Newsweek, with a little help, takes on Wii as 'GameCube 1.5'

[Carl B]

That means the same thing. I just don't see a large segment of the population wanting to play games but were unable to prior to the Wii remote. They don't play because they don't like the typical console games--that's a much more likely reason. If you look at the DS, with which Nintendo is in fact expanding the market, you see games that are wholly different: Brain Age, Nintendog, etc. While motion-sensing is interesting, at the end, what you have are still games dependent on reflex, spatial thinking, and hand-eye coordination.

Borowki I don't agree with you; in fact I think the DS' control scheme vs the Wii's are quite analogous for their respective markets. Brain Age replicated on the PSP without the touch-controls is not the same game; likewise a Wii Sports knockoff using a standard controller is simply not the same experience.

That said, this is straying off the main topic.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

No need to get upset, I know you are a smart human being. I'm just tired of seeing and hearing when negative things about Nintendo platforms are spinned into positives.

Doesnt the same happens the other way around? I also get the feeling that some people try hard to spin the positive wii things into negative thinking they are negative because they want to see that.

First some people were saying that the N64 carts were actually better for gaming purposes

Well it did improve loading times a whole lot. Not saying its better but it had its advantages (also for nintendo regarding copying, just about everyone modded their psx but you couldnt do that with n64).

then it was actully good that Gamecube coulndn't play DVD-movies, because it in some mysterious meant that Cube was more focused on games, making it a better machine for games...

Well the Wii doesnt play dvd either. I couldnt care about it. If I want to play movies I buy a movie player I dont see why I have to pay more for something im not interrested in.

Now we have this under engineered game console, a console that basically got no upgrade whatsoever to it's old predecessor and it's supposed to be a good thing in some way.

Again this doesnt have to be negative. For one its actually affordable to begin with. Its really nice the ps3 has all those tech, but its 600 euro's which I dont have nor want to spend on a gaming console and given the sales im not the only one who thinks like that. Sure if you're all about the flashy gfx and physics than youre not happy with the hardware but if you just want to have fun it doesnt have to be bad.

One could argue that the lower price point is a good thing, but the price is not low for what you are getting. [/quoet]

Neither is the price good on anything iPod but people buy those by the masses and everybody thinks it great value for money. You cant always decided value on the value of the actual machine itself.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Doesnt the same happens the other way around? I also get the feeling that some people try hard to spin the positive wii things into negative thinking they are negative because they want to see that.

There's always some people on both extreme sides, and they're both equally annoying.

Well it did improve loading times a whole lot. Not saying its better but it had its advantages (also for nintendo regarding copying, just about everyone modded their psx but you couldnt do that with n64).

Generally everything has it advantages if you go looking for them. Whatever advantages cartridges had, you'd be hard pushed to sell cartridges as better for gamers or the platform though. And I'd like to see real figures on PS1 mods that show just about everyone had them modded to play pirate titles...

Well the Wii doesnt play dvd either. I couldnt care about it. If I want to play movies I buy a movie player I dont see why I have to pay more for something im not interrested in.

You're missing the point. The idea was that not playing DVDs was better for games somehow. I can't back Dr. Evil up on this as I wasn't around at last-gen's launch, but if people did say that, it illustrates his point - there are some things that just could be better, and yet some people, rather than say 'yeah, it'd be nice if this was different, as it'd be better for us', seem to come up with some rather stretched rationalizations.

For one its actually affordable to begin with.

Okay, that's 'for one'. Now the price of Wii hasn't got much to do with it's performance. Nintendo are making a healthy profit on the hardware. It would have cost them not much more (which would mean still lots of profit) to add significantly better hardware. The choice for lower spec hardware means more profit for Nintendo, and easy BC. So reason number one isn't really an advantage, unless you're a Nintendo shareholder. What are the other benefits for using old tech? Not just old tech, as there's other old tech that'd be much better, but last-gen console tech that hasn't had any serious work on improving it?

 

[archangelmorph]

Well the Wii doesnt play dvd either. I couldnt care about it. If I want to play movies I buy a movie player I dont see why I have to pay more for something im not interrested in.

Skeek for yourself my friend because I know plenty of people who actually enjoy the idea of having the all-in-one-functionality of these consoles. I for one am looking forward to getting a PS3 and having a good blu-ray player thrown in in the same way i loved the fact that i got free DVD playback on my Xbox & PS2 enabling me to have only one box under my TV instead of twelve..

Neither is the price good on anything iPod but people buy those by the masses and everybody thinks it great value for money. You cant always decided value on the value of the actual machine itself.

I don't think anyone actually believes the iPod is good value for money.. I think many people are just attracted to the "image" it projects especially since owning one is somewhat of a "fashion statement".. IMO its this "fashionable" factor that Apple sold so many iPod's off more than anything else and especially since everyone I know who I would consider to be "value-conscious" never got one and instead opten for an insanely cheaper (but increadibly greater feature-rich) branded alternative (e.g. Zen, walkman, creative players etc..)

If these iPod/DS/Wii consumers are really considering value in these products then their ideas of value differ greatly from the more technically informed/enthusiastic crowd (or in the games-space, the traditionalists..) These are the kind of people who see "value" in how fashionable the product is (girls with DSs for example, hence why sales never really took off until the lite was introduced to market..), how accessible the platform is perceived to be, how "fun" the platform is perceived to be (a clearly mislead ideal that nintendo PR has done such a good job brainwashing into people when in actual fact the console isn't really any more fun than playing a good game on a more traditional platform.. point being "fun" factor is defined by the software fundamentally, the hardware can only offer more options to manifest it..)..

 

[Scott_Arm]

Skeek for yourself my friend because I know plenty of people who actually enjoy the idea of having the all-in-one-functionality of these consoles. I for one am looking forward to getting a PS3 and having a good blu-ray player thrown in in the same way i loved the fact that i got free DVD playback on my Xbox & PS2 enabling me to have only one box under my TV instead of twelve..


I don't think anyone actually believes the iPod is good value for money.. I think many people are just attracted to the "image" it projects especially since owning one is somewhat of a "fashion statement".. IMO its this "fashionable" factor that Apple sold so many iPod's off more than anything else and especially since everyone I know who I would consider to be "value-conscious" never got one and instead opten for an insanely cheaper (but increadibly greater feature-rich) branded alternative (e.g. Zen, walkman, creative players etc..)

If these iPod/DS/Wii consumers are really considering value in these products then their ideas of value differ greatly from the more technically informed/enthusiastic crowd (or in the games-space, the traditionalists..) These are the kind of people who see "value" in how fashionable the product is (girls with DSs for example, hence why sales never really took off until the lite was introduced to market..), how accessible the platform is perceived to be, how "fun" the platform is perceived to be (a clearly mislead ideal that nintendo PR has done such a good job brainwashing into people when in actual fact the console isn't really any more fun than playing a good game on a more traditional platform.. point being "fun" factor is defined by the software fundamentally, the hardware can only offer more options to manifest it..)..

Value is completely subjective. For some people, more is better and for some people it's not. There are many different reasons why a person might be interested in the DS or PSP. Each one has its advantages and people will weigh them differently. Same thing with the iPod vs its competitors. There are definitely fad products and the iPod probably fits into that category, but it's still a good product and represents value for a lot of people. Any talk about brainwashing, or writing off successful products solely for being "fashionable" is pretty misguided. I mean, your comment about girls and the DS ... are you serious? Maybe the fact that it was a smaller form factor with a better screen and the software available is what boosted sales.

There is no right or wrong way to judge the value of a product, and I wish people would stop trying to talk about these things in absolute terms.

 

[archangelmorph]

Borowki I don't agree with you; in fact I think the DS' control scheme vs the Wii's are quite analogous for their respective markets. Brain Age replicated on the PSP without the touch-controls is not the same game; likewise a Wii Sports knockoff using a standard controller is simply not the same experience.

That said, this is straying off the main topic.

Not the same sure..

But that still doesn't mean that an intuitive control mechanic to utilise the dpad, buttons and analogue sticks in an accessible way wouldn't maintain the same level of interest from consumers who these types of games appeal too..

I actually agree with Borowki to a degree since I highly doubt you'll see any grandma's playing RE4 now just because "the Wiimote makes it easier"..

In actuality it's not easier since the game fundamentally requires a wide range of literal & abstract inputs to perform the many dimensions of control game requires to play..

The Wii doesn't make gaming easier.. it just makes doing easy things (i.e. using a reduced set of input actions to play a specific game..) more fun..

Someone could easily develop a game that only uses one button on a conventional gamepad and with enough in-game depth to the gameplay experience, could still be just as fun as using all ump-teen buttons, knobs and triggers to play GeOW.. It just doesn't really happen since most developers don't consider the scope of such an idea necessary (before the Wii nobody really placed much consideration into widening the user demographic by decreasing "required" input complexity to increase accessibility)..

 

[archangelmorph]

Value is completely subjective. For some people, more is better and for some people it's not. There are many different reasons why a person might be interested in the DS or PSP. Each one has its advantages and people will weigh them differently. Same thing with the iPod vs its competitors. There are definitely fad products and the iPod probably fits into that category, but it's still a good product and represents value for a lot of people.

kinda what i was trying to say really..

Any talk about brainwashing, or writing off successful products solely for being "fashionable" is pretty misguided.

I think you missunderstood, i don't mean it was "soley" the cause but it is a reasonbly large contributor..

I mean, your comment about girls and the DS ... are you serious? Maybe the fact that it was a smaller form factor with a better screen and the software available is what boosted sales.

Again I didn't get my point across clearly enough.. I didn't mean the fact that the new design appealed to girls was the only reason sales took off.. But again it did contribute (especially if you believe the DS really is widening the market..)

There is no right or wrong way to judge the value of a product, and I wish people would stop trying to talk about these things in absolute terms.

I didn't try to.. I just gave examples on how some people perceive value differently to how alot of enthusiasts and some traditionalist gamers do.. Of course everyone's perception is different but it's those obscure differences that make nintendo products all the more interesting especially since the common perception of the platform seems to indicate that it's selling of them..

By that I mean that it's pretty clear why a console like the PS2 appeals to the consumers who were interested in it.. but that's what makes the Wii a phenomenon because things are alot fuzzier due to non-conventional factors of consumer pulling-power the system seems to have..

 

[babcat]

The Gamecube was $99 dollars. Nintendo basically overclocked the gamecube and added a small amount of extra RAM. In addition, they threw in a controller.

Quite frankly, I don't think the Wii is worth $249 dollars when it is basically a slightly modified Gamecube. If they were selling the Wii for $159 it would be a fair price. However, it is stupid to purchase a barely modified console and pay over twice the price.

 

[dobwal]

nevermind

 

[Readykilowatt]

Now the price of Wii hasn't got much to do with it's performance.

Meh, who cares?

Nintendo are making a healthy profit on the hardware.

So what?

It would have cost them not much more (which would mean still lots of profit) to add significantly better hardware.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda... Whatever dude.

The choice for lower spec hardware means more profit for Nintendo, and easy BC.

Why should I care?

So reason number one isn't really an advantage, unless you're a Nintendo shareholder.

What's a shareholder and why should I care? Meh, I'm gonna play some Wii sports.

What are the other benefits for using old tech?

Who cares about tech? I'm having the time of my life playing Wii Sports.

See, I just summarized the majority thinking with respect to the increasing Wii audience. It's interesting to see these articles pop up again and again when Nintendo clearly stated before the Wii launched that they are an entertainment company, not a tech company, they refused to disclose the specs of the Wii and the DS because they said it was irrelevant and they emphasized marketing on the Wii-mote and games, not meaningless words like "tech" and "next-gen". I find these threads enormously entertaining as they remind me of the song There's a hole in the bucket with it's circular reasoning and repetitive jargon. But, hey... the PS2 was still lambasted by Xbox and GCN fanboys throughout its lifetime as junk with crappy graphics even though it mopped the floor with both the GCN and the Xbox. I therefore expect threads and silly articles like this to show up during this entire generation as the Wii mops the floor with the 360 and the PS3...

Spoiler

and I will have a good laugh every time I see one.

I strongly recommend that Beyond3D ignores the Wii (and the majority of the market) and focus on “niche tech gamingâ€￾ like PS3, Xbox 360 and PC gaming. It will let the people on this site look less stupid.

 

[_xxx_]

Dr. Evil:

I understand you perfectly, but your POV is the totally wrong one. You're looking at Wii from the top as a console, while it isn't really that in the same sense like say PS's are.

The point to begin with is the user. The user wanted a cheap toy which has a nice funny gimmick of swinging a remote and seeing how your movements make some stuff happen on screen. That's why I bought it too, not as a super-powerful gaming machine. All this technical talk is senseless, because Wii shouldn't even be really viewed as a console at all. It is a toy, a home appliance, but not a console like Playstation.

The problem is, that gimmick generated huge sales. It _IS_ fun in the most elementar way and surely the "real" console gamers are pissed off for not having the feature that a stupid toy has. THAT is why the topic always ends up in feature wars.

Noone out there even cares about the innards of those systems nor do they miss anything. The only people dissecting everything and looking for negatives are some groups of people in forums like this one.

Normal people see it like this:

Wii = simple funny remote thingy where you can have some sporty fun and fun with the kids or your buddies, everyone can use it instantly too.

XBox = gaming console for shooters, racers and such with nice looking games. No wiimote thingy though.

PS3 = most advanced console, HD player, loads of features that many don't even understand and let alone use, expensive but mindblowing gfx. No wiimote thingy either.

Try to think like a non gamer for a second. What will those people buy? Depends on many things, but most average people will automatically go for Wii. Because even the GFX on Wii are nice to regular people, they don't even see any huge difference to some much better looking 360 game for example.

EDIT: heh, missed the post above mine, he said it perfectly Telepatic abilities there? Crazy.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Who cares about tech?

People who like tech and want to know what's in the the consoles. Why aren't they allowed to talk about the tech in the consoles without folk turning up in their threads about consoles saying 'who cares I play games on my Wii and don't care what's in it and Wii sells lots and I don't care what the hardware is because I like Wii and it'll outsell everything else and it doesn't matter what's in it'?

Nintendo clearly stated before the Wii launched that they are an entertainment company, not a tech company.

Ahhhh, now I understand. Permission to discuss the hardware of a CE product has to come from the parent company. If the company says you're not allowed to ask questions about the hardware, then it's off limits, and it's the duty of fans of that company to keep reminding people that they shouldn't be discussing that hardware.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Dr. Evil:

I understand you perfectly, but your POV is the totally wrong one. You're looking at Wii from the top as a console, while it isn't really that in the same sense like say PS's are.

Try to think like a non gamer for a second. What will those people buy? Depends on many things, but most average people will automatically go for Wii. Because even the GFX on Wii are nice to regular people, they don't even see any huge difference to some much better looking 360 game for example.

EDIT: heh, missed the post above mine, he said it perfectly Telepatic abilities there? Crazy.

You know I lost a track a little bit on the exact point we are arguing, but I have always put Wii in to a different camp than the other consoles. It is not competing for the same dollars as the other ones. Somehow I find it strange that many "Wii-likers" can agree with this, but then in the next sentence they are boasting about the sales numbers...
I have even said that for the gaming industry and for the gamers it is better that we don't have three basically identical consoles, so I personally don't think that my angle on Wii is in any way handicapped. It's just a toy that I don't give a **** about. It doesn't bother me one bit that other gamers or non-gamers are having fun with it.

People who like tech and want to know what's in the the consoles. Why aren't they allowed to talk about the tech in the consoles without folk turning up in their threads about consoles saying 'who cares I play games on my Wii and don't care what's in it and Wii sells lots and I don't care what the hardware is because I like Wii and it'll outsell everything else and it doesn't matter what's in it'?

Because tech is Wii's weakness and if you like something you tend to downplay its weaknesses. I think it basically is as simple as that. Talking about the weaknesses can be seen as direct attack on them and on their values.

I therefore expect threads and silly articles like this to show up during this entire generation as the Wii mops the floor with the 360 and the PS3...

Spoiler

and I will have a good laugh every time I see one.

Why, I thought you don't care and are too busy playing Wii sports?

 

[Readykilowatt]

People who like tech and want to know what's in the the consoles. Why aren't they allowed to talk about the tech in the consoles without folk turning up in their threads about consoles saying 'who cares I play games on my Wii and don't care what's in it and Wii sells lots and I don't care what the hardware is because I like Wii and it'll outsell everything else and it doesn't matter what's in it'?

Ahhhh, now I understand. Permission to discuss the hardware of a CE product has to come from the parent company. If the company says you're not allowed to ask questions about the hardware, then it's off limits, and it's the duty of fans of that company to keep reminding people that they shouldn't be discussing that hardware.

Feel free to discuss the "tech" in the Wii as much as you want to, to the minority of gamers who care. It still doesn't change the fact that the article that started this thread is pathetic. Just look at some of the posts in this thread. They're FAQtabulous.

 

[Carl B]

The Wii doesn't make gaming easier.. it just makes doing easy things (i.e. using a reduced set of input actions to play a specific game..) more fun..

But what could be fundamentally more important than that from the gaming context? To put it another way, what mainline PS2 game would you recommend to the average non-gaming grandma that you think she would enjoy as much as Wii sports?

I really have to go back to Brain Age's touch input format and Wii Sports frantic flailing of arms format; it doesn't matter to me that equal levels of 'fun' can be had elsewhere - the point is that these two formats cannot be replicated on other consoles, and when these formats for certain audiences are the only formats they are receptive to... well, again - it's enabling.

 

[Carl B]

I strongly recommend that Beyond3D ignores the Wii (and the majority of the market) and focus on “niche tech gaming” like PS3, Xbox 360 and PC gaming. It will let the people on this site look less stupid.

Readykilowatt, everything else aside... since this is a technology forum, why are you a part of it if technology discussion doesn't interest you?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But what could be fundamentally more important than that from the gaming context? To put it another way, what mainline PS2 game would you recommend to the average non-gaming grandma that you think she would enjoy as much as Wii sports?

The only game my mother has ever played was EyeToy Play, and she really got into it (wouldn't buy a console to play it though!). She didn't care to give Wii Sports or Wii Play a go though. EyeToy is definitely easier IMO. You actually see yourself on screen, and interaction is a lot closer to 1:1 real motion translation. It's not perfect, and not a substitute for what Wii does in 3 dimensions, but as a 'waggle game' simplistic in its implementation yet very engaging, its every bit as good as Wii IMO. I think Sony just missed the trick, and released EyeToy as a novelty without pursuing the market in the same way Nintendo has. Now Nintendo have won the perception as the choice for simple fun games.

Erm...just checked the title and this is way of topic. As mods we probably ought to be setting a better example. Note to self - stop the OT chatter or I give me a one week hari-kiri.

 

[Tim Murray]

Who cares about tech? I'm having the time of my life playing Wii Sports.

Well, great, glad you're having fun. However, you seem to think that talking about the technical aspects of the Wii is irrelevant so long as the games are fun. That's simply not true; they are two separate discussions, although they certainly have ramifications upon one another.

See, I just summarized the majority thinking with respect to the increasing Wii audience. It's interesting to see these articles pop up again and again when Nintendo clearly stated before the Wii launched that they are an entertainment company, not a tech company, they refused to disclose the specs of the Wii and the DS because they said it was irrelevant and they emphasized marketing on the Wii-mote and games, not meaningless words like "tech" and "next-gen".

So, if Nintendo says we shouldn't talk about something, it's objectively not worth discussing? What kind of ridiculous statement is that?

I find these threads enormously entertaining as they remind me of the song There's a hole in the bucket with it's circular reasoning and repetitive jargon. But, hey... the PS2 was still lambasted by Xbox and GCN fanboys throughout its lifetime as junk with crappy graphics even though it mopped the floor with both the GCN and the Xbox. I therefore expect threads and silly articles like this to show up during this entire generation as the Wii mops the floor with the 360 and the PS3...

Spoiler

and I will have a good laugh every time I see one.

So if Nintendo says it's not a competitor to the other consoles and refuses to categorize the Wii in terms of console generations, how can it "mop the floor with the 360 and the PS3?"

I strongly recommend that Beyond3D ignores the Wii (and the majority of the market) and focus on “niche tech gamingâ€￾ like PS3, Xbox 360 and PC gaming. It will let the people on this site look less stupid.

Ah, yes, because we should all be listening to the happy public relations department and drinking the Kool-Aid, I guess.

 

[Carl B]

The only game my mother has ever played was EyeToy Play, and she really got into it (wouldn't buy a console to play it though!). She didn't care to give Wii Sports or Wii Play a go though. EyeToy is definitely easier IMO. You actually see yourself on screen, and interaction is a lot closer to 1:1 real motion translation. It's not perfect, and not a substitute for what Wii does in 3 dimensions, but as a 'waggle game' simplistic in its implementation yet very engaging, its every bit as good as Wii IMO. I think Sony just missed the trick, and released EyeToy as a novelty without pursuing the market in the same way Nintendo has. Now Nintendo have won the perception as the choice for simple fun games.

Firstly you know I'm a big fan of EyeToy - I'm first and foremost in saying Sony has dropped the ball on marketing the system, and that it could have been set up as a Wii competitor long ago. But the reason I exclude it in this discussion, is that it is simply not mainstream. Frankly I say bravo that your mother was exposed to it, but the fact remains that she will be in a massive minority relative to folk who will try and experience the Wii.... and thus why I focused on "mainline PS2 games" rather than something that exists, but might as well not for all intents and purposes. I'm not trying to set up a feature comparison between Sony and Nintendo and MS - indeed when it comes to features, the features can be matched - but it's the focus of each of these that hands Nintendo a crown for accessibility this gen.

And I will say also that the virtues of EyeToy aside, the Wii does enjoy an advantage when it comes to simultaneous multi-player gaming; Wii Tennis with four people is a good time, but I couldn't imagine an equivalent for the EyeToy, even though I think EyeToy's table tennis game and other such simulators make for a superior one-player experience.

Erm...just checked the title and this is way of topic. As mods we probably ought to be setting a better example. Note to self - stop the OT chatter or I give me a one week hari-kiri.

Posts transfered.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

You're missing the point. The idea was that not playing DVDs was better for games somehow. I can't back Dr. Evil up on this as I wasn't around at last-gen's launch, but if people did say that, it illustrates his point - there are some things that just could be better, and yet some people, rather than say 'yeah, it'd be nice if this was different, as it'd be better for us', seem to come up with some rather stretched rationalizations.

Isnt the grass always greener on the other side? Ofcourse it would have been nice to have it, but the question is do you really want it? Take the ps3 and BR for example. You pay more ebcause BR is in it and some people might love that and dont mind it and others might have rather seen a X dollar cheaper ps3 without BR.

I see it like this: I want to play games so I want a machine to play games on. Do I want it to play movies? Not really, it would be nice but I dont want to pay a substanciel amount extra for it.

The choice for lower spec hardware means more profit for Nintendo, and easy BC. So reason number one isn't really an advantage, unless you're a Nintendo shareholder. What are the other benefits for using old tech? Not just old tech, as there's other old tech that'd be much better, but last-gen console tech that hasn't had any serious work on improving it?

Beside that we pay less for a Wii there isnt a advantage for gamers. Without a doubt.

Skeek for yourself my friend because I know plenty of people who actually enjoy the idea of having the all-in-one-functionality of these consoles. I for one am looking forward to getting a PS3 and having a good blu-ray player thrown in in the same way i loved the fact that i got free DVD playback on my Xbox & PS2 enabling me to have only one box under my TV instead of twelve..

I think it depends what you are looking for. Are you looking for a multimedia device or are you looking for a machine to play games on?

I don't think anyone actually believes the iPod is good value for money.. I think many people are just attracted to the "image" it projects especially since owning one is somewhat of a "fashion statement"..

So they do think its good value for money. Afterall because they have a iPod they make this statement.

If these iPod/DS/Wii consumers are really considering value in these products then their ideas of value differ greatly from the more technically informed/enthusiastic crowd (or in the games-space, the traditionalists..)

Value is different for everybody. Value isnt just the value of the machine but the fun/use you get out of it. I like tech, still I have a DS and a Wii. Why? because they dont cost to much but offer me plenty of entertainment. I love the GT5 gfx, I really do and I want to play it when it comes out. But all those gfx arnt worth a 600 euro ps3 to me while I defenitly think the machine is worth it in terms of hardware.