an internal struggle whether to use was or not. But clearly, since the end is near (I'd say the end is probably defined by the release of the last GCN Zelda). But anyway, the last releases have been rather disappointing or non existant.

Well, I don't know about that:
http://cube.gamespy.com/reviews/?&c...grid.sort=Date&constraint.grid.sortorder=desc

Anyway, back on topic, I think the Wii will do very well here in the States, too. It really seemed to make a splash at E3, so it seems like many people are at least curious about the control setup. As long as they can deliver with a few good games at launch, it'll basically be a slam dunk for Nintendo.

The high price for the PS3 is going to turn a lot of people off.

 

[pc999]

As this is a Wii versus PS3 thread, if we can't compare them, the thread shouldn't be here

My first post it has been just to alert to something (that seems unjustified now).

Eg the only time that I felt interested in Madden in the last year it has been when it does have one of the few official XB360 ss out there, but in this for wii I am interested in knowing more and even try it, the same for resistense and red steel.

But I do agree that PS3 also doe have a lot of potential with DS3 and (if standard) EyeToy, it is just petty they (both) didnt included a micro.

 

[Powderkeg]

Overall, it was much better. We had more games, more 3rd-party games, more M-rated games, and more T-rated games. The only downside in the library was that most of the games were cross-platform and only a tiny handful of the 3rd-party titles took advantage of the hardware.

And yet they sold about 10 million fewer Gamecubes than they did the N64.

I believe the primary reason for that is Nintendo still relies on 1st party titles almost exclusively to sell it's systems, and the GCN Mario, Zelda, and other games weren't nearly as good as their N64 counterparts. And as I said earlier, Nintendo owners don't normally buy 3rd party titles, so the increase in the number of 3rd party games didn't help sales a bit.

Also your point about most of the games being 3rd party and not taking advantage of the hardware is a situation that will probably be much worse on the Wii. With the significantly lower-spec hardware and controller porting won't be an option for some games. And after coming in 3rd place last-gen, I don't see a lot of 3rd party developers willing to put a ton of work into exclusive Wii games until after Nintendo proves it can sell the system and 3rd party games can sell on the system. Sure, some bones will be thrown the Wii way, but as Capcom did with RE, I think you'll see most developers playing it safe with their big franchises, and target the 360 and PS3 with those, and maybe porting to the Wii if its not a lot of trouble and cost.

Nintendo needs to do something radically different to attract more gamers, and I don't believe their controller is nearly enough. They seem to be trying to expand the Nintendo fan market rather than expanding in the gamer market, offering a slightly different way to play the same old games. Yeah, the controller is neat, but it's still the same old Mario. Not that Mario is bad, but if they want to attract new people they should give a lot of thought into placing their focus in 1st party games into new IP's, preferrably ones that don't follow the traditional Nintendo looks, design and feel.

 

[Powderkeg]

Anyway, back on topic, I think the Wii will do very well here in the States, too. It really seemed to make a splash at E3, so it seems like many people are at least curious about the control setup. As long as they can deliver with a few good games at launch, it'll basically be a slam dunk for Nintendo.

E3 is a horrible benchmark to try to guess the market from. It's a big convention of the biggest nerds in gaming. It's video gaming's version of a Star Trek convention. Most of the people there are the kings and queens of geekdom.

So naturally they go gah-gah over any new little piece of tech that looks different and even slightly interesting. Doesn't mean the rest of the world will.

The high price for the PS3 is going to turn a lot of people off.

That I agree with.

In the western markets I believe the 360, and the Wii to a degree will pick up a lot of those turned off people. In Japan it's really hard to say. I think at least as many people who don't buy the PS3 because of the price will simply stop playing console games as there will be switching to the Wii. I don't think the 360 sales will increase at all though.

 

[pc999]

Nintendo needs to do something radically different to attract more gamers, and I don't believe their controller is nearly enough. They seem to be trying to expand the Nintendo fan market rather than expanding in the gamer market, offering a slightly different way to play the same old games. Yeah, the controller is neat, but it's still the same old Mario. Not that Mario is bad, but if they want to attract new people they should give a lot of thought into placing their focus in 1st party games into new IP's, preferrably ones that don't follow the traditional Nintendo looks, design and feel.

I agree with that, althought/again it seems that they are going the right direction with games like ReedSteel, Resident Evil, Sadness and (IIRC) a few more right in the first year shows that they are doing some things right.

They are doing by themselfs games that are said to be more mature themed like Disaster(or even RS) made by them also show some will to do it.

Still things like project hammer and such are useless IMO.

 

[compres]

As investigated in this thread...
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=790329&postcount=89
It depends on whether no-one buys sequels and has more than one of those games.
GTA's top seller, Vice City, from 40 million US PS2s, sold about 7 million copies. Now if every GTA:VC buyer never had GTA3, the GTA franchise covers 13 million unit, 25%. But if as is more likely, GTA3 owners bought the next title in the series, GTA accounts for 7 million of 40 million consoles. Similarly looking at Madden, the best selling version was 2004 with 3.6 million. The total sold is something like 15+ million. Did everyone who bought Madden only buy one version? Chances are they 'upgraded' to a new version.

If people upgrade, looking at just the best selling version of each franchise we get Madden+GTA+NFS+MoH+FF = 7 + 3.5 + 3 + 2.5 + 2.5 = 18.5. Maybe half of users have one of these games if no-one who owns one of these franchises owns any of the others. The moment an owner of one has a copy of another, that's halved, down to 25%.

Even grouped together, key titles don't represent the majority of users choice of games. Pick the top 10 best selling titles in the US and you only cover maybe 20-30% of gamers owning them. The rest of the library still makes up most purchases, those hundreds and thousands of game people pick off a shelf but which never get a mention on hardcore gamer forums who are on the lookout for the creme-de-la-creme. So if you have two consoles both with the key franchises, one being cheaper than the other and everything else about the games the same, it's no certainty or even likelihood the cheaper console will be bought to play those franchises over the more expensive console. It depends on what else the consoles offer. Having key franchises is one sells point of a dozen or two factors that come to play.

ie. If Wii comes with Madden and GTA and NFS, and costs half as much as an XB360, that's no guarentee it'll be bought for those franchises over XB360. Graphics, gameplay, and rest of library are but some of the other factors involved. I personally would expect the XB360 to be the console of choice for these titles, as I think the gamers who like those titles would prefer the better graphics, HD output, conventional interface (not hiking balls!) etc.

You are asuming those 40 million ps2s are in good working condition. To my experience ps2 was a very(crap) faulty piece of hardware, and many people bought 2 and some even 3.

However I see and agree with your point.

 

[slider]

Parekh makes the case that we're all prisoners of our subjectivity.

I've never had a problem with my PS2 (5+ years!) and I'm sure a lot of other people are in the same situation. Others, however, may have not been so lucky.

 

[patsu]

I can argue against this a bit (for the sake of arguing!). Interface, you're right on the whole, but EyeToy has a lot of potential. Look at that EyeToy game. Consoles+Monster Card Games has to be appealing to mainstream Japan! Depending where EyeToy fits in, and what devs do with DS3, there's as much potential there for different. Unlike Wii, different isn't the primary development approach for the console though - PS3 is more about options. Similarly for develop interface (cost), if you're not writing a super technical game, you don't need to spend the money. Any dev can limit themselves to the PPE and RSX, with conventional code, and outperform Wii in all likelihood. You don't need to master 6 SPE's for Mahjonng and whatever J-titles these devs want to produce. As you say, most titles are simple, and PS3 doesn't have to be complicated.

That's a possibility. But I think you're confusing my argument. The 'tech card' was played against PC999 in regards to key titles. On lesser titles, the masses of J-games that never make it across to the west because they too darned wierd for us and would be about as commercially successful as French art-house movies in Hollywood, tech isn't so important. Devs can produce cheap games on Wii. They could also produce the same cheap games on PS3. Maybe not as cheap, but they don't have to extract every resource out of the console. When designing a game, design the game, and then worry about what the hardware needs to do. The only people who start their game design trying to extract every drop of performance from the hardware should be 1st parties who are paid to showcase the machine! So development cost shouldn't be a deterrent to developing on PS3. Hardware cost of course is the major issue and that might draw away developers from PS3. But as has been said, 3rd parties don't tend to do too well on Nintendo hardware, and maybe they'll prefer to stay out of Nintendo's playground? Or maybe the Wii controller gets on everyone's nerves after the firsts month and the machine never gets any playtime, at which point devs avoid the machine as a turkey? Or maybe in some unexpected turn of social economics, PS3 is viewed as the toy to have, and everyone saves like mad to get one?

So yeah, the greater software library could well go to Wii. Plenty of reason to think it might. Or it could not. Plenty of reason to think it won't. You never can tell with Woozles.

I didn't have time to follow the thread, but Shifty's points are closer to my heart as usual.

* Looking at Katamari, Loco Roco, PS3 hit games don't have to exhaust all its power. The "Beyond" platform may also introduce more possibilities in Japan. None of these has to do with whether more (or fewer) people like Wii today. It's difficult to see the future of each consoles just by polling families before launch.

* PS3's build quality, look & feel, values (possibly with bundled games/movies), demos, ... will shape the consumers' mind quite a fair bit (once people have an opportunity to touch a PS3). I do not know which way they will swing, but the consumers at large can be a fickled-minded bunch.

* Comparing PS3 to PSP's current trend may be a little off too, since PSP enjoys zero marketing from Sony. Hiraz mentioned earlier this year/late last year that Sony will focus on PS3 and let PSP auto-pilot in the market. Looking at the current PS3 situation, I agree with him. But I was flabbergasted when I received the news. PSP is a great platform, and there is much potential. If Hiraz statement is true, PSP is selling merely on its own product strength now... like a desserted soldier fighting alone in the trenches against Nintendo's well organized battalions. The current sales number speaks of PSP's raw survival capability, rather than what its future could hold.

* Wii and PS3 are incomparable because they are increasingly different things: Hi-tech Toy vs Hi-end Entertainment Equipment. They are comparable regarding their heritage. As someone noted earlier in this thread, depending on the demography polled, the answer will be different.

 

[fearsomepirate]

And as I said earlier, Nintendo owners don't normally buy 3rd party titles

Cube's attach rate was about 7. I'll bet the 1st-party attach rate isn't like 6.8 or something. I don't have hard data, but I don't know any Cube owners who own zero 3rd-party titles. I'll agree that it didn't help sales. However, it is undeniable that

a) Nintendo's engineering was better
b) Their software library was better
c) Their 3rd-party relationships were better
d) The quantity and diversity of titles was improved
e) Quality of titles gravitated toward the high-middle. N64 was "really good," "really bad," and very little in between.

The only things that went downhill were sales and brand perception. So while the Cube generation was worse financially for Nintendo, I would argue strenuously that it's a far better system for gamers.

I think you're wrong about the software. Porting from PS3 to Wii is as feasible as porting from PS2 to DS. The situation with the current generation is that engines were designed for the PS2 (granted, at kind of a high level) and ported to the Xbox and GC. Hence, you got a lot of low polygon counts, low-res textures, 4-bit textures, and were very limited in the number of light sources and things. It didn't make any financial sense to change over art assets, level design, and engine features for that extra 20% of sales. So things that aren't too hard to do on Cube just weren't done because they were either near-impossible on PS2 or done in such an alien way as to make them impossible to port over. With Wii, that is not the case at all. What motivation is there for a level designer to put only 2 light sources in a room? Why on earth would anyone be using 4-bit CLUTs in a Wii game? Water effects apparently aren't terribly hard to program; what motivation is there to leave them out of a Wii game? Why would you deliberately make your in-game models blocky and not put more than 5 guys on screen just because the PS2, which you're not programming for anymore, couldn't handle it?

Plus, programmers get bored. In the current generation, you had a couple guys assigned to porting the engine and assets of a PS2 game over to the Gamecube. They weren't assigned to add any special effects or make any new textures or flesh out the player models at all. With Wii, what will the blocky models, low-res textures, and archaic graphics engine be ported over from? So instead you'll have a team of guys making a Wii game, and they're going to have a lot more liberty with what they can do with the graphics engine. Instead of trying to transfer over PS2 code and debugging it, they'll just be trying to make a good, solid Wii engine. After pushing out a Wii game or two every year (especially if selling 250,000 copies of a Wii title makes you as much money as selling 1 million copies of a PS3 game), they'll get more acquainted with the hardware and stick more stuff in the engine. You won't have the PS2 totally limiting what the teams are basically allowed to do. Come on. Ask any programmer here. They like putting a little pizazz in their engines. If they don't have the "we're porting from the PS2" restriction, why on earth would they act like they were? A group who's doing Wii software day in and day out isn't going to say "Well, putting an emboss map on this sand is trivially easy on this machine, and we've already got some normal maps for sand from our X360 libraries that can be downscaled and converted to emboss in about 15 seconds, but since it was a bitch to program on the now dead-and-gone PS2, we're not doing it!"

 

[Powderkeg]

Cube's attach rate was about 7. I'll bet the 1st-party attach rate isn't like 6.8 or something. I don't have hard data, but I don't know any Cube owners who own zero 3rd-party titles.

I didn't say they never bought 3rd party titles, only that they normally didn't. Ever Gamecube owner I know has 3-4 1st party titles for every 3rd party game they own for the system.

I'll agree that it didn't help sales. However, it is undeniable that

a) Nintendo's engineering was better

How do you figure?

b) Their software library was better

I say it was worse. Larger, but the overall quality was lower.

c) Their 3rd-party relationships were better

I think it was about the same. At first there were more 3rd party developers willing to make games for the system but as title after title flopped in sales those developers started looking elsewhere for money.

d) The quantity and diversity of titles was improved

Yes, but the quality was lower.

e) Quality of titles gravitated toward the high-middle. N64 was "really good," "really bad," and very little in between.

Overall quality gravitated towards the mediocre to good range, with very few games being considered great. The Gamecube never did have a game on the level of Mario64, Goldeneye, or Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

The only things that went downhill were sales and brand perception. So while the Cube generation was worse financially for Nintendo, I would argue strenuously that it's a far better system for gamers.

I would argue that the quality of games were noticably inferior to the N64, and taking a step back in the quality of games you offer is never a good thing.

I think you're wrong about the software. Porting from PS3 to Wii is as feasible as porting from PS2 to DS.

And just how well do you think you could do Socom on the DS?

There is a lack of buttons on the Wii controller, and you can't use tilts to replace buttons for every game. The Wii controller is great for the more basic arcade style games, but when you get into a game that uses a complex controller configuration that makes use of every button on the PS2, Xbox, or 360 then the only option on the Wii would be to require Wii owners to buy a seperate controllers, and how many developers make games that require controllers that don't come with the system?

The situation with the current generation is that engines were designed for the PS2 (granted, at kind of a high level) and ported to the Xbox and GC. Hence, you got a lot of low polygon counts, low-res textures, 4-bit textures, and were very limited in the number of light sources and things. It didn't make any financial sense to change over art assets, level design, and engine features for that extra 20% of sales. So things that aren't too hard to do on Cube just weren't done because they were either near-impossible on PS2 or done in such an alien way as to make them impossible to port over. With Wii, that is not the case at all. What motivation is there for a level designer to put only 2 light sources in a room? Why on earth would anyone be using 4-bit CLUTs in a Wii game? Water effects apparently aren't terribly hard to program; what motivation is there to leave them out of a Wii game? Why would you deliberately make your in-game models blocky and not put more than 5 guys on screen just because the PS2, which you're not programming for anymore, couldn't handle it?

Game design goes beyond the graphics. Say you've got a game that uses 512MB of Data and you've got to figure out how to make that work on the 128MB of RAM that the Wii provides, you've got to cut out 75% of the data your game uses to make it work. What are you going to cut? Textures are obvious, but somehow I doubt that 384MB of your game will be expendable textures.

Plus, programmers get bored. In the current generation, you had a couple guys assigned to porting the engine and assets of a PS2 game over to the Gamecube. They weren't assigned to add any special effects or make any new textures or flesh out the player models at all. With Wii, what will the blocky models, low-res textures, and archaic graphics engine be ported over from?

They won't be ported from anything since the Wii will be the weakest system by far.

The question you should be asking is how are they going to take a game that is designed around high res textures, lots of shader effects, complex controller design, uses 512MB of RAM, and physics generated by either a 3 core 3.2GHZ CPU or Cell, and then make that game work on the Wii.

So instead you'll have a team of guys making a Wii game, and they're going to have a lot more liberty with what they can do with the graphics engine.

Why would they make a Wii game? Despite what developers might like to do they WILL make a game to make money in which case they will target the system with the largest userbase, or the largest potential userbase. Right now, and for the next year at least the 360 has the largest userbase, and the PS3 is seen as the system with the largest potential userbase.

No one but Nintendo fans actually believe Nintendo will finsih #1 next gen, but there aren't even enough of them to make the GCN outsell the Xbox.


Like I said, the Wii will get some bones thrown to it. A few developers are always willing to take a chance on a couple fo games in hopes of landing a major hit, but the vast majority will play it safe, and right now safe is multiplatform designed around the 360 and PS3 capabilities.

Instead of trying to transfer over PS2 code and debugging it, they'll just be trying to make a good, solid Wii engine. After pushing out a Wii game or two every year (especially if selling 250,000 copies of a Wii title makes you as much money as selling 1 million copies of a PS3 game), they'll get more acquainted with the hardware and stick more stuff in the engine. You won't have the PS2 totally limiting what the teams are basically allowed to do.

No, you will have a relatively equal PS3 and 360 (With an existing userbase of 5-6 million and counting) and a Wiii that is significantly weaker.

The question is, would developers want their PS3 and 360 games to be hald back to the Wii limitations, or would they decide that no, they want their games to use the full power of the 360 and PS3 which means the game wouldn't work on the far lower spec Wii?

I rather suspect most developers will go with the PS3/360 combo, and forget the Wii. Those who design around the Wii specs should expect their PS3 and 360 versions to sell poorly since they will be noticably inferior to other PS3 and 360 games.

Come on. Ask any programmer here. They like putting a little pizazz in their engines. If they don't have the "we're porting from the PS2" restriction, why on earth would they act like they were? A group who's doing Wii software day in and day out isn't going to say "Well, putting an emboss map on this sand is trivially easy on this machine, and we've already got some normal maps for sand from our X360 libraries that can be downscaled and converted to emboss in about 15 seconds, but since it was a bitch to program on the now dead-and-gone PS2, we're not doing it!"

Ask any developer here that if they had to bet their employers future (And thus their own source of income) on a game would they design that game around the PS3/360 or would they design it around the Wii.

I'm certain the vast majority would not bet their future on the Wii.

 

[KimB]

Powderkeg, your entire argument seems to stem from the idea that the power of the hardware is the most important thing that differentiates consoles. That couldn't be further from the truth.

It's always about the games. Always. And the Wii has a tremendous advantage when it comes to games: due to the unique control interfaces, you'll be able to have dramatically different gameplay than has been possible on any other console. Given the glowing praise from people who were able to try out the Wii during E3, I expect that most of those who actually try the console will consider it to be a must-have. Game developers will flock to whatever console sells the most. Given the Wii's showing at E3, I imagine that there are a number of developers looking at some making some of the early titles.

For the more hardcore players, for example, the Wii controller is the first console controller that has a chance in hell of approaching the mouse+keyboard control scheme for FPS games.

As for porting games, well, we'll have to see. The primary obstacle will be the CPU, not the graphics (graphics scale very easily).

 

[fearsomepirate]

I figure Nintendo's engineering was better because nothing was crippling the system or making it damn near impossible to program. The chips in the N64 were theoretically powerful, but the crippling memory issues (RAM latency and tiny texture cache) kept the games from looking as good as they should have. By contrast, nearly every game on the Cube runs pretty smooth and looks pretty sharp, even the crappy ones that were ported over from PS2 by a brain-damaged monkey. ERP once remarked that it's actually difficult to write code that runs poorly on Cube. I sometimes can barely believe that the GPU is only a fraction as powerful as the XGPU and the whole machine only has 24 MB of main memory to play with. It's well-designed: Cheap to build, long-lasting, and the software runs well. Also, the controllers last a lot longer.

I say it was worse. Larger, but the overall quality was lower.

I guess that's personal opinion, but having recently gotten into the N64 retro scene I can't believe how many titles are just plain broken or how many reputed "gems" are actually steaming piles of crap. It is damn hard to find an N64 game without a headache-inducing framerate, sloppy controls, and gameplay that amounts to something more than "collect the stupid tokens." If Conker's Bad Fur Day and Perfect Dark are highly-rated "must-have classics," I shudder to think what you guys considered "bad" N64 games. And before you object, I do tailor my expectations to the generation. By contrast, I have rarely been thoroughly disappointed by Cube software (35 titles and counting). I've had fun with everything from Fight Night Round 2 to Resident Evil 4. Even something completely uninspired like X-Men Legends 2 is far, far more enjoyable and better-executed than something like Star Wars Pod Racer or 007: The World is Not Enough. I don't care that most of the games are cross-platform. I don't feel morally obligated to hate a game just because somewhere, someone is playing it on a PS2. So I play Timesplitters more than anything else on the Gamecube. Sue me.

I think it was about the same. At first there were more 3rd party developers willing to make games for the system but as title after title flopped in sales those developers started looking elsewhere for money.

IGN rated 301 games for the N64. Of those, 87 were published by Nintendo, or 29%.
IGN rated 483 games for the Gamecube. Of those, 48 were published by Nintendo, or 10%.

When I said the "relationships" were better, I meant the "relationships." There was a lot of bad blood between Nintendo and a number of companies during the 64 days over cartridges, support, and the availability of devkits. That all seems to have changed with Gamecube. Not doing much business because it's not making you rich is different than not doing business because the comany's policies make development a living hell.

Overall quality gravitated towards the mediocre to good range, with very few games being considered great.

Agreed.

The Gamecube never did have a game on the level of Mario64, Goldeneye, or Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

Opinion. I thought Goldeneye was merely "okay" when I played it back in the late 90's (to be fair, thought the same thing of Halo). I think Resident Evil 4 is as good as Ocarina of Time. I think Metroid Prime is as good as Mario 64 if not better. I think most people's claim that the N64 had "better" games is based on nostalgic feelings for staying up late in college with their buddies getting drunk and perforating heads in Goldeneye and that first "OMG ITS 3D!!" feeling. The fact is that the N64 had a tiny number of great games that everyone played to death, and this is what people remember. They conveniently forget that almost everything else on the system either sucked or was done better in the current generation.

And just how well do you think you could do Socom on the DS?

You couldn't. Especially not since it's a Sony game. And that's the point. How many broken ports of PS2 engines are released on the DS? Zero. Thank God. Developers are instead writing DS-based engines that for the most part look pretty nice and run pretty smooth. And frankly, the new Panzer Tactics looks a lot more exciting than the next "Like the PS2 version, but broken!" version of Gun coming out for PSP.

but when you get into a game that uses a complex controller configuration that makes use of every button on the...360

...then you're playing it on your 360. (PS2 and Xbox won't be available to port things from)

then the only option on the Wii would be to require Wii owners to buy PS3s

Fixed for accuracy.

They won't be ported from anything since the Wii will be the weakest system by far.

Which is what I was talking about. Why did you waste all that time telling me how hard it would be to port something from X360? Wii will mostly be exclusives and "franchise titles" that are related to the flashier games on X360/PS3, but not exactly the same.

The question you should be asking is how are they going to take a game that is designed around high res textures, lots of shader effects, complex controller design, uses 512MB of RAM, and physics generated by either a 3 core 3.2GHZ CPU or Cell, and then make that game work on the Wii.

Why would they make a Wii game? Despite what developers might like to do they WILL make a game to make money

Which is why developers make money for everything that sells video games. Cell phones, PC, Internet, GBA, DS, PSP, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox, X360, and in the future, PS3 and Wii. Imagining that devs just plain won't make games because they can't port from X360/PS3 is not in line with reality. If Wii owners are consistently buying games and making publishers money, they'll keep getting games. Like I said, if 250,000 copies sold of a Wii games makes a publisher more bank than 750,000 copies of a PS3 game, they have every financial reason to devote teams to developing modestly-selling Wii titles.

[qutoe]and right now safe is multiplatform designed around the 360 and PS3 capabilities.[/quote]

Ah, that explains why a lot of small studios are complaining that one miss on 360/PS3 will be expensive enough to bankrupt them. Oh right, everyone is just going to start making Missile Command clones on XBLA.

You know what I don't get? You apparently think Cube sucked because almost all the games were cross-platform, while your whole paradigm for next-gen is cross-platform development and the basis of your predictions of Wii's demise. After all, no successful console primarily lives off its exlcusives.

And looking at PSP development, it has very few ports from the PS2 compared to franchise titles. So your theory that developers won't spend money developing games for a system that they can't straight-port to from the top-seller is broken (oh right, handheld market is so totally different that developing for PSP doesn't take the same employees and money that could be spent developing for PS2).

 

[pc999]

I There is a lack of buttons on the Wii controller, and you can't use tilts to replace buttons for every game. The Wii controller is great for the more basic arcade style games, but when you get into a game that uses a complex controller configuration that makes use of every button on the PS2, Xbox, or 360 then the only option on the Wii would be to require Wii owners to buy a seperate controllers, and how many developers make games that require controllers that don't come with the system?

Serios I cant see a game that couldnt use the extra movements from both the remote and nunchako to do any features the others can.

Game design goes beyond the graphics. Say you've got a game that uses 512MB of Data and you've got to figure out how to make that work on the 128MB of RAM that the Wii provides, you've got to cut out 75% of the data your game uses to make it work. What are you going to cut? Textures are obvious, but somehow I doubt that 384MB of your game will be expendable textures.


They won't be ported from anything since the Wii will be the weakest system by far.

The question you should be asking is how are they going to take a game that is designed around high res textures, lots of shader effects, complex controller design, uses 512MB of RAM, and physics generated by either a 3 core 3.2GHZ CPU or Cell, and then make that game work on the Wii.

This is one question that I asked several times but still not got a answer.
I really wanted to know if it is supossed to have the same gameplay on both machines, eg could they did AssasinsCreed be remade just with basic shadings, lower poly counts, less physics (ie cloths or anything that does not affect gameplay), less animations etc... still mantaining the basic layout of the level, number and qualitity of the AI etc... (things directely related to gameplay). This probably means a massive diference on power and memory (just look what you need on a PC to run a game at high rez/detail to a low rez/detail one, it can be more than a 6200-7900/athalon 2400-AMDFX2 diference) but would it be enought and would it give to much work (I guess it does not once they do it on the PC every time)?


You will ask that if yes why would they do this, but if they can it could be a reason to not buy one of the others (at least for me) making them reling on exclussives again.

 

[Nesh]

Seems PS3 could be going down the drain. Too bad though since its such a nice and poerful piece of hardware

 

[StefanS]

Seems PS3 could be going down the drain. Too bad though since its such a nice and poerful piece of hardware

I guess, that's a sarcastic remark. Sony is still in the strongest position at the moment. They've had the strongest fanbase in the last-gen and, while it is not everything, brand recognition & loyality still is something to count. Anyone believing that Sony is not in the best position to get the largest share of the pie (units sold) is kidding himself.
But we've seen that surprise do happen, so nothing is fixed.

 

[DUALDISASTER]

* Comparing PS3 to PSP's current trend may be a little off too, since PSP enjoys zero marketing from Sony. Hiraz mentioned earlier this year/late last year that Sony will focus on PS3 and let PSP auto-pilot in the market. Looking at the current PS3 situation, I agree with him. But I was flabbergasted when I received the news. PSP is a great platform, and there is much potential. If Hiraz statement is true, PSP is selling merely on its own product strength now... like a desserted soldier fighting alone in the trenches against Nintendo's well organized battalions. The current sales number speaks of PSP's raw survival capability, rather than what its future could hold.

Did he really say that!? And if so then why do i see a lot of adverts?

 

[patsu]

I tried to google for the article but couldn't find it. I remember it was a statement by Kaz about how Sony is well-positioned for the development and roll-out of PS3, and how PSP is doing well on its own without marketing.

As a PSP owner, I did not share his optimism because PSP's marketing was/is very fragmented. Almost everything released by Sony for PSP was a standalone, unconnected exercise (like releasing a security patch :| ). And then Sony Connect disappointed (still disappoint) us. I'll try to find the article again. That's why his statements stucked with me till today.

Regarding the ads you saw:
* Are they sponsored by the retailers ?
* I found out that Sony was recently criticized for a racist PSP ad (for the release of White PSP in some countries) not long ago. So perhaps they ramp up marketing again to support the white one. Where do you stay ?

 

[quest55720]

I guess, that's a sarcastic remark. Sony is still in the strongest position at the moment. They've had the strongest fanbase in the last-gen and, while it is not everything, brand recognition & loyality still is something to count. Anyone believing that Sony is not in the best position to get the largest share of the pie (units sold) is kidding himself.
But we've seen that surprise do happen, so nothing is fixed.

Sony might be in the strongest position but they are the weakest they ever have been since they entered the console market. Sony for the first time ever is taking hits in the main stream media just before the biggest launch in company history. This time I think it was 5 years ago the PS2 had won even before released in the US/Europe. The PS2 hype had a life of its own and it just steamrolled every thing in its path. This time the excitement and hype is just not there. From spring 2007 till fall 2008 sony will be vulnerable with a product that could be almost 2x and 3x more expensive as its competitors. I would say sony is especially vulnerable in their home territory. The PS2 should be a money printing machine right now. Instead it is getting its ass handed to it by the NDS a product no one thought would be successfull. Nintendo is the hip happening company right now because of the NDS. If the big N can parlay the NDS hype machine to the Wii sony could be in trouble.

I will be honest I hope someone knocks sony off of the top position. They have been there way to long and the result is the PS3. Sony is so arogant they think they can shove an over priced all in machine down gamers throats. If sony loses this generation you can bet they will be more humble and not try the same crap again. If sony gets away with this how much will the PS4 cost 1000 USD?

 

[Black Dragon37]

I will be honest I hope someone knocks sony off of the top position. They have been there way to long and the result is the PS3. Sony is so arogant they think they can shove an over priced all in machine down gamers throats.

Funnily enough, Sony thinks otherwise...