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

[DemoCoder]

The Wiiremote is agonizingly frustrating. For me, it not only adds zero, it takes away. Take Super Mario Galaxy, all agreed, a great game, but what do I use the Wiimote for? A super-inaccurate pointer to collect starbits, plus I have to shake it to activate what is normally a single button press to either use a teleporter, or punch a monster.

I found after hours of playing SMG, that, as a game which relies alot on the Nunchuck stick, it left me wanting a real XB or DS controller which is far better for analog stick control, and in the areas where it requires you to use the wiimote, I found it added ZERO to my enjoyment of the game.

IMHO, SMG would be just as fun, if not more so, on a regular control scheme.

Not one game has really panned out for me. Metroid? Super lame with the wiimote control scheme. Sorry, but this game's controls sit below even turgid FPSes on other platforms.

My father in law was in town for Christmas and inquired about getting a Wii because he heard senior citizens were using it to exercise. After playing it, he too was frustrated with the lack of realistic control mapping, and said elderly people should stick to playing real golf or bowling, they'll get more benefit out of it.

Now, this post will draw a lot of fire, but look at how the Nintendo fans defense, it's a cognitive dissonance based corporate love affair, much like Apple users. What are we to make of the idea that Sony or MS could not make a controller with similar features and design? I personally don't credit Nintendo's HW with a great design sense. Software yes, but from a HW standpoint, it's meh. Remember Virtual Boy?

 

[Xalion]

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.

I want you to look up the definition of anecdotal. It is a word I have used often. It is a word you should apply to this. I have no problem with what you or your family experienced. The problem is the next statement:

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.

I don't think there is any sales data to support this. Previous motion controls have been a flop. This current version of motion controls is not all that well implemented. Believe it or not, the PS3 also has motion controls and they have obviously not been pushing its sales.

I really don't think it is the novelty of the controller. I have stated many times that there are several better reasons that are much more logical if you look at the sales trends. The first is price. Like it or not, the Wii is the only console that falls in the price range that most electronics consider the sweet spot for mass adoption. The second is social gaming.

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.

I don't think you can argue that poorly implemented is relative in this case. Simply put the Wii's control scheme is not even that good at what it was designed to do. You can hide that through clever programing, but I do not consider that a plus.

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.

The problem with your argument is you are using your conclusion as the major point in your argument. You claim that motion control is the driving factor and claim that this proves your argument that motion control is the driving factor. It cannot be both.

On the other hand, Sony and Microsoft don't have that luxury. They must base their future sales products on market research. Isn't it strange that the largest push by both companies since the release have increased their emphasis on social gaming? That alone should tell you something about the market. Further, Sony had the Six Axis in development very early in the life cycle of the PS2. It was not a last minute addition like you try to claim. The eye toy is also not new - but rather something that was also available last generation. If anything, it was Nintendo who copied earlier efforts by Microsoft and Sony for their motion controls.

Once again, history does not support the conclusion that motion controls are the driving factor behind the Wii. Motion controls have been available before. They have never taken off. Nintendo is not the first company to bring that type of product to the table.

They are the first to sell a console as a social gaming experience. I would not argue that their motion controls are part of that sales pitch. Not because they are "motion" controls - but because they can market it as "easy to learn! Just move like you normally would!". However, first and foremost I believe Nintendo has sold the social factor for gaming.

The future will of course hold the answer - but don't be disappointed if you don't see motion controls as a driving factor for future sales. I think it far more likely that you are going to see gaming as a social construct marketed heavily at mass adoption price points.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I want you to look up the definition of anecdotal. It is a word I have used often. It is a word you should apply to this. I have no problem with what you or your family experienced. The problem is the next statement:

I know what anecdotal evidence is, and I know it applies to my family, friend, coworker experience. It's the same with your families dislike of the wii remote.

I don't think there is any sales data to support this. Previous motion controls have been a flop. This current version of motion controls is not all that well implemented. Believe it or not, the PS3 also has motion controls and they have obviously not been pushing its sales.

I really don't think it is the novelty of the controller. I have stated many times that there are several better reasons that are much more logical if you look at the sales trends. The first is price. Like it or not, the Wii is the only console that falls in the price range that most electronics consider the sweet spot for mass adoption. The second is social gaming.

The only sales data is that the Wii consistently sells a hell of a lot of units. Of course it wouldn't sell as well if it were priced the same as the PS3 at launch. At that price the PS3 would probably be way head of the Wii. The social gaming is also true. The advertisements show people playing games together, which is definitely a smart way to advertise games. Games being antisocial behavior is one of the big stigmas in gaming, and I think it was smart to address that. At the same time, I think playing a game on the Wii just looks more fun and interactive, and in my opinion that has a lot to do with the success of the system. If the Wii had shipped with the Gamecube controller as standard, I really think the system would be dead in the water, no matter how they advertised it. Of course I don't have any market info to back that up, but I haven't seen any market research that shows the Wii remote has been a hindrance or neutral to sales either. It's just how I see it.

I don't think you can argue that poorly implemented is relative in this case. Simply put the Wii's control scheme is not even that good at what it was designed to do. You can hide that through clever programing, but I do not consider that a plus.

But why do you think it's poorly implemented? It does what it set out to do. I don't have any problems with it. I prefer other controllers for certain games. Each of the gamepad, keyboard+mouse and wii remote have their weak genres.

The problem with your argument is you are using your conclusion as the major point in your argument. You claim that motion control is the driving factor and claim that this proves your argument that motion control is the driving factor. It cannot be both.

On the other hand, Sony and Microsoft don't have that luxury. They must base their future sales products on market research. Isn't it strange that the largest push by both companies since the release have increased their emphasis on social gaming? That alone should tell you something about the market. Further, Sony had the Six Axis in development very early in the life cycle of the PS2. It was not a last minute addition like you try to claim. The eye toy is also not new - but rather something that was also available last generation. If anything, it was Nintendo who copied earlier efforts by Microsoft and Sony for their motion controls.

Once again, history does not support the conclusion that motion controls are the driving factor behind the Wii. Motion controls have been available before. They have never taken off. Nintendo is not the first company to bring that type of product to the table.

They are the first to sell a console as a social gaming experience. I would not argue that their motion controls are part of that sales pitch. Not because they are "motion" controls - but because they can market it as "easy to learn! Just move like you normally would!". However, first and foremost I believe Nintendo has sold the social factor for gaming.

The future will of course hold the answer - but don't be disappointed if you don't see motion controls as a driving factor for future sales. I think it far more likely that you are going to see gaming as a social construct marketed heavily at mass adoption price points.

One of the big parts of the advertising is showing the people being active and using the controller. It looks fun, or stupid depending who you ask.

I know eye-toy is older than the Wii remote. I didn't see anything about the six-axis until after Nintendo had announced the Wii. If they'd had it in development for such a long time, they obviously didn't think it was worth bringing to market until they saw the buzz surrounding the Wii.

I don't know what the other motion control devices were. Maybe they would have been a success if they were marketed well. Who knows.


I'm not a research analyst and I don't have time or money to do studies on why the Wii is selling. All I can do is offer my anecdotal opinion on why I think it might be selling. Please don't jump on me for it. It's just an internet forum. I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid. I just don't agree 100%. I think I was being pretty reasonable in my argument. Obviously on this one we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Now, this post will draw a lot of fire, but look at how the Nintendo fans defense, it's a cognitive dissonance based corporate love affair, much like Apple users. What are we to make of the idea that Sony or MS could not make a controller with similar features and design? I personally don't credit Nintendo's HW with a great design sense. Software yes, but from a HW standpoint, it's meh. Remember Virtual Boy?

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that? There are rabid fan boys for everything, but their in the minority. Don't let them poison the view of the general public. There are too many Wiis and iPods sold to write it off as a corporate love affair. Virtual Boy is a piece of shit, but that doesn't mean Nintendo can't do right years later. MS and Sony could easily design a competitor if not better solution than the wii remote. Sony may already have it with the six-axis and eye-toy in combination, if they'd actually made it standard to the system and marketed the hell out of it.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Doesn't this discussion always come down to the primary purpose of the consoles? We've got three of them and only one of them was made with the primary purpose of being a gaming machine.

The PS3 was built to showcase and sell Cell and BR tech, and the 360 was built to take advantage of the Live! infrastructure and provide digital distribution. Gaming, for both the PS3 and the 360 were secondary functions. They might have been marketed as primary attributes, but selling games isn't where Sony or MS believed their long term revenue would come from.

Nintendo was able to be successful selling a 'one dimensional' or 'niche' product because of their first party developers and their huge catalog of IP. Because they didn't want to compete in these other areas, they were able to offer a console at a far lower price point that made their 'new' product more attractive.

Sure, their games do suffer as a result of their decision to not focus on technology. But, their games are also more accessible because of their relatively low price point.

It's not about the wiimote being something that can easily be copied. It can be, and as has been mentioned, its not a unique concept and MS was probably the first to actually come to market with the concept.

But tying in a wiimote-type controller to the PS3 or the 360 even at launch, wouldn't have helped to sell either system because the barrier to entry is the price. And has been mentioned, adding a peripheral now that won't be usable in the majority of games won't take sales away from the Wii.

I also question the idea that in the 'next generation' the Sony and MS offering will come standard with this sort of controller. I don't think that either will.

The next generation PS3 and 360 will be developed to expand revenue streams outside of gaming, just as the current offerings were developed to do.

And the selling point of the Wii isn't just that it's easy to 'pick up and play' because of the wiimote, but also that its easy to 'purchase and play' because of the significantly lower price point.

And as long as MS and Sony are looking for the PSx and XboxN to do more than just be a gaming machine, they will never be able to compete on initial price point.

 

[DemoCoder]

Well, arguably the same reasoning applies to the PS2 and XBox1 to a lesser extent. Lest we forget, the PS2 was initially demoed on widescreens, it includes an iLink/Firewire port (not purely to connect PS2s, there was an entire push to have it control other devices at one point, explained to me at CES), and a DVD player, heavily promoed, the remote was sold out for a long time, and many people were using them as cheap DVD players. Live was a big part of XB strategy as well, MS included an HD and Ethernet from the beginning. There was talk of the original XB as well as PS2 being 'PVRs' way back then as well.

I think these explanations are patent nonsense. Wii is selling for the same reason the Gameboy and DS sell well, cheap-ass hardware. It enjoys a massive price advantage over its rivals. In the PSP case, it's not the fact that the thing can play back movies that is hampering it, even if it didn't have a UMD slot, or memory stick reader, it would enjoy a big disadvantage, since it packs significantly superior hardware compared to the DS, as well as being bulkier.

I think Nintendo could ship a brown paper bag with an abacus, and people would try to explain how it's the narrow focus on gaming and the abacus control scheme that makes the difference.

Nintendo is simply tapping into the much larger audience for casual gaming. Casual gamers don't want to spend a whole lot of money, or time, on games.

At the polar extreme is games like Steel Battalion. It doesn't take an MBA to explain why this game will suffer limited sales.

 

[Dregun]

Doesn't this discussion always come down to the primary purpose of the consoles? We've got three of them and only one of them was made with the primary purpose of being a gaming machine.

This argument was also made when the Game Cube came out "because it didn't play DVD's and as such was just for Video Games, the other consoles are more expensive because they had to pay a fee to the DVD forum". I heard all this before and it didn't stop the GC from being almost a complete failure.

The PS3 was built to showcase and sell Cell and BR tech, and the 360 was built to take advantage of the Live! infrastructure and provide digital distribution. Gaming, for both the PS3 and the 360 were secondary functions. They might have been marketed as primary attributes, but selling games isn't where Sony or MS believed their long term revenue would come from.

As far as I know the PS3 was in development BEFORE Sony decided to push blu-ray and even then it wasn't finalized if the PS3 would even include a BR drive until shortly before release. Furthermore both consoles PRIMARY function is to play games; the hardware was in the machine: Ram-Ok; CPU-Ok, GPU-OK, Wifi-Ok, HDD-Ok; so how much more effort is it to lets say....allow these machines to connect to the internet and use a web browser? Or how about the ability to stream files from a computer and play them on the console now that the machines are powerful enough and the technology required is already in a vast amount of homes? I would feel cheated if the 360 or the PS3 could only play games because that means I paid the same amount for less features..maybe thats why these machines are now considered media stations?

Nintendo was able to be successful selling a 'one dimensional' or 'niche' product because of their first party developers and their huge catalog of IP. Because they didn't want to compete in these other areas, they were able to offer a console at a far lower price point that made their 'new' product more attractive.

Nintendo broke the mold because they wanted to make a profit on each console sold from the start because the GC sold poorly and software even worse. If your afraid you wont regain R&D back on royalties from games but know you have a strong following of supporters who will buy your console...why not make sure you make profit on each console so that you do not rely on 3rd party software sales?

The next generation PS3 and 360 will be developed to expand revenue streams outside of gaming, just as the current offerings were developed to do.

I would rather Sony and MS try and make money on other revenue streams because then they sell the hardware at a loss; instead of them selling the console for a profit as that does not benefit the consumer. Honestly if big oil is going to sell you a Porche for 20k because they know you are going to buy a lot of gas for it and buy OEM parts for it; or they can sell you a 15k Ford Focus that only cost them 14k to build but realize they wont get much more revenue from you...what is the better deal for YOU?

And as long as MS and Sony are looking for the PSx and XboxN to do more than just be a gaming machine, they will never be able to compete on initial price point.

This should read, "As long as MS and Sony are looking for the PSx and XboxN to fully utilize advanced hardware in their machines then they will never compete on an initial price for a machine with less advanced hardware"

The Wii is overpriced, everybody knows that for this generation when compared to the other consoles the Wii does not have the technological value compared to the PS3 and Xbox360. Whats the difference between the 360 and the Wii that makes you think the 360 was designed to do more then play games? Couldn't the Wii do the same thing for next to NOTHING to stream music and video from an outside source or from downloads off of Nintendos network? I mean seriously the only real difference between the Wii and the 360 is the 360 has more brute force and lacks waggle; everything else the 360 can do is because the power was already in the machine to PLAY GAMES and MS thought that the hardware could do more then just play games if they wrote the right code for it.

Nintendo has played the "Just for games" card before with the GC; this time around they lucked out because MS and Sony were more expensive and waggle is compelling to the over 50 and under 12 crowed.

 

[Nesh]

Taking what Xalion said I think he is right about everything with the difference that I will add the controller at the end too

1) It is inexpensive
2) It is inexpensive (yes, this is enough to count as 2)
3) Its software is inexpensive
4) Games are group oriented instead of "gamer" oriented
5) Games are family friendly - striving more for fun than for realism
6) Controller


And why is that? It is because the "family friendly", "group oriented" and especially the "casual/less demanding friendly" aspect of the image that Nintendo wanted to promote, needed a control scheme that was simple and different enough. Nintendo failed to do this with the GC, but obviously it was the style of games that didnt work. The PS2 had everything the GC could offer plus more. GC only had a lower price. And they both targeted the same markets. So they had to reform their strategy and sway away from direct competition.

If it had the same control scheme as the GC, people might have preferred to stay on the PS2 which had more games, same experience (minus the online features) and was cheaper.

Since Wii was a new product it sure needed to be priced lower than the "competitors" to attract the main target market which was the casual and non-gaming consumer, but at the same time it needed to back it up with the proper style of play. "Make things simple". They also packed it with Wii Sports, a fine "demo" of the motion sensing capabilities, and one that almost every simple consumer, casual and non-gamer would give a glimpse and try.

PS3 and 360 were totally out of the game Wii wanted to play, with high price, no game included (atleast for casuals) and with the same experience everyone was having for years

 

[Mobius1aic]

Well the controller bit was part of the focus on drawing a larger audience because it would help to simplify things compared to using a standard gamepad hence why the system really goes after families since the kids can have fun but mom, dad, and anyone else can join in. The controller opens up alot of things for people not used to games at all therefore the Wii really goes a long way in terms of being the family system. Nintendo doesn't have to target normal gamers because even with "hardcore" gamers out of the picture the amount of potential market they are aiming at is insanely huge, and because of that idea, the money they are making is insane. They could tell their fanboys to go to hell, lose them and Nintendo would still be eating and shitting out cash like they are now. My only thought is what Nintendo does the next generation around. Will they actually truly expand on the system's hardware or just the controls or both?

 

[patsu]

This is just gut feel...

I believe they will do so eventually, but the vendors need a game/application to go with it. On PS3, it would be a SIXAXIS with different casing and simplified/hidden button layout.

A 3D-mouse/Wii remote control would also be perfect for BD-Live players. BD-J extensions and player usability will benefit significantly from the simplicity and flexibility of such a controller.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Taking what Xalion said I think he is right about everything with the difference that I will add the controller at the end too

1) It is inexpensive
2) It is inexpensive (yes, this is enough to count as 2)
3) Its software is inexpensive
4) Games are group oriented instead of "gamer" oriented
5) Games are family friendly - striving more for fun than for realism
6) Controller


And why is that? It is because the "family friendly", "group oriented" and especially the "casual/less demanding friendly" aspect of the image that Nintendo wanted to promote, needed a control scheme that was simple and different enough. Nintendo failed to do this with the GC, but obviously it was the style of games that didnt work. The PS2 had everything the GC could offer plus more. GC only had a lower price. And they both targeted the same markets. So they had to reform their strategy and sway away from direct competition.

If it had the same control scheme as the GC, people might have preferred to stay on the PS2 which had more games, same experience (minus the online features) and was cheaper.

Since Wii was a new product it sure needed to be priced lower than the "competitors" to attract the main target market which was the casual and non-gaming consumer, but at the same time it needed to back it up with the proper style of play. "Make things simple". They also packed it with Wii Sports, a fine "demo" of the motion sensing capabilities, and one that almost every simple consumer, casual and non-gamer would give a glimpse and try.

PS3 and 360 were totally out of the game Wii wanted to play, with high price, no game included (atleast for casuals) and with the same experience everyone was having for years

The list doesnt make sense though. The ps2 has all the things in the list, expect for the controller ofcourse. So if the controller really is only the 6th reason to buy a wii (6th reason = worthless) than everybody would just have bought a ps2 instead. The wii has something different going for it and I do believe the controller plays a significant role in that because if it didnt the wii would be just like the GC because its almost the same story in that aspect. Lower price, though not so much games, oriented at ''the family'' etc.

Like it or not, the wii remote is a big reason the wii is selling like it is.

 

[Dregun]

The list doesnt make sense though. The ps2 has all the things in the list, expect for the controller ofcourse. So if the controller really is only the 6th reason to buy a wii (6th reason = worthless) than everybody would just have bought a ps2 instead. The wii has something different going for it and I do believe the controller plays a significant role in that because if it didnt the wii would be just like the GC because its almost the same story in that aspect. Lower price, though not so much games, oriented at ''the family'' etc.

Like it or not, the wii remote is a big reason the wii is selling like it is.

Actually I think the "idea" of the remote is what is having an impact on the sales and not so much the remote itself. In my oppinion people are drawn to the idea of a new control scheme and controlling the character movements "completely" when in fact its just replacing button presses with jestures made with the wii mote. Everybody I know who has a Wii bought it because they had this idea that how they swing that remote would directly result in the same movements on screen. I see them mimick good swings in tennis, baseball and even mimick the correct form for bowling and get frustrated because the same care they put into that jesture wasn't relayed on the screen. It took a lot of explaining on my part to get them to understand the concept of jestures and how every game is dependant on the developers use of the Wii mote more then the Wii mote itself.

Many have said in the Wii motes defense that you don't have to peform full motions to get the same outcome in the games. Even my niece and nephew now know after playing the wii for a few months that they dont have to do full swings and with that I can see they don't enjoy the games as much as they once did.

The Wii mote has an affect on the perception of the Nintendo Wii, just like the Family friendly games and low price. Like many others have said although the Wii mote might get them started because its different and interesting; its the atmosphere Nintendo created with the games that are causing people to buy the Wii.

Look at it this way, the Wii would still have the same games and be just as Family and Social gaming prominent as it is today even without the Wii mote. The difference is nobody would have given the Wii a chance to "experience" that without being suckered in by the Wii mote itself. The wii mote is just a catlyst getting people interested in video games that never showed interest before. This is basically showing that the people who didn't like video games in the past were more then likely basing this on the fact they never played video games to begin with. All of a sudden something about video games seems interesting and they are hooked like everyone else who has been enjoying them for ages.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The list doesnt make sense though. The ps2 has all the things in the list, expect for the controller ofcourse. So if the controller really is only the 6th reason to buy a wii (6th reason = worthless) than everybody would just have bought a ps2 instead.

Though I agree with you, there is a counter to your argument which is advertising. Wii has been marketed and pushed as a family friendly system where people get together to play. PS2 hasn't. Thus its not a truly fair comparison. You would need both consoles to be marketed in the same manner, presenting themselves as family friendly, community gaming systems. Then you could see the impact of the controller as that'd be the only difference (proper scientific method).

I do think the Wiimote is a big factor. Your average casual actually has pretty rubbish motor skills. Fine thumb skills are asking too much. Decoupling one of the analogue inputs from manual skills to full arm motion, and using games that don't require exactness so much, makes control more accessible which means they are engaged in the game rather than focussing on their control. The responses I've seen from Wii users has those more used to conventional gaming less happy with the Wiimote in it's usual (Wiisports and Wiiplay!) activities. This isn't just experienced gamers. One friend was a big fan of CON:RTA on PS2, but took quite a while to get his head around mapping skills to button combos. His gaming skillzorz are limited. But when given Wii Tennis, at one point he turned around and just flicked his wrist at random to play the game, finding the input limited and pointless. That completely contrasted with other peeps who really got into the Wiimote experience. And of course not all experienced gamers are going to be anti-Wiimote. Only that I think the choice shifts the balance of appeal towards those with less developed skills, an important part of Nintendo's next-gen strategy and also reason why some people really don't get on with it.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

@dregun

No the wii wouldnt be what it is now without the wii remote. The wii remote is the wii, without it the wii is nothing. If nintendo made a powerfull console without the wiimote (or even with one maybe) it would have failed because ps3/x360 would have been more interresting. Wii with slow hardware, low price but no wii remote would have failed because you would have gotten a souped up ps2 at more than double the price. Nobody would have cared to buy it or make games for it. The wii remote is what makes people interrested in the wii and that is what makes the wii a succes.

Also I dont really understand the complaining about how motions arnt 100% perfect. Besides it probably being more of a software factor than a hardware one (though I doubt the wii remote can do 100% perfect motion regestration) what did they expect? that it would be like real life? why? When ms/sony say their consoles have super realistic gfx nobody expects it to be like real life. When racesim X says its like driving a real car nobody expects it to be really like driving on a track. Nobody expects a flightsim to be 100% realistic. Then why expect it of the wii remote? Personally I think its close enough, it gives you the sense of playing the game and if you want it to be like real life, just play real life tennis/bowling. Doing things real life is more fun than doing it virtually anyway.

On a little side note, my grandma who bowls for years played my with the wii once (for some reason I cant get anybody in my family exited for it) and she did say it gives you the bowling feeling. Not 100% perfect, but close enough if you cant play the real thing.

But all this is going away from the point of the topic and would probably fit better in a topic about whether or not the wii remote is capable enough for what it says it will deliver.

 

[zed]

1) It is inexpensive
2) It is inexpensive (yes, this is enough to count as 2)

in some countries (including here in nz) the xb360 is cheaper than the wii.
#1 is desirability, price doesnt really factor. its like the ipod give 2 ppl the same mp3 player one with a ipod brand + the other with another high quality brand. 90% of ppl will chose the ipod

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Though I agree with you, there is a counter to your argument which is advertising. Wii has been marketed and pushed as a family friendly system where people get together to play. PS2 hasn't.

I agree to some extend. But alot of parents only used to know the ps2 around here, that was the machine to have. And if you look in the stores even now alot of the offerings they have are ''family'' games. Yes the wii has more marketing for that, but I wouldnt count out the ps2 to fast in that aspect.

His gaming skillzorz are limited. But when given Wii Tennis, at one point he turned around and just flicked his wrist at random to play the game, finding the input limited and pointless. That completely contrasted with other peeps who really got into the Wiimote experience. And of course not all experienced gamers are going to be anti-Wiimote. Only that I think the choice shifts the balance of appeal towards those with less developed skills, an important part of Nintendo's next-gen strategy and also reason why some people really don't get on with it.

I think it depends a bit on how you play. Because its motion based it will in alot of cases probably be possible to trick the system. When you start doing that ofcourse it gets boring and pointless because indeed it doesnt take skill. But if you play it like its supposed to be played you will feel alot more connected. Thats a downside of the technology used I suppose.

But I agree if you are the type that wants to do insane 20 buttons combo's in a fighter the wii remote wont really be what you want. Though with 4 buttons (z, c, a, b) and a stick right under your fingers your not that low on buttons either. I think you could make very skill demanding games with the wii too though. You could probably do some very high accurace requiring things with the pointer for example (like trauma centre, I havnt played it, but what I heard of it you wont ever be able to do that with a normal controller)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But I agree if you are the type that wants to do insane 20 buttons combo's in a fighter the wii remote wont really be what you want.

Scale that down a bit! A conventional game, such as my favourite genre, will be looking at two handed control with at most three or four buttons/controls simultaneously. So on CON you have left stick for motion and L1+a face button for a skill. The difficulty comes from remembering which skill is on which button and when you need L1 or not. Football (soccer to speakers of foreign languages) has the same, in fact with far more complexity. But you wouldn't have the game without that complexity. If you want to control 5 different aspects of your character at once, you need 5 different controls. Wiimote is quite capable of this in extended form, but it is deliberately divorced from this, and the major selling points are coupled with what's clearly simple gameplay that doesn't require thinking about 4 things at once. A proper tennis game would require the player to control positioning, hand positioning, swing and swing type, and 'aftertouch'. WiiTennis just has swing. If they had released a full tennis game, the casuals that really get into WiiTennis wouldn't have bothered - if they did get into it, they'd all be out playing tennis for real . WiiTennis has instead simplified the controls, but the kinetic experience adds a lot to the enjoyment. The same game could be played in the same way rolling a thumbstick around, but that wouldn't appeal to anyone! This is where the Wiimote is important to the Wii experience. The end result is a product that doesn't have the complexity of conventional gaming (which isn't all uber-gaming skilz but just a modicum of multi-control coordination) but isn't dull because of the kinetic experience.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Scale that down a bit! A conventional game, such as my favourite genre, will be looking at two handed control with at most three or four buttons/controls simultaneously. So on CON you have left stick for motion and L1+a face button for a skill. The difficulty comes from remembering which skill is on which button and when you need L1 or not. Football (soccer to speakers of foreign languages) has the same, in fact with far more complexity. But you wouldn't have the game without that complexity. If you want to control 5 different aspects of your character at once, you need 5 different controls. Wiimote is quite capable of this in extended form, but it is deliberately divorced from this, and the major selling points are coupled with what's clearly simple gameplay that doesn't require thinking about 4 things at once. A proper tennis game would require the player to control positioning, hand positioning, swing and swing type, and 'aftertouch'. WiiTennis just has swing. If they had released a full tennis game, the casuals that really get into WiiTennis wouldn't have bothered - if they did get into it, they'd all be out playing tennis for real . WiiTennis has instead simplified the controls, but the kinetic experience adds a lot to the enjoyment. The same game could be played in the same way rolling a thumbstick around, but that wouldn't appeal to anyone! This is where the Wiimote is important to the Wii experience. The end result is a product that doesn't have the complexity of conventional gaming (which isn't all uber-gaming skilz but just a modicum of multi-control coordination) but isn't dull because of the kinetic experience.

Wii gets Top Spin Tennis in May(?) and Pro Evolution Football in March. Pro Evolution has an interesting control scheme rather than the FIFA07 tack-on waggle controls. No idea about Top Spin, but I'm assuming it will be more in-depth than Wii Sports

The pointer is a really useful component of the Wii remote. A game like Trauma Center would not work on a regular gamepad. It would work with a mouse, but no one is going to ship a mouse as the standard controller for their console. There will be some form of pointer input for all of the next consoles, I think. Eye-toy will most likely take care of that for PS3.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Wii gets Top Spin Tennis in May(?) and Pro Evolution Football in March. Pro Evolution has an interesting control scheme rather than the FIFA07 tack-on waggle controls. No idea about Top Spin, but I'm assuming it will be more in-depth than Wii Sports

I appreciate that, and it may do wonders for more seasoned gamers. I doubt if there's any complexity though, that it'd have proven such a hit with first-time players as WiiTennis though.

 

[Xalion]

The list doesnt make sense though. The ps2 has all the things in the list, expect for the controller ofcourse. So if the controller really is only the 6th reason to buy a wii (6th reason = worthless) than everybody would just have bought a ps2 instead. The wii has something different going for it and I do believe the controller plays a significant role in that because if it didnt the wii would be just like the GC because its almost the same story in that aspect. Lower price, though not so much games, oriented at ''the family'' etc.

Like it or not, the wii remote is a big reason the wii is selling like it is.

Two exceptionally obvious counters to this argument.

1) The PS2 did continue to sell very well even after the Wii was released. As a matter of fact, it STILL continues to sell well.

2) The PS2 is not oriented for group/social play. Go to the store and look at the selection of games that have multi-player capabilities. You will find that most are limited to 1 player. For those that are multi-player, most are limited to 2 players. That is even the default number of control ports that come on a PS2.

So the only thing the PS2 actually had on that list is price. Considering how well it sold even given that price was its only advantage over the next gen consoles, I think it is fairly obvious that price is indeed a major motivating factor.

Once again, imho the Wii remote served only to generate initial hype. At this point, I do not believe it is a major reason why the Wii is selling. The Wii is selling right now based on social gaming and word of mouth. It is cheap, easy to use, and has several group oriented games. I seriously feel that at this point in the game you could replace the controllers with standard game pads and it would continue to sell well.

I think the Sony and Microsoft have found similar things in their market research, which is why they are focusing more on social aspects of gaming going forward. Online play, Online venues like Home and Live, sandbox games like Little Big Planet, party games like Guitar Hero / Rockband, ect - most of what I see advertised right now for both consoles deals around making the console seem group friendly. This is a marketing point we never really saw until the Nintendo Wii. We have seen motion control schemes before. So if I have to choose between social gaming and motion control schemes for the reason the Wii is selling it is pretty obvious which I'm going to pick.