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

[Anvil]

Slightly disappointed in this article and I am struggling a bit to see the relevance in it?

The question I have is this: Why does it matter that Nintendo put out the Wii with the hardware specs it has and why is it important that the Wii always be compared with the tech specs of the either the 360 or PS3?

I am also a bit perplexed over this statement from the article:

To summarize, while the PS3 and the Xbox 360 are both at least an order of magnitude faster than their predecessors, the Wii has the processing power of one-and-a-half GameCubes with no noteworthy increases in functionality.

From an owner of all three next gen consoles (and owner of a gamecube) I have to say that the Wii is much much more then the Gamecube in almost everyway except the most important way (both play games).

The entire way the user interacts with the Wii, over the GC is night and I am not just talking about the remote either. The user interface, the use of channels (I love the news channel and the Internet channel), WiFi, virtual console, etc...are just a few of the things of how the Wii is in fact next gen over the Gamecube. No way you can tell me that the Wii is nothing more then a Gamecube because, even though it uses very similar technology the overall user experience is much different and a hugh improvement over the GC.

Oh ans where is the question in the article on whether the hugh leap in tech that the 360 or the PS3 have are producing games that are better then the games put out over the past few years? Other then the graphical improvement has gamer satisfaction been also improved by going to hi-def?

 

[Geo]

It should be remembered that the context of the article is Level Up's previous article on the subject of the Wii's hardware. It's very limited in scope. It was never intended to be a "is Wii a success, and why?" article. *Of course* Wii is a success, this is self-proving at this point, independant of what anyone wants to say about it.

There is a relevant question, I think, as to whether it can remain a success over the typical life-span of a console (i.e. years 3, 4, 5) that hasn't been addressed, and arguably this is a relevant discussion to have as to whether hardware prowess will or will not play a role in the answer.

But still, the article for Newsweek was not a tabula rasa effort. It came with specific context attached, and that was already "what is the hardware in Wii and how does it compare to GameCube and the competitors". Anyone who doesn't like that context is free to not like it, but it doesn't go away because you don't like it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

But that's not a compromise we end-gamers have to worry about in Wii. For the price Nintendo are charging, they could put in substantially better hardware. We wouldn't have to pay more if Wii had a 9800 in it and a faster CPU; we could pay the same. The added cost might be, depending on other choices Nintendo could go with, maybe +$25 on the BOM per unit. When you're making $70 profit or whatever it is, you can afford (whether you want to or not ) a $25 cut in that. Thus it would be Nintendo who pays more. The downside for them is loss of revenue (though it still wouldn't be a loss leader, and would likely be pretty profitable), and reengineering their development tools. The upside would be a more flexible piece of hardware that has a bit more polish to its rendering, so that people don't look at it and say 'but it looks like a GameCube.' Sure, 95% of Wii's customers probably don't think that way. But of the existing gamer market, some 120+ million people, you can probably find a few million who aren't happy having such backward graphics.

The question raised here is was Nintendo right to be so conservative in the hardware? Are they missing long-term potential in both gameplay and appeal because they choose for the cheapest solution? This discussion is relevant to the industry, and can only happen if we appreciate the hardware in there, which is part of the reason for hardware breakdowns. It's exactly parallel to the question of whether Sony were right to put BR into PS3. Two different companies, two different approaches. Discussion on both (for those who care to discuss) should be open, even if Nintendo don't want it to be. People planning the next consoles are surely having some debates now : seeing what hardware people want to buy; what sort of loss leader or initial profits to aim for on the hardware; seeing how lack of progress in visuals affects platform interest; seeing how CPU performance affects gameplay and immersion. The whole picture has to be considered, as it's the whole product being bought, whether people are consciously aware of what they're buying or not. We've had loads of discussion on Wii's appeal, rocketing sales, mainstream reporting, and so forth. Why should Nintendo's hardware choices and their impact on the machine and end users' experiences be taboo when none of the other topics are?

 

[Scott_Arm]

I find a lot of technical discussions about Wii hardware are along the lines of, "How can this be popular?"

I didn't find this article all that bad. There's a couple things I found a little weird, like the following quote:

"People should be aware that they're not going to get something like Heavenly Sword or Halo 3, where you have high-definition graphics and 7.1 sound and can fight hundreds of extremely detailed enemies at once, on the Wii; it simply doesn't have the processing power to handle that kind of load.

But, Nintendo's marketing has been so good and so focused that a lot of conversations about the Wii that should be taking place simply aren't happening. This is even true of many gaming publications, which apparently have adopted Nintendo's views without question."

What are the conversations that should be happening, and why are they important? It immediate follows with a discussion about whether the Wii success will continue when the 360 and PS3 come down in price and the HDTV market picks up. Is that important for us to think about, as consumers? I can see how it would be important to Nintendo execs and investors.

"By informing people about the technical nature of the Wii, it's our hope that the discussion surrounding the Wii will rapidly progress to even deeper questions: how exactly does the controller influence the gaming experience?"

How does the former lead to the latter?

"Once people dispel themselves of the idea of the Wii as a magical device that will completely redefine gaming and instead accept its limitations, the gaming community can begin to answer these questions and, hopefully, make games even more fun."

I don't think many people think the Wii is a magical device, and I think they've already accepted its limitations when they bought it.


Minor gripes about the article. I just don't really know how any of this discussion is "important." It's interesting, for the people that want to know, but it's not important.

I think Nintendo knows the PS3 and 360 will pick up the pace when they hit mainstream price, so they built a system that will sell quickly and turn a profit from the start. Say they had a target of generating X amount of dollars of the system. They've decided that rather than make the majority of those dollars in the last third of its life, they'll make their money in the first third, and somewhat in the middle of it's life. That way, they are not competing on a price point with both the 360 and the PS3. If the MS and Sony stay on the cutting edge and stay on their normal life cycle pattern, Nintendo may never have to compete with either of them to generate the majority of their targets. I hope I explained that idea well.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

What are the conversations that should be happening, and why are they important? It immediate follows with a discussion about whether the Wii success will continue when the 360 and PS3 come down in price and the HDTV market picks up. Is that important for us to think about, as consumers? I can see how it would be important to Nintendo execs and investors.

Yes it is, because if you buy the "wrong" console you end up with "no" games, thus reducing the lifetime of the product you bought. Console sales performance directly relates to what you get as a consumer.

 

[Zaphod]

Sure, 95% of Wii's customers probably don't think that way. But of the existing gamer market, some 120+ million people, you can probably find a few million who aren't happy having such backward graphics.

Of course, but that's not really relevant, is it? That's a "I don't like it, and thus won't buy it" proposition. The limited graphics and CPU power of the Wii are facts, and they've been pointed out. Nothing more to discuss there. To hold the opinion that they should have done more, however, is akin to dissing a boat for not being a car by someone who has lived in a landlocked society all their life and just can't comprehend the desire for such a thing. It certainly isn't technical discussion in itself. It's stating a preference.

As mentioned previously:

Now, give me the articles titled (for example, less thesis-like if you want ): "Motion Control Derived Gameplay in Advanced Interactive Environments", "Possibilities for Motion Control and Physics Based Interactivity", or "The Limitations of Wiimote-control for Natural Motion Input" and I'll be there in a heartbeat.

Harping about the lack of graphics and/or CPU horsepower without context, on the other hand, is just not all that interesting.

Sadly, this discussion (in part due to the tone of the article that started it) has done nothing to cause the "discussion surrounding the Wii [to] rapidly progress to even deeper questions" nor "make games even more fun". What should be of interest is what it can do that's different (and how those ideas could be exploited and improved upon by it's more powerful brethren).

 

[Geo]

I think Nintendo knows the PS3 and 360 will pick up the pace when they hit mainstream price, so they built a system that will sell quickly and turn a profit from the start. Say they had a target of generating X amount of dollars of the system. They've decided that rather than make the majority of those dollars in the last third of its life, they'll make their money in the first third, and somewhat in the middle of it's life. That way, they are not competing on a price point with both the 360 and the PS3. If the MS and Sony stay on the cutting edge and stay on their normal life cycle pattern, Nintendo may never have to compete with either of them to generate the majority of their targets. I hope I explained that idea well.

Well, one question is is that paradigm even right. There is a train of thought that says Wii sales are just utterly independant of what PS3 and XB does. I think that's what Carl was pointing at in his piece. The popular, traditional mindset is that one product's trend line can't go up without another's going down. What if XB and PS3 get their pricecut boosts and Wii just keeps chugging along more or less at the numbers it's been getting the last year?

Could that happen? I think possibly it could. It might depend on whether MS and PS3 try to play in that space, which is part of what the article is pointing at --they could do so as their own price comes down using their current hardware as a base and adding something like wiimote. If they did, that presumably could start eating into Wii sales. (Edit: I should say that's highly hypothetical on my part --I'm not aware of anyone at MS or Sony saying that was in the cards. But then they wouldn't necessarily admit to it until it was imminent anyway).

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yes it is, because if you buy the "wrong" console you end up with "no" games, thus reducing the lifetime of the product you bought. Console sales performance directly relates to what you get as a consumer.

I guess it depends how you look at it. I can see your point of view, but I never buy anything unless it can already deliver value on what I've paid for it. At this point, "no" for the Wii would just mean fewer, as there already some good games out in the first year and more coming. Still, I'm not sure how discussing the internal workings of the unit can really predict how well a system will sell or how many games it will get.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Well, one question is is that paradigm even right. There is a train of thought that says Wii sales are just utterly independant of what PS3 and XB does. I think that's what Carl was pointing at in his piece. The popular, traditional mindset is that one product's trend line can't go up without another's going down. What if XB and PS3 get their pricecut boosts and Wii just keeps chugging along more or less at the numbers it's been getting the last year?

Could that happen? I think possibly it could. It might depend on whether MS and PS3 try to play in that space, which is part of what the article is pointing at --they could do so as their own price comes down using their current hardware as a base and adding something like wiimote. If they did, that presumably could start eating into Wii sales. (Edit: I should say that's highly hypothetical on my part --I'm not aware of anyone at MS or Sony saying that was in the cards. But then they wouldn't necessarily admit to it until it was imminent anyway).

I agree it could happen, but I doubt Nintendo would count on it. I think, as a business plan, they wanted to make sure the profits for their console were front loaded unlike the PS3 and 360. That way the PS3 and 360 are only picking up when the Wii business is naturally dieing down. Then as the PS3 and 360 are dieing down and the next offerings from MS and Sony are starting their slow ramp up, Nintendo will be there with another affordable launch product, to maximize their profits in MS and Sony's downtime. So, even though the launch dates for the three systems are roughly the same, the business life cycle of the consoles is considerably different. It's just how I'm seeing things right now.

 

[Tim Murray]

I guess it depends how you look at it. I can see your point of view, but I never buy anything unless it can already deliver value on what I've paid for it. At this point, "no" for the Wii would just mean fewer, as there already some good games out in the first year and more coming. Still, I'm not sure how discussing the internal workings of the unit can really predict how well a system will sell or how many games it will get.

I think there are certainly a lot of people that see it as an investment--for example, everyone who bought a PS3 without intending to use it as a BRD player.

(I guess I'm kind of trolling my own forums, but I can't imagine how the PS3 is worth the price of entry at this point.)

 

[Scott_Arm]

I think there are certainly a lot of people that see it as an investment--for example, everyone who bought a PS3 without intending to use it as a BRD player.

(I guess I'm kind of trolling my own forums, but I can't imagine how the PS3 is worth the price of entry at this point.)

Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the systems this generation. Maybe that's a fence sitters answer, but there are a number of quality titles for each system and more to come. People who sit and wait for the "right" one, are going to be waiting a long time. It seems everyone wants this huge library, but you can't afford to buy them all and, and there are always going to be exclusives you won't be able to play if you only own one system. So, the way I see it, if you can get 10 fantastic titles out of the system, and twice as many good rentals, you're sittin' pretty. I think they'll all hit that mark easily. If you're hardcore and all you do is play games and have requirements for more titles, you'll probably own more than one system anyway.

 

[archangelmorph]

Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the systems this generation. Maybe that's a fence sitters answer, but there are a number of quality titles for each system and more to come. People who sit and wait for the "right" one, are going to be waiting a long time. It seems everyone wants this huge library, but you can't afford to buy them all and, and there are always going to be exclusives you won't be able to play if you only own one system. So, the way I see it, if you can get 10 fantastic titles out of the system, and twice as many good rentals, you're sittin' pretty. I think they'll all hit that mark easily. If you're hardcore and all you do is play games and have requirements for more titles, you'll probably own more than one system anyway.

Amen..

Great post dude..

 

[wsippel]

It's a nice article, but obviously highly misleading for the average reader. I've seen lots of reactions, and most people seem to believe the "1.5" is a factor, as in "Wii is 1.5 times more powerful overall than Gamecube" - which is obviously BS. It should have been made clear the "1.5" is a version number and has nothing to do with performance.

 

[MJP]

It's a nice article, but obviously highly misleading for the average reader. I've seen lots of reactions, and most people seem to believe the "1.5" is a factor, as in "Wii is 1.5 times more powerful overall than Gamecube" - which is obviously BS. It should have been made clear the "1.5" is a version number and has nothing to do with performance.

Saying the Wii 1.5x the power of the GameCube isn't really an unreasonable thing to say, based on what we know.

 

[wsippel]

Saying the Wii 1.5x the power of the GameCube isn't really an unreasonable thing to say, based on what we know.

But it's wrong nevertheless. By stating this, you ignore the increased bus speed, increased memory bandwidth, dramatically increased memory size, faster and bigger mass storage device, as well as any potential CPU and GPU optimizations.

 

[dobwal]

History has shown in the PC market that tech isn't king in the PC gaming.

The Wii is just showing that is also true in the console market.

The Wii is no different than a low end PC VC card and the PS3/360 a high end VC card when paralleled to the PC market . People will choose the low-mid range card by a large margin when trying to play game software, which is the ultimately the primary sales motivator in the gaming market.

The console market muddies the water with the added facet of tying software to technology, which means that lowest tech does not always win out.

The Wii dominance will not be overcome by the tech of the PS3 and the 360. Its the 360's and PS3's library and their ability to price reduce that will turn the tide.

The Wii's software library is not that fleshed out but the motion sensing expands the potential possibilities of the Wii's software that can't be mimicked by the potential software offered by the 360 and the PS3.

 

[acaeus]

Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the systems this generation. Maybe that's a fence sitters answer, but there are a number of quality titles for each system and more to come. People who sit and wait for the "right" one, are going to be waiting a long time. It seems everyone wants this huge library, but you can't afford to buy them all and, and there are always going to be exclusives you won't be able to play if you only own one system. So, the way I see it, if you can get 10 fantastic titles out of the system, and twice as many good rentals, you're sittin' pretty. I think they'll all hit that mark easily. If you're hardcore and all you do is play games and have requirements for more titles, you'll probably own more than one system anyway.

That's one way to look at it. I'd say you can't do right atm. Every system has a problem, or a drawback at the moment: PS3 is expensive and still doesn't have many games out, the 360 has huge reliability issues (and still not that cheap), and the Wii was covered by this article.

I think the Wii would be a great purchase if it were a lot cheaper.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I agree with scott that you cant go wrong, but you should have a clear picture in mind of what you expect from your system. The x360 has the specs and plenty of good games. But I still feel its to ''american'' in terms of games. Ps3 also has the specs and will get the euro/jap games which I like more but its expensive. The Wii is cheap, doesnt have the gfx ps3 and x360 has but im not to botherd by it as its not like Wii has horrible gfx. I dont mind re4/mp4/SMG gfx. Games libary is still a bit of a gamble as we dont know if it will get alot of big games but given the price im willing to take the risk. Every system will have a few must haves anyway so you cant really hurt yourself for the price of a wii. Though thats just my opinion.

 

[MJP]

But it's wrong nevertheless. By stating this, you ignore the increased bus speed, increased memory bandwidth, dramatically increased memory size, faster and bigger mass storage device, as well as any potential CPU and GPU optimizations.

I would think you would need to consider the increased bus speeds, bandwidth, and memory just to get you at "1.5x GameCube". Clocking your GPU and CPU 50% higher certainly wouldn't increase your performance by 50%, you'd need to rest of the system to improve with it. Again, I don't see how "GameCube 1.5" at all gives you an unclear or misleading picture of the Wii's hardware.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I dont think it gives you a unclear picture but I think what wsippel meant is that it might not give the right picture.