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

I did not imply that the sixth is worthless. All 6 are just as important for the specific newly marketed product.

The controller is directly related to 4 and 5. It depicts better the family oriented and group gaming image than standard controller, and it can attract people and in a way that the previous consoles could not. And the price is logical and perfect for the specific market the console is targeting. So yeah the controller is important. A lot.

But if the price was as high as a 360 or PS3 price, and the games were complicated (for the sakes of discussion lets say hardcore), the casual/non-gamer would not have bought it. PS2 would have remained the only closest product.

They are all a part of creating a perfect product mix for the specific target market. You can not say that only one thing contributed to the success of the Wii. It was the combination of all. They are interrelated.

 

You basically said the same thing I did, just in a different fashion.

The Wii would have the same type of games without the Wii-mote because thats the type of games Nintendo makes (not biased or fanboyish drivel; its the truth). However having the Wii-mote is what is getting people to play those games and experience the Nintendo way. Would Mario Galaxy and Metroid still have sold just as well without the Wii-mote (if the wii sold in the same fashion)? I predict it would have and that shows that the control is not as important as the games themselves. The Wii-mote allowed Nintendo to get people playing games that never played video games before. Everyone says the PS3 was a Trojan horse for Blu-Ray but the Wii mote has been the BIGGEST Trojan horse this console generation to get more people into gaming. They could have shaped the Wii mote like a Duck and as long as it functioned half way decent and you could still play Wii Tennis the the Wii still would have sold.

My whole point has been that the controller is a big contributor to the success of the Wii; however its not the controller that is selling consoles its the games. These new gamers that are going out and buying the wii are doing so soley on the fact that they enjoyed the game; the wii mote just didn't scare them into trying the game in the first place. The PS3 would not have gained much more ground this generation if it included waggle compared to not having it; simply because the games generally available for the PS3 were not Nintendo types of games that would appeal to the Non-Gamer crowd.

As far as people expecting motion mapping, they most certainly did. If they didn't then they wouldnt be swinging the controller while standing up to play; they, like everyone else; after a while would be sitting on the couch flicking their wrist. If you told Grandma before she even picked up the controller that she just has to flick her wrist and her character will swing her tennis club do you think she would be impressed? Would that convey what she saw on TV during the commercials with people whaling about mimicing what is done in real life?

Like I said earlier with my Niece and Nephew; once people find out that they don't need to make full movements with the wii-mote its like you told them Santa Clause doesn't exist; sure they still like Christmas but the magic is gone.

BTW, I'm not knocking the Wii or the Wii-mote. Nintendo was genius in implimenting it into the Wii as is already evident in thier sales. The only complaint I have is the disrespect I felt they showed avid gamers by not making stronger hardware. In my mind they said "you only think you want better graphics, we know what is best for you" and gave me the shaft. Other then that..WHOOHOO

 

QFT. These are my thoughts exactly.

 

I don't believe you have played Mario Galaxy and if you did, maybe you lack the dexterity to play the game properly. Too bad... every other platformer built with antiquated controllers are now irrelevant with respect to this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD41J27fPK0

Spoiler

I nearly fell out of my chair playing the Trial Galaxies.

Take notes, because this is how you create a "platformer".

 

Someone having a differing opinion from you must mean they are lying about their experience. That's a great argument.

 

As you can see, you don't only collect starbits with the Wii remote and shake it to do a spin attack. It goes much deeper than that. Play the game.

 

Well with regards that video : 1) It's not a platformer It's a 'marble game'; 2) Sixaxis could handle the control in a similar vein. Slight variation but not much; 3) An analogue stick to place the blower whichever side of the bubble would work just as well and in the same way.
What's are the key controls of Mario Galaxies? Move in direction with the nunchuck? Jump with a button press? Is that really a huge improvement over Mario on the NES? Mario's a poor example of what Wiimote brings to the console IMO.

 

I have no desire to play any pos platformer, but perhaps you should structure your arguments in a way that doesn't accuse people of lying otherwise you'll just wind up on peoples ignore list, like now.

 

Probably, but Mario Galaxy will never be on the PS3 so we'll never know. I doubt it however. The pointer function on the Wii remote works perfectly for the game and I hate the handcuffed feeling of the Sixaxis. When I go back to playing with the old controllers they feel very strange and uncomfortable.

What the..? Calm down. Were discussing games, not politics.

 

My mum has arthritis, she finds abstraction between controllers and the screen to be difficult. She has difficulty with fine motor skills on her thumbs and fingers. She doesn't get it, when I tell her to press a button on the screen at the right time to hit a ball or do some other action. When she uses the Wiimote, she has one less level of abstraction and there is no fine motor skills required. She finds it much easier to time a stroke on the Wiimote, than any other game she's tried. She couldn't figure out from Wiigolf which way the ball would roll in the putting minigame. Furthermore, the ability to customize her Mii to look like her, helped her to see herself IN the game she was playing.

She uses huge arm movements, she doesn't understand the short ones she could be doing, infact because of limited wrist movement she has to do a full swing. Hence, her favourite games are Wii Tenis where she has a decent rating of about 800. She also likes to mess around with Wii Baseball.

Without the controller, the only games I could play with her are PSeye type games or Buzz! type games. I am SO sick of quizes! THANKS NINTENDO!!!!!!! I will even try to get her to play Zelda or SMG. I could never hope to do that with a PS2.

 

Playstation Eye vs Wiimote

Can the Eye do nearly everything that the Wiimote can?

I don't know as I have never used either. I do know that Will Wright regards the Wii highly, and that currently Spore uses a pointer interface. He has talked about using an avatar interface for both the 360 and PS3. Since the Eye could be the PS3's pointer interface, might Spore be controlled via gestures? Does anyone else think this is feasible or desirable?

I have posted elsewhere that I think Spore is going to be monumental in technology, gameplay, and art. It would be nice to see players have the best experience with it regardless of platform.

 

Well only Wiimote pointer function. Though unlike Wiimote I think PS Eye can do pointing like touch screen on DS instead of how Wiimote function which is more like your typical mouse. Wiimote has other stuff like motion control, buttons, vibration and built in speaker and port for attachment. Wiimote probably has less lag and better accuracy too. But that could be because of the PS2. Sony has yet to release a PS Eye game like the ones they released on PS2. Sure there are EoJ and some PSN screen saver but none that really show case it the way Wii Sport show case wiimote.

I had a better impression the first time I tried PS Eye games compare to Wii Sport and Wii Play. The problem with PS Eye was it was slow and laggy. I assume now with Cell and better camera they can speed up this to more acceptable level.

Well I thought PS Eye can handle many Nintendo DS games, I don't know why publisher haven't ported some NDS games to PSN requiring PS Eye.

Maybe because even Sony themselves don't see the PS3 current audience as those that are interested in gimmicks. They'll probably have to wait until PS3 reach the < $199 price point before throwing in gimmick. The problem though Nintendo already captured this market.

Nintendo basically skipped the hardcore gamers and just go straight to casual gamers with great success. This should be a concerned for both MS and Sony. This is just too big of a head start for either of them to recover. Both PS3 and X360 may not see an increase in sales that you typically expect from price cut, because Nintendo already taken up those market.

MS and Sony better do something quick, because Nintendo is capturing the larger tail end of the adoption curve.

 

I still don't see how anybody has fully disregarded the claims that the Wii is selling because of it's price point and their IP, (you can throw in marketing demographics too) rather than their unique controller scheme.

The claim that the Wii price point isn't relevant because the PS2 was available at the same or lower price is to ignore the fact that the Wii is NEW and the PS2 is a decade old. Just as the claim that in some very minor areas the 360 core/arcade is less expensive than the Wii, is also irrelevant because upon launches, the 360 was more expensive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Wii was the least expensive console in every area upon its launch. Sure, the 360 might have price adjusted at some point in order to compete in those markets, but it certainly didn't launch at the same price point as the Wii.

The facts that Nintendo has a huge IP catalog that they own and the fact that Nintendo launched the lowest priced console (and they would still profit at that price point) and that their marketing department figured out a way to capitalize on the belief (correctly or not) that they produce children oriented/easily accessible games rather than be downgraded because of it, are the primary reasons why the Wii is selling. And none of that has to do with the wiimote.

I find it hard to believe that anybody really thinks the thought process of Nintendo when creating the Wii wasn't a result of turning the negatives and failures of the Gamecube into positives.

Everybody pigeon-holed the Gamecube as a party/kids platform. The problem with the gamecube was that when it was initially launched it cost Nintendo too much money and was therefore sold at too high of a price point.

This time, Nintendo took those negatives and made them positives. "It's only a gaming machine, it doesn't do anything else", "It plays all the great games from our IP library", "look how much cheaper we are and how much fun you can have"

Nintendo has done an excellent job with what was clearly a short range revenue generation strategy. Microsoft is well on their way to doing an excellent job in establishing their long range revenue generation strategy of digital distribution via a single set-top box, and Sony has done an excellent job using the PS3 to establish BR as the next (and perhaps final) source of physical media.

I think all three console manufacturers had clearly different strategies this launch, and I think all three should be rather pleased at where they stand. The Wii accomplished its primary goal (generating immediate revenue), the PS3 accomplished its primary goal (establishing BR), and the 360's success probably won't be measured until the next console cycle, but digital downloads for the 360 compare favorably to digital downloads (in the US) from the major cable TV providers.

I don't think any of this really demonstrates that the wiimote is the reason for the Wii's success, or shows that the 360 and PS3 should add wiimote-like peripherals, or that the XboxN or PS4 would necessarily include a similar controller in their offerings.

The wiimote is a small part of why the Wii is successful, the fact that it was a new console immediately removes the vast majority of comparisons to the equally (or lesser) priced PS2. The Wii has only been compared to the PS2 by people who understand the 'power' of the consoles and declare them equals.

Even if Sony had come out with a controller identical to the Wiimote for the PS2, it wouldn't have stopped the sales of the Wii. Because of Nintendo's IP.

What games are selling on the Wii?

Do you believe that if the Wii didn't have the vast library of IP to support it, the wiimote would make the difference?

Of course not. Get rid of Nintendo's IP and the Wii is a complete failure. That doesn't hold true for either the PS3 or the 360.

And that isn't a BASH on Nintendo or the Wii. That is just demonstrating what a magnificent job that Nintendo did in designing, manufacturing, and marketing the Wii. They leveraged their assets and at the same time they turned their liabilities into assets.

It was brilliant, I applaud them for what they've done.

But I simply don't get why some people try to make the success of the Wii into something that it isn't.

I also don't see why Nintendo can't continue this philosophy into the Wii's successor. I think people just need to understand that there is clearly a divergence of purpose and of pricing in the console 'gaming' market.

I'm also sick of people talking about the gamecube as if it were some underpowered piece of crap that Nintendo didn't invest a great deal of time developing. The gamecube was probably more powerful than the PS2, and that power cost money. The problem was that it was difficult to utilize that power. The Wii is the result of years of developers working with the Gamecube, and now understanding how to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the hardware.

The Wii would not have the success it is having it weren't using hardware that is almost identical to the gamecube.

So people really need to stop calling the gamecube a failure, because they need to take the gamecube and the wii together.

Just like people need to stop calling the Xbox a failure, because without the Xbox and establishing Xbox Live!, the 360 would be just as worthless.

And this might be why the PS3 seems to be struggling. Because there is synergy between the Gamecube and the Wii. There is synergy between the Xbox and the 360. There is very little synergy between the PS2 and the PS3, and that's why we see the PS3 struggle.

Despite the fact that (as I said above), I think the PS3 has really accomplished at least 75% of what Sony wanted it to at this point. They might be slightly disappointed because they misjudged consumers disposable income, but that's it.

 

Probably it is not so much what you can do with the controller, but the feel of the control.

 

They were in the same price range since launch. The x360 core pack was 300 euro's at launch.

Which is not true as they had all those things with the n64 and the GC and those failed.

Too high? I believe it was 220 euro's when it launched here and 199dollars in the US. Wouldnt call that too high of a price...

Just as they did with the GC.

That is your opinion, not a ''clear fact''. How long a generation will last will always depend on how populair the console is. The wii wont last if sales drop, the wii will last long if sales keep up. Just as the ps2 would be dead already is sales dropped long ago and just as the ps3 wont last 10 years as sony said if it keeps selling rubbish. Its all a matter of money, no company will kill its console if they can still make money on it and they will if they cant anymore.

What you seem to forget is that alot of media hype the wii got at launch was because of the controller, that is the reason it sells, not because it has a low price and has nintendo on it because the n64 and gc had that too and that didnt help a thing.

If you understand the power of the consoles you wouldnt call the ps2 and wii equal...

Than please explain to me why the n64 and gc sold bad. They had the low price and they had the nintendo IP. 2 things you say are far more important than the wii remote. Still they failed. And dont point at marketing because that doesnt make up for everything.

Brawl, mp3, zelda, mario, guitar hero, re4 to name a few.

That is a moot argument. The n64 and GC had those and that didnt help, IP isnt everything. Nintendo IP always sold well on the consoles they made, but not a very big part of them is a reason for people to buy the console. They didnt suddenly sell 20m wii's because of their IP's when they had exactly the same IP with the GC which only managed 20m in 5 years.

No its not, its still the same system and other devs could make great games for it. The fact that most devs dont give a damn and rather do a quick cash in on the wii doesnt mean the system isnt capable of having good games or 3rd party devs arnt capable of making them.

For the same argument you could say what if no dev botherd about making good use of the ps3 and x360 hardware, what use would they be then? they would fail.

And I dont get why people just dont want to believe the wii remote actually is something people enjoy.

The GC is faster than the ps2 and less complicated to dev for than the ps2. And I wouldnt be suprised if it didnt cost a whole lot more to produce at launch than nintendo asked for it. But all that doesnt matter as the public will decide what devs will go with. If they rather have the ps2 than the gc devs will put their efforts in the ps2 (and they did).

Doubt that as there hardly is any dev out there that has a great deal of experience with the GC hardware. F5 and Capcom are probably the only 3rd party devs that really pushed the hardware, the rest just used crappy ports of ps2 engines.

 

Web surfing and gestures!

If I'm not mistaken, media labs (think MIT) have been looking at camera facilitated input schemes for some time. I think it's a real mistake to think of camera input as being a gimmick- in fact I think when it is done correctly that it will usher in a new era of human-computer interaction. We could even have a gesture/speech hybrid scheme because the Eye includes a microphone. I don't see any reason not to be optimistic here. Perhaps some forum members can give detailed analysis of their experience with the Playstation Eye, and compare its performance with its predecessor the EyeToy?

It is my impression that the Wii targets a different market segment than the PS3, as the benefits of the PS3 are largely reaped through high definition displays and multi-channel sound systems. Particularly the PS3's extra-gaming functions seem to be compelling for consumers prizing value in their home electronics. I see the Wii as an important and popular toy, and in fact competing more with the PS2 than with the 360 or PS3. That is not to say that Wii games do not adequately compete for leisure time among people who have multiple systems, Nintendo remains a very relevant producer of creative and engaging videogame content (judging by players' comments), and I don't see the company going anywhere unless their leadership fails them.

But I was thinking about a way to turn the PS3 into the ultimate web surfing machine. Years ago when I was in the dot-com industry, I chanced upon this intriguing piece of software called TheBrain (http://www.thebrain.com) that was supposed to help you organize your information. It essentially allowed the user to build a complex graph of relationships between things, even webpages, and it was nicely animated to boot. Over the years I keep seeing this design pop up for navigation on websites, and I think once I even noticed it over at CNET (could be wrong). But what if someone were to build a PS3 websurfing virtual world tool where information could be visualized in this graph-like way? Some automated system like Places in Firefox 3 could be used for quick or auto-bookmarking and meta-information could be shared through some social bookmarking scheme. All interaction could be done through gestures via the Playstation Eye. Would an application like this not potentially unseat the personal computer as the primary tool for accessing the web? Would it be technically feasible for this application to function with less than 160 megs of ram? Just a thought....

 

I'm still not that impressed by the Wii. We had a big casual gaming party last weekend and the Wii just sat there while 12-15 people were rotating through Rockband on the X360 for 6 hours.

People find Bowling and Tennis amusing for a half-hour and then they get bored. There's no meat there IMO. Which is probably fine for people who don't mind paying $250 to play Wii Sports for an hour or two every week, but not fine for anyone who wants to playing something with any depth.

 

Funny you mention rockband. Besides that its coming to wii, rockband is one of those games that doesnt rely on the best things the x360 should have to offer, power. Rockband would be just as cool on a ps2 as on a x360.

 

Not quite, the PS2 version doesn't have the World Tour or the character creation. One of my friends bought and returned her PS2 version of RB just because of that. The game was pretty much just a Quick Play mode.

 

I would disagree that the N64 really failed. It did, after all, outsell both the later Xbox and GC. It had a pretty successful run at the beginning, then choked and died in the last year, year and a half. But it obviously wasn't a roaring success.

But otherwise, you're right. Were people any more hyped for Galaxy than Mario 64? Mario Kart Wii over Mario Kart 64 or DD? Mario Party 8 over 1-7? The people hyped for Brawl are largely returning Melee fans. And judging by the sales numbers, Prime 3 wasn't any more of a console mover than 1 or 2. It's certainly not grabbing as much market attention as Goldeneye once did.