Why Don't Microsoft/Sony Just Develop Wii-Style Controllers For Their Systems?

Sony is too busy working on a far better alternative to a Wiimote like controller.

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/584/584744p1.html

 

The original game cube was released with a launch price of $199 on November 18th, 2001. At that time, the PS2 had been on the market for a year at $299. The PS2 dropped its price to $199 on May 14th, 2002. The Gamecube dropped its price to $149 on May 13th, 2002.

In other words, the Game Cube did not have more than a $100 price advantage at any point in its history and for most of it the price difference was less than $80. Both were in the "don't need to ask the wife for permission" price range for their entire lifespan.

Trying to compare the difference between the PS3 ($599/$499) or Xbox 360 ($349/$279) and the Wii ($249) is a long shot at best. Your best comparison would be the Arcade (or Core as it was originally called) which was the only console to come in at under the $299 break point for consumer shopping. Even then it is a stretch at best.

No offense, but the difference in pricing is obvious. The Game Cube was an entirely different situation and is irrelevant to the current discussion. The Game Cube did not sell well because it came to the market late at a price that was comparable to the average consumer and lacked third party support. At no point in it's entire lifespan has the Wii faced similar competition in price.

Helped you read your own confirmation of my point. Like it or not, Nintendo has always had one of the best first party libraries.

Once again, irrelevant. Especially in light of the controller based topic for this thread. Go do an impromptu survey on the Wii. Do you think Wii Fit / Wii Sports will get mentioned more than Metroid? I do.

This is also irrelevant and doesn't address my point. Whether or not Sony has family friendly games does not matter. Nintendo has successfully marketed their console as family friendly. They have promoted games like Wii Sports and Wii Fit as "healthy" entertainment for the whole family. They have maintained the overall cartoonish look of their main franchises like Metroid, Zelda, and Super Smash Bros. Their machine just plain can't render the sheer amount of realistic carnage you can get on the XBox and PS3.

As such, parents are going to see cartoon like characters or at worst semi-unrealistic graphics on any game they pick up. On the contrary, go to a store and look at the games showcased for the PS3 right now. Devil May Cry will never be described as a family friendly game. Call of Duty 4 puts your kids behind a realistic gun shooting other realistic people.

In your own reply you stated that Nintendo gets more related with those games. Once again - perception IS reality in marketing. It doesn't matter if the PS3 is more family friendly, if the Wii is perceived as being more family friendly it will sell as such.

For my family, it most certainly is NOT the controller. As a matter of fact, most dislike the controllers after a little while. While anecdotal, most people I know who own Wiis are the same way.

Instead, lets take a look at PS3 games. How many of them support multi-player? Some of the shooters support 2, but flow and Rock Band are the only 2 I can think of that support 4. A shooter is not exactly family friendly no matter how you look at it. Did you know most of the racing games right now don't actually support split screen play for the PS3?

Simply put, the big reason the Wii is "fun" and the whole family can play is because they have released a larger selection of multi-player games than the other consoles. The games have a very low learning curve meaning just about anyone can pick up a controller and jump in. There are examples of this on other gaming systems, but they are less common. I have had friends buy a PS3 after playing flow or Super Rub a Dub for just that reason. However, it is much harder for them to justify a $500 purchase than a $250 purchase.

Just out of curiosity - you are aware of the sheer amount of effort that goes into making realistic controllers for racing games on the PS3 and X360 right? Racing wheels with stick shifts in the right place, rumble, and force feedback, ultra-realistic graphics for games like GT - do you really want to claim that this is all accidental?

People ARE striving to make racing games as close as you can get to the real life equivalent.

Even then, you missed the point. The controllers are said to be revolutionary because they are supposed to let you mimic real life motion. The problem with several of the games is that if you really do mimic real life motion it is not only uncomfortable but can be down right painful. In tennis, the speed you swing your arm is used to calculate the force the ball gets hit at. But the faster you swing your arm, the more likely you are strain your shoulder trying to stop it. You have to change the motion of your swing entirely to avoid that. So a control scheme based on trying to imitate motion is non-functional when you try to imitate motion.

Note that I'd have no problem at all if they used a standard controller. A standard controller is not supposed to imitate real motion. It doesn't pretend too. That means it is a criteria it doesn't need to be evaluated on. This leads us back to your racing example. Racing wheels ARE judged on their ability to reproduce a faithful reproduction of a realistic driving experience. So if it is fair to do with racing games, why isn't it fair to do it with the Wii's controllers?

To sum it all up, in my opinion the Wii controllers are not driving games sales. Instead, it is the image of affordable family/group based fun that is driving the current market. For some people, the idea of being "active" while playing a video game does contribute to that image. But most I know are much more interested in the ability to play "easy" games with multiple people at once.

I am not saying the Wii is a bad machine. As a matter of fact, I think it is a great machine at what it does. I think Nintendo aimed for the right market by putting out an affordable machine and marketing it as family based fun. It was a brilliant marketing decision. I do however reject the notion that motion controls are what is selling the system. I've seen to many similar control schemes go no where in the past to be impressed now.

 

Seriously, I've seen so many of my friends parents playing Wii that I thought Armageddon was upon us. These are people in the 55-65 age group. And they play because the motion controls in Wii sports are less intimidating, and look more fun, than playing with a little gamepad. My mom never touched the NES, SNES, PC, Gamecube, Playstation or whatever. But when I got the Wii she wanted to try it right away.

The thing is, for most people, but they don't care about having a 100% realistic simulation. They just want a simple approximation, like Wii sports provides. The only people I know that don't like the Wii controller are hardcore gamers on internet forums that complain about lack of accuracy or realism that no one else cares about. Even if the Wii doesn't maintain it's success, it has shown that with the right approach gaming could explode into a much much wider demographic.

Microsoft and Sony will not pass this up. Sony has eye-toy to expand on, and Microsoft will surely come up with something next gen. The dual analog is mostly likely going to change.

 

Sony and Microsoft require selling software to make money. While I'm sure they might like to have the 55-65 demographic as well, they won't want to give up the hardcore gamers that actually make them money.

If they want to implement waggle, they better improve by an order of magnitude or so or they'll wind up losing that hardcore audience.

 

Hardcore gamers, heh. Catering to guys here is what put the 360 & the PS3 in the fight for second place. The controller doesn't matter huh? Then explain the 4 hour wait at the Nintendo booth at E3 when the public first got to try the controller. Or the opening stampede to get to the Nintendo booth every day at that event.

And the Wiimote doesn't work well as a lightgun when the game isn't programed for it. Want to see a Wii lightgun? Get a Nyko Perfect shot and buy the game Ghost Squad from Sega. The game allows for the level of calibration to the point where your shot goes exactly where you aim.

 

I totally agree, but both parties will do something to tap into the Wiis success and they'll market it aggressively. It will also come standard with their next consoles. I don't know if that means there will be more than one controller type standard for each system, or some type of hybrid controller, or a mix with video recognition like eye-toy, but the day of the dual analog as the standard input are numbered.

And of course it will be better than the wii remote. Whatever ships with the Wii2 will be better than the wii remote.

I was watching on gametrailers and even Cliffy B, that Gears of War guy, wants to see a controller with fewer buttons and more context sensitive and motion controlled input.

I see the wii remote as a step towards something better, which should be praised. It's not perfect by any means, but it's a good foundation.

 

Why is it that this type of Ad Hominem attack is the most used to defend the Wii's control scheme - especially when all of us are basing our opinions on our own anecdotal evidence?

You can review my anecdotal evidence as a counter to yours. Most people I know end up disliking the control scheme - even if they still think games are fun. They quickly find that the lack of "accuracy and realism" becomes a hindrance rather than a help. Even if you want to claim that this position is a minority, you cannot care that no one else cares about something if examples exist.

What people I know do like about the console is simple. It is easy to learn to play. It is easy to play with other people. There are lots of games to play with other people. It is inexpensive. It has plenty of family friendly games. You could replace the controller with a set of frying pans and if it maintained those qualities they would enjoy it just as much.

While it is popular to attack "hard core" gamers, it does not actually make an argument. It is far more useful to try and separate out what people do and do not like rather than to try and stereotype everyone who doesn't like something.

 

Looking at Nintendo's financials, do you really think that's a valid argument?

 

I'm not sure, but I believe that wasnt the case in europe (where I live).

Might be, but instead of saying nintendo = cheap id rather see sony = expensive.

So you are trying to claim the only reason the wii sells is the price? well, you seem to forget the x30 core pack (or whatever its called) has always been available for 300 euro's/dollars. Only 50 more than the wii.

You do know they dont come standard with your console right? that way you could say well nintendo could make a better controller, spend another 300euro's and look how great it can be! but thats not the point. You dont get it with the base pack so you cant compare it to a other console that only gets the base pack.

Who says nintendo isnt trying to do the same? My point was that even if you buy a steer and whatever it will still be a very long way from reality. Just as you found wii tennis not to be in terms with reality doing a awsome lap in your Enzo on the ring with your playseat without ever having driven a real car doesnt make you capable of doing that IRL, you wont even make the first corner.

Well I cant help you are being unrealistic. It does try to mimic real life, and it does that do a certain extend. Ofcourse it wont be 100% right, it cant be because its a videogame. Just as a racing game will never be realisic no matter what hardware you buy.

 

I'm sure Sony could have made money on hardware and competed more with Nintendo by shipping the PS2.5 (overclocked now with waggle), but they would have sacrificed the hardcore market to MS doing so.

Sony and MS don't really make money on hardware, so selling more units to people who will never buy a lot of games is not a winning proposition for them.

 

i cant believe it took 13 posts until someone answered the question

the xb360 is nearly 2.5 years out, the ps3 is nearly 1.5 years, to jump in now is way to late. look at the xb360 HD-dvd perpherial it was only picked up by something like less than %5 of the xb360 users. contrast this with the wii, 20 million users today + rapidly growing, all with a wii-mote.

in saying this, i wouldnt be surprised seeing a ps2 with wii-mote bundelled selling at ~$100 provided they can make money off the hardware

 

We probably see MS and Sony imitate the Wii controller for the next generation of consoles. Any imitation controllers introduced at this late stage of the generation would be a wasted investment.

If MS came out with a 360 motion controller and Sony introduced a wii like six axis, they would have a hard time getting developers to heavily invest in such technology thats basically a tacked on feature that has very little penetration in the PS3 and 360 userbase. Some might want to point to the introduction of the rumble feature of the DS3, but introducing rumble into future development is way cheaper and easier than introducing motion control.

The Wii controllers are a fundamental part of the Wii console and have been since the onset of the Wii, while similar controllers from MS and Sony would play niche roles. Those controllers would do little to offset the attraction of the motion control available on the Wii.

 

I think DS3 + PSEye "more intuitive" it would make a good damage in marketing nintendo/wii,but the question is... MS and Sony combat wii with DS3/motion controller + ps3 eye "more intuitive"(like "mirror" from Toshiba a year ago) is not a total different niche for such investment?

 

I'm not attacking anyone. I just don't think the general preference of hardcore gamers accurately reflects what the general video game buying public wants. It's not that "hardcore" gamers are wrong, they just have different interests/requirements in their games. Hardcore gamers typically want extreme realism, sophistication and simulation. Most gamers don't care as long as they're having fun.

From the number of consoles Nintendo has sold, mostly so people can play Wii sports, I don't know how anyone could argue that the proposition of motion controls, or the activity itself are a hindrance. People are drawn to the Wii because of the motion controls and they buy the Wii because they have fun playing an interactive game with their friends. If the control was really a hindrance, it wouldn't be fun to play. It works well enough for what it is that people can have a good time. Can you honestly imagine the Wii and Wii Sports specifically being such a big success if it had shipped with a standard gamepad? Playing Wii Tennis by pressing 'A' to hit the ball without any control of where the player is running? That would have BOMBED!!!

 

I still personaly think all current implimentations of motion controls are too gimicky. I'm more interested in what can be done with the use of camera's or other non "hand held" devices as it would "increase" our control over games. Replacing a standard controller with one that has motion controls IMO does not automatically give you better control; in fact in some cases it actually hinders your control as its inputs are too limited. Making jestures even simple ones to replace a button press is not intuitive, could you imagine jestering out a "J" so you can input a "J" on a text message instead of just hitting the letter "J" on your keyboared?

I think we need to work on the visual aspects of console first; then once we have a solid foundation for recreating objects in a near perfect fashion we should move onto how we can better interact with them. Get head tracking working, motion capturing and detail to the level where we "feal" as though we should be interacting with the objects. As it sits right now we have a huge disconnect between what we see on the screen and what we "think" it should look like.

The way I look at controls is like this:

What would be more fun to play?

1. The orignial frogger if it was played with motion controls?
2. An all around current frogger if it used the same controller as the orginal?

If you can honestly say #1 would be more fun then an updated game with updated graphics and a stronger sense of realism then why did you even upgrade past the orginal Atari to begin with?

My point is you can do a whole heck of a lot with a standard controller, I'll even go as far to say you can make a great game today with the orginal NES controller. However you can't make a great game by strapping on a new control scheme to dated hardware and expect people to get the feeling of actually performing the tasks portrayed because the task you are seeing is complete disconnected from your view of reality.

New control schemes are only as good as the output in which they create; the old saying goes "Garbage in Garbage Out". Yet throwing a Rolex into a dumpster doesn't make that trash more appealing; it just makes you a fool for throwing away your Rolex.


Dregun +1 Rolex + 0

 

This is such bullsh*t it's painful to read. Hardcore gamers are gamers who buy everything. They salivate over consoles, not companies, so whether it's 360, PS3 or Wii, they have to have it. Hardcore gamers are rare, Sony and Xbox 360 fanboys branding themselves as hardcore gamers is common.

 

Actually, I think that is false. Hardcore gamers are typically gamers that have invested a large amount of time in mastering certain gaming skills. A lot of games cater to players with such skills and actually count on their previous experience in similar games (fps games a big and obvious example here, but it's not nearly the only genre). Part of that investment also goes into control methods. That is why it can be painful for a PC gamer to transfer to a console environment - the investment into the mouse and keyboard control method doesn't transfer, and the PC gamers is set back in his development as a gamer to even basic control mastery running around in a field of noobs, rather than fighting with the elite, so to speak.

This is why the perspective of a non-gamer and a hardcore gamer is so different towards motion control in gaming. Sure, there are also some hardcore gamers who play and master literally everything, but these are as rare as people who like nearly all types of music, nearly all types of film, and so on (I happen to be one though).

 

What you are claiming does not match my experience Arwin. It took me less than 20 minutes to figure out the Wii's controller long enough to beat any of my friends and family who played against me. 20 more and I had figured out how most of the Wii sports games calculated points and distances enough that I could score using whatever motion I wanted to. Most of my "hard core" gamer friends were the same. Very few hard core gamers that I know of focus on mastering a particular control set. Rather we choose the best control set available for the game. Whether that be a wheel for a racing game or an arcade stick for a fighter - anything we find we play. It makes transitions between games and control sets very easy - even between the PC and consoles.

On the other hand, I pointed out that EVERYONE I know - including my friends and family who only play video games now and again - ended up disliking the Wii controller. They love the games most of the time, but after a short while tire of the control scheme. Scott continues to claim that is the "hardcore" gamer reference. No offense, but if these people are hard core, so is anyone who plays Solitaire.

I tend to think Readykilowatt is probably closer to the truth. I will buy and play any game that comes out that I can afford - regardless of system, controller, genre, ect. I just love console and computer games of all types. I am as equally likely to say that the triggers on the PS3 controller were poorly implemented as I am to say the Wii controllers are poorly implemented. It is all a wash to me. On the other hand for Scott to just dismiss the opinions of my friends and family because they are "hardcore" gamers is a bit silly.

The problem here is that people are trying to assign the notion that the Wii's control method is not well implemented to "hardcore" gamers. That isn't the case. I have heard the same thing from every type of gamer. As I have stated, in my experience my more casual family members are far more critical of the controllers than I am. If you wanted to argue something, it should be relative percentages. Even then, there are no firm numbers either way.

That is why I didn't bother to reply to Scott earlier. Being so willing to dismiss any argument against the controllers because "only hardcore gamers think that" leaves little point in discussing it. I'll continue to play every game that comes out and point at flaws in the control system. My more casual family will continue to pick up games that cater to group and family play regardless of flaws in the control system, and the world will continue to spin on its axis. There is little point in arguing the matter.

 

I watched my friends grandmother play Wii tennis. There's no way in hell she would have even touched it if she had to use a gamepad. Maybe after a while she'd tire of the novelty of playing the game by swinging the remote, but relative to not playing at all with a gamepad, that's a pretty good start.

Your personal experience is different that mine, and that's fine. I'm not saying your mom or five year old daughter is a hardcore gamer. She probably isn't. I just think the sales volume of the Wii, which people are buying in large part because of Wii sports and Wii play shows that the novelty of motion control is a huge draw for people. Most of the complaints I hear are not from my friends, coworkers or family, but from people like us on internet forums and critics who are far more invested in gaming than anyone else. But sure, there will be some casual or non-gamers that don't like it.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm just making my argument. I think for the most part, or high majority, it's "hardcore" gamers that have certain expectations that aren't happy with the wii remote. I think casual players and new players are far less judgmental. The novelty of motion controls is less intimidating and far more appealing than the standard gamepad with its multitude of buttons and dual sticks.

Nothing is ever perfect, and the wii remote certainly isn't an exception. But poorly implemented is relative. I think it does what it's supposed to do in a very basic way. The next iteration will be better.

If someone never plays games, and they pick up the Wii remote and say, "This isn't as good as I was hoping." Well, at least the Wii remote and the novelty of motion control enticed them to at least give it a chance, whereas a gamepad would probably never even be an option. I think a lot of people will pick it up and think of it as a simple and fun activity. The sales success and news coverage, to me, is proof of this.

I can't see how Sony or Microsoft wouldn't try to cash in on this market. It would be hard for Microsoft to put out a new controller at this stage, unless they bundled it with a title at a standard game price, like Wii Play. I very highly doubt they'll do it. Sony already tried last minute with the six-axis. I'm sure they'll put more effort into eye-toy now.