Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Game Industry Folks Siding With the Wii 432

Posted by Zonk from the taste dept.
Gamasutra's semi-regular feature taking the pulse of folks in the game industry turns its attention this week to the PS3 and Wii launches. From the comments submitted to the site, it seems that many industry vets are generally more excited about the Wii than with Sony's offering. From the article: "'Definitely a Wii (already pwii-ordered). The price point of the PS3 and the lack of enticing launch titles makes me as interested in a PS3 as I am interested in getting a root canal.' — Ryan Conlon, Gearbox Software. 'I am buying a Wii because Sony is too arrogant, from their dev tools to the price point.' — Ed O'Tey, Electronic Arts. 'Wii — pre-ordered. I applaud the attempt to expand and explore game interaction with the Wii. I will not be purchasing a PS3.' — Jim Perkins, EA Canada"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Industry Folks Siding With the Wii More

Game Industry Folks Siding With the Wii

Comments Filter:

  • Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xiph ( 723935 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @12:42PM (#16886710)
    It probably has something to do with Nintendo trying to do things in a new way, while Sony/MS are "just" doing the things they do better. Novelty and originality does count.

    • Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PieSquared ( 867490 ) <isosceles2006@@@gmail...com> on Friday November 17, 2006 @12:49PM (#16886868)
      On the same note, the 360 and PS3 are both pretty much a graphics upgrade. Which means two things, first that (if you have a HDTV, which I don't) it'll look prettier. Second, there is allot more effort, and time, and money, going into making a game for them. If people thought there was too much of a problem with sequels instead of innovation last generation, it'll be worse today: for the 360 and PS3.

      With the Wii, though, Nintendo is pretty much forcing developers to innovate at least a little, in order to properly use the controller. If I want a graphics update, I'll get a new card for my PC. I go to a council for a distinctly different experience then a PC, usually based on the controller, since that is the real difference. And now, the Wii makes the controller even *more* different then the PC, which to me is an even greater reason to play. That and it doesn't cost *that* much money.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Proud like a god ( 656928 )
        "I go to a council for a distinctly different experience"

        How about just going to a console? ;-)

      • Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)

        by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @01:49PM (#16888038) Homepage
        On the same note, the 360 and PS3 are both pretty much a graphics upgrade.
        Actually, the Xbox's network service has a definite step forward, better even than what PC's have (other than not being free). It's got 1) integrated IM that works the same across all games, 2) seamless brain-dead demos and xbox live games, 3) worldwide leaderboards in just about every game, 4) achievements and gamerscore.

        And if you can pretty much get the controller for the PC via the Gyration mouse. http://youtube.com/watch?v=piEz74G6WPA [youtube.com] http://youtube.com/watch?v=HUGabGDLg8g [youtube.com]

      • Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Phoenix00017 ( 1017168 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @01:56PM (#16888156)
        I would argue that it's a bit more than a graphics upgrade, especially on the part of the PS3. The Cell architecture will allow much more advanced AI and physics, among other things. This has the potential, if the developers take advantage of it appropriately, to really make some new offerings in gaming. We're seeing PCs take the same path with the introduction of the Physx [ageia.com] physics card and a dedicated AI [slashdot.org] chip. The other big step is pure processing power harvested as the ability to present many more entities on screen. Look at Assassin's Creed or Dead Rising as games that have started to use crowd effects to great advantage.

        • Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)

          by AArmadillo ( 660847 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @09:48PM (#16893256)
          Two problems with this. First, is Amdahl's law. Colloquially, Amdahl's law debunks the fallacy that if one woman can have a baby in nine months, then nine women can have a baby in one month. Let's say the average game has 75% code that is parallelizable. Quite a feat, to accomplish that. Then by Amdahl's law, you would see a maximum speedup of 2.9 for 8 processors over one processor, assuming all processors were equal (hint: on the cell, 7 of the cores are just fancy FPUs). To compare, you would see a speedup of exactly 2 for a three processor system. A 45% increase in performance for 266% more cores is not a particularly good tradeoff, and this again is assuming that all cores are created equal.

          Then, of course, there is memory bandwidth. The Cell has one memory bus to serve eight cores. In addition, local memory bandwidth for read in the Cell is 16MB/s, from Sony's own slides. Thus Sony recommends (on the next slide) to not read from local memory, but to write out to main memory and read from that. So eight cores are going to be constantly contending for the main memory bus. That is a horrible situation in hardware if I've ever seen one.

          • Re:Yes (Score:4, Informative)

            by dockthepod ( 540781 ) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @01:47AM (#16894278) Homepage
            You are confused with some of your figures. Each SPU has access to 256K of local cache. This is very very fast memory... no misses. They can't directly access main memory, so there isn't really contention. However, the programming model is more complicated. Nothing console devs can't handle ;) The 16MB/s figure (if that's correct, don't remember exactly...) is related to reading VRAM (sony confusingly calls this local memory) from the Cell, something you don't generally have any reason to do. The GPU has fast access (~20GB/s) to the Cell's memory (called Main Memory) which is much more useful. You can split up your texture usage between the two memory pools and cut down on memory contention. Anyhow, too many winter brews, so I'll stop rambling.

      • Council? (Score:3, Funny)

        by CritterNYC ( 190163 )
        "I go to a council for a distinctly different experience then a PC"

        Would that be the Council of Console Gamers? I hear they have a pretty good counseling center that can help console you if your pre-order was cancelled.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Mad Marlin ( 96929 )
        The Wii is the first game console I have even been interested in since the Sega 32X expansion for the Genesis. And I want someone to figure out how to hook those controllers to the PC!

    • Well maybe it is. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @01:21PM (#16887568) Homepage Journal
      Developing a game that uses the PS3 fully will cost a small fortune. It is a big complex machine.
      Developing a game for the 360 is going to be a little bit cheaper.
      Developing a game for the Wii is a lot cheaper!
      It isn't a lot different than the Gamecube. Game makers have got to love it. Your old tools and skills transfer. No need to develop massive amounts of HD content. And best of all. Millions of consoles on the market.
      Right now the best a PS3 game can hope to do is what, 100,000 units? That and it does look like a lot of fun!

      Now what I hope is all 100,000 PS3s hit EBay today and the price plummets to $50!
      Have a nice day.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Splab ( 574204 )
        I was thinking the same thing - I read an article where someone said he was hopeing the PS3 would pay for all his christmas gifts. I bet alot of people where thinking that, and I bet they are going to get burned...
        • As much as we would like that, the PS3 is a very hot item and the supply is very limited. Those who are lucky enough to grab several are bound to make lots of profit.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
          Well, the dev kits cost more for Xbox360 and PS3 than the Wii SDK does.

        • Re:Well maybe it is. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @02:12PM (#16888376) Homepage Journal
          The PS3 is going to be a lot more expensive to develop for.
          1. The programing model is totally different from anything you have ever done.
          2. Textures. It takes artists more time to do a more detailed texture. So what if it is only 5 times bigger? Yes it takes more work. Does it take five times? Maybe not. Will it take at least twice as much time? Probably so.
          3. Blue ray! How many plants can press blue ray disks? What about the media costs?

          The 360s programing model is a little different but not nearly as revolutionary as the Cell.
          The Cell has a huge amount of potential but getting to that is not going to trivial.
          The 360 will have the cost of the HD content and a little bit of cost with a slightly different programing model. The big bonus is that a port to of from the PC will be pretty easy.
          The PS3 is a lot more complex and probably doesn't have as good of development environment as the 360.

        • Re:Well maybe it is. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sabernet ( 751826 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @02:50PM (#16889034) Homepage
          As someone who did a short animation in both standard resolution(720x486) and HD(1024x768) let me tell you that it is a helluva lot more work, requires more hardware and more storage as well as much more detail involved. people paid to get more detail and they expect to see it.

          It is for this reason many shows need to hire additional makeup artists and even completely redo sets when HD came around. So yes, a rough looking wall in Standard may just be a photoshop "cloud effect" but in HD, you need the cloud effect, the noise added, some scratches here and there(but well distributed as to not tile funny), etc... Equally, you have to streamline how many of those superlarge textures get fed into VRAM at one time, etc...

          It is a huge huge shift from Standard to HD.

          Also, devkit costs: The 360's dev costs aren't bad for a console. The Wii is fantastic for a console(2000$ to get started with hardware and all, however I omit manpower in that figure), while the PS3's costs are exorbitant. I remember reading something from Gamasutra a while back about how it would cost you 12 mil just to get STARTED on a competitive PS3 game all things considered. As a reference, Final Fantasy 7 cost 14 mil back in the day and that was considered a supermassive budget.

          Add to that that any company with a GC devkit can get started now with just a few addons and you're set.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by ShaunDon ( 589695 )
            Sorry dude, it's even worse than you thought. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_telev ision [wikipedia.org]Wikipedia, two standards for HD are 720p/i (1280x720 px) and 1080p/i (1920x1080 px). The Blue-ray DVDs are specifically designed for 1080p video, so you're talking about a 300% frame size increase.

            I work in computer graphics and true high definition scares the crap out of me and my current workstation.

            Shaun

        • As you increase the graphics capability of the target platform, the required art assets increase as well. However, while the pixels only increase by a factor of 4, the amount of graphics resources, and the difficulty of creating them, increases by much more than a factor of 4.

          To put it simply, it takes longer to model and animate a character with 100 000 polygons than it does to do the same to a character with only 1000 polygons.

          Lets start with the basic geometry. A faster machine can draw more triangles.

    • Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Total_Wimp ( 564548 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @01:54PM (#16888122)
      Novelty and originality does count.

      Yes, but not as much as you may think.

      -I love Belgium beers. The U.S. buys Budweiser.
      -I loved Firefly. The world loves Desperate Houswives.
      -I have art over my mantlepiece. The suberbanites put a large mirror there.
      -I love that little place down the street. The U.S. loves Applebees.

      It really doesn't matter what you think of the Wii. The lines waiting for teh PS3 this morning were completely full. The prices on eBay are already legendary. You won't see that with Sunday's launch of the Wii.

      I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that origionality or quality actually "count" in the grand scheme of things. But that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy your Wii anyway.

      (I would caution those who champion the Wii to take a closer look at what they're doing. They're saying it's great before they've even seen a unit in person. Some guy in another thread insinuated that PS3 purchasers were acting like sheep. Proclaining the Wii as "superior" without haveing every played it is absolutely no better)

      TW

      • Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)

        by soft_guy ( 534437 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @02:11PM (#16888354)
        Some guy in another thread insinuated that PS3 purchasers were acting like sheep. Proclaining the Wii as "superior" without haveing every played it is absolutely no better

        It is a little better. The people who are twirly eyed over the PS3 do so based on three characters: P S 3. The people who are twirly eyed over the Wii have been following the tech news on the various consoles, read probably multiple articles and even hands on reviews on the subject.

        Also, I suspect that it will hard to buy either a PS3 OR a Wii this Winter Shopping Orgy (Christmas). Both companies will be able to sell everything they can bring to market, although perhaps the scalping on the Wii will only be 50% as bad as on the PS3.

      • Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)

        by SetupWeasel ( 54062 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @02:31PM (#16888678) Homepage
        Yeah, but Belgum beers, Firefly, art, and that little place suck.

        We're talking about the Wii here. Stay on topic.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The lines waiting for teh PS3 this morning were completely full. The prices on eBay are already legendary. You won't see that with Sunday's launch of the Wii.

        That demonstrates a difference in supply, not demand. Demand for the PS3 can't really be measured at this point, aside from the vague statement that it is "bigger than the supply." Since the supply of the Wii will be much larger -- by some reports a full order of magnitude larger -- the demand would have to be absurdly high to result in huge lines and

    • It probably has something to do with Nintendo trying to do things in a new way, while Sony/MS are "just" doing the things they do better. Novelty and originality does count.


      "Novelty" often counts a lot more two insiders than to the buying public, which is one reason that in entertainment fields in general, "critical acclaim" and "commercial success" are only occasionally found in the same place.

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @12:42PM (#16886712)
    I'm getting nintendo solely because the effort required to get a PS3 was analagous to a real life game of Dead Rising.

  • That THAT is why I want a wii (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thansal ( 999464 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @12:43PM (#16886736)
    The standard post the people bring up when ever we start drooling over the Wii (and we do drool a bit)is that is is "all about games".

    Well, when people that are involved in making the games express prefference on the Wii, I sorta feel compeled to think that the Wii will have more games (and more importantly, a diverse selection).

    the anounced titles for the next year (Wii vs PS3) has be interested in 3 games coming out on the PS3, and about 10 games on the Wii.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wiggles ( 30088 )
      That would be nice and all, if the developers actually made the decisions on what games to produce for what platform. Unfortunately, it seems the bean counters make these decisions more and more, and if they think they can make more money by developing for the PS3 than the Wii, you'll see more PS3 games. One can make a very compelling argument for producing more and better Wii games than PS3 games, though... Shorter time to market, less steep learning curve, lower cost of development, etc. Now all we nee

  • Based on this article..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LordPhantom ( 763327 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @12:47PM (#16886838)
    .... I can see that "many game industry experts" also like posting as Annonymous Cowards as well! (Disclaimer: I love the Wii and will be buying one long before a PS3, but if they're saying "here's a list of game industry experts" they should get rid of the ones who won't post their names. Sheesh.)

  • Poor Sony (Score:3, Informative)

    by trmj ( 579410 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @12:48PM (#16886842) Journal
    Literally. Didn't they lose some redonkulous amount of money this year due to PS3 R&D? I mean, overall as a company in previous years the gaming department was the only thing keeping Sony afloat, then they go and spend all that money on a system that the industry doesn't even back. Not to mention that the XBox 360 is poised to take Sony's spot in Japan, due to the insanely low price point of the system. Can I get a netcraft troll to confirm it?

  • Ironically enough... (Score:5, Informative)

    by fatty ding dong ( 1028344 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @12:49PM (#16886880)
    Nintendo is the only company with a next-gen system that ISN'T trying to force a new media standard on gamers. In the past, Nintendo was always the odd one out (sticking with the old cartridges, small optical disc instead of CD or DVD). Now, Nintendo is tapping into the mainstream while the other big two are forcing their standards on gamers. It cost Nintendo when they absolutely had to have their own unique media, now it appears Sony and MS will repeat the mistakes of the past.

    Show the gamers a game that makes good use of HD-DVD or Blu-Ray and they may buy some of the hype. Until then, all glory to Nintendo.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MBraynard ( 653724 )
      Show the gamers a game that makes good use of HD-DVD or Blu-Ray and they may buy some of the hype. Until then, all glory to Nintendo.

      360 isn't forcing a new standard on anyone. You can get an HD-DVD if you so choose, but it won't be required for games - it just saves you some space and money if you areally are interested in HD-DVD.

      Nintendo, on the other hand, doesn't offer you so much as a DVD player along with the Wii - they are stricter than the other guys in terms of forcing a standard with a format ex

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by saboola ( 655522 )
      The Xbox 360 runs on standard DVD, not HD-DVD. Just to clarify your post a bit. You can buy an HD-DVD addon now for the 360, but it only plays movies not games. Microsoft and Nintendo our both taking the standard DVD route.

  • It is all Relative (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jcrash ( 516507 ) * on Friday November 17, 2006 @12:53PM (#16886982)
    It depends on what you want. If you are looking for certain titles, you will be getting a specific console. If you are looking for the MOST games, you will probably be getting a Nintendo. If you are price-conscious (as virtually all consumers are), you will definitely get a Nintendo.

    Nintendo is making the right move at the right time. Assuming they decide to come out with a wiii (i.e. next generation of console) faster than the others do, they will then be able to price is similar to this model and maintain their consumers. Honestly, $700 starter cost for a console is probably out of reach for around 80% of the average gamers. This is a market where you are going to make more money in the middle than at the leading edge.
  • Developers also probably like the Wii from a financial sense. I R not a game programmer, but it's got to be easier and cheaper to develop for. Madden on the Wii is going to be a completely new experience with extremely low dev costs. All they do is port the gamecube version, polish it up, and add in the new controls. Madden on the PS3 and 360 is also somewhat new, but mainly on account of spending lots of money to make perty new graphics.
    • Developers also probably like the Wii from a financial sense. I R not a game programmer, but it's got to be easier and cheaper to develop for. Madden on the Wii is going to be a completely new experience with extremely low dev costs. All they do is port the gamecube version, polish it up, and add in the new controls. Madden on the PS3 and 360 is also somewhat new, but mainly on account of spending lots of money to make perty new graphics.

      It really has very little to do with game programmers and when someone

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sancho ( 17056 )
      "Add the new controls" is part of the problem, though. We saw from the Nintendo DS that taking old games and slapping on a touch-screen element just feels shoddy and forced. You really have to design the game with that control scheme in mind (or be really brilliant with HCI--something I doubt most game programmers are) to have something that works. I can't tell you how many times I cursed game developers who use the touch screen stupidly when the standard D-pad would have worked much, much better.
  • Until now, I thought that PS3 would utterly fail, leaving either the wii or xbox in first position (I assumed xbox would be), but the ps3 coverage in mainstream media is just insane. I guess there's some bribery that has been going on. Well, there is also the (artificial?) riots that the media like to cover in the news at 11... Well, we'll see what the wii's coverage in mainstream media will be.

    On my part, it will be none of them. I'll try to buy a used GC at some insanely low price (maybe they'll go at 10-

  • Let's not forget.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by ACAx1985 ( 989265 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @01:10PM (#16887336) Homepage
    This article fails to mention Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Two weeks was too long to wait for a Wii, so freezing yourself in a Colorado mountain top and hoping to thaw on launch date is the only viable solution. Didn't see them so stoked for a PS3 :)

  • Why would anyone buy a PS3 now? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ConfusedSelfHating ( 1000521 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @01:18PM (#16887498)

    The only good launch title is Resistance:Fall of Man. The titles that are on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 are better on the Xbox 360. Many of the games that were meant to come out for launch are being pushed back until there is a larger install base. There aren't that many movie titles available for the Blu Ray movie format right now. The PS3 will only get better with age. When there are a larger number of games available and there is a significant price drop, the PS3 may be a worthwhile purchase.

    I'm not interested in the Wii, but I understand why people are. After seeing a video of the Wii in action I lost all interest. However a lot of message comments about the same video showed that there were many Wii fans. I think that the Wii will sell very well, I just won't buy one. At $249 with a game, it's a low risk investment in gaming. I may pick one up in a year or two if I see some games that interest me. If I was a Nintendo fan, I would buy one at launch.

    It's just a matter of time before I buy an Xbox 360. It's high definition gaming at a much more reasonable price than the PS3. I don't want to watch movies on a console, so Blu Ray isn't very important to me. I am waiting for a significant price drop before I buy one.

  • no rumble (Score:2, Interesting)

    by HelloKitty ( 71619 )
    I wont buy the PS3 since it doesnt have rumble now...
    that combined with lack luster launch titles (ridge racer is the best???).
    and the high price...

    I'd take a Wii any day over the ps3...
    xbox just did everything right this time.
    i used to love ps2.
    but they just screwed up the controller this time.

  • Wii vs PS3 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by porkThreeWays ( 895269 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @01:24PM (#16887648)
    I think the wii is going to be badass and I'm personally going to buy one. However, I think the wii will be fighting for the 2nd spot on the big three totem pole and not 1st. I just don't know enough hard core gamers that are excited about the wii. I've noticed that many of the hardcore gamers I know are satisfied with the idea of a system that offers nothing more than better graphics than the old system. The wii is radically different. I don't think they really even want to have to raise their arms to use the wiimote. I love nintendo and I think the wii will be badass, but I just don't see them capturing the hardcore audience.

    The best they can hope for is getting the general public that normally don't play video games to play the wii. Most people find xbox and playstation controllers confusing and cumbersome. Maybe the wiimote will deliver a more natural style of play with a lower learning curve, hence a lower barrier to playing games. However, hardcore gamers (and even moderate gamers) are pretty used to xbox and playstation style controllers and will probably find it harder to get used to the wii controller. I don't think they will get much of the hardcore and moderate gamer market. Maybe they can become the ipod of the video game world this generation?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tuffy ( 10202 )

      The Wii will be either first or third. The PS3 and 360 are competing for the same hardcore gamer audience. Those people want to play more refined versions of the same games they're playing now. They might also buy the Wii, but they're not the Wii's target audience.

      The Wii is aiming at the non-hardcore who want something easier to get into and without an intimidating controller loaded with buttons and control sticks. If Nintendo can deliver to these people, it'll easily surpass both the 360 and PS3 muc

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by freeweed ( 309734 )
      You do realize that "hardcore gamers" haven't been the largest market segment for a loooooong time now, right?

      Assuming the Wii does end up appealing to the general public, it will end up in the #1 spot simply because that's 95% of the market.

    • Re:Wii vs PS3 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @02:31PM (#16888694) Journal
      I played teh Wii at a Gametstop in california. The wiimote rocks! Its for hardcore gamers as well and you can buy the standard gamecube controller for it as well. What is going to take it off are the amount of titles for it. Assuming it makes #1 the title base is expected to grow to 60 by years end.

      Also the wiimote makes it difficult for hardcore games too because reaction time and angle are important in using it. It will vary on what you are playing. WIth the ps2 and gc I feel the point of most games is to hit the right combinations of buttons at a very fast speed. With this I can focus on using my arm and focusing on winning and not memorizing arkane buttons at the fastest speed possible like in mortal Kombat. Yes, I know that game is 10 years old but I began to hate console games after playing as it became the new thing with console makers overloading their controllers with bottons. It was dumb and pointless.

      Games like NFL sports title and Mario Kart will rock on this!

  • It's not a war, the Wii is not a side (Score:5, Insightful)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @02:00PM (#16888196) Journal
    There are stores that sell consoles. You can buy a Wii. You can buy a PS3. You can buy an Xbox 360. You can buy all three or just buy a discounted PS2. All of these products will still be available in two, three, four or more years time (except maybe the PS2). Why does everyone have this obsession with X being the best or Y being the winner? Just go out and buy what makes you happy. Years ago I bought a Nintendo 64. Everyone said it was a flop. Countless articles today still claim it was a flop. But guess what? I never noticed, I just played Super Mario 64 and Goldeneye and I was happy. I can understand why this all matters if your 401(k) or pension portfolio is dominated by game company stock. But otherwise, just get out there and have fun! I know I will. (Probably on a Wii ;-)

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by The MAZZTer ( 911996 )
      My sentiments exactly. I'd give you a mod point if I had one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JohnSearle ( 923936 )
      I'm incredibly sorry to say that I have some disagreement with what you said...

      This is not merely about your selection of what makes you happy, and here's why:
      . People have limited funds, and therefore cannot make multiple system purchases.
      . The choice of a single system has to be an informed choice, and these articles, especially ones presented by supposed informed sources, aid in making this choice.
      . A system with two great games might be good for some, but others like variety, and a flopped system

    • Re:It's not a war, the Wii is not a side (Score:5, Insightful)

      by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @05:33PM (#16891144)
      "Why does everyone have this obsession with X being the best or Y being the winner?"

      Because the console that is "the winner" will always be the one for which the most game titles will be released, therefore improving the odds that it will be the one for which the best game titles will be released.

      • Re:It's not a war, the Wii is not a side (Score:4, Insightful)

        by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @06:36PM (#16891814) Journal
        I just don't get it. If the good games aren't out yet, you're better off playing games on your old console. Why take the risk now? I can understand buying a new PC the moment what you want is available - all your old performance hungry games will suddenly perform better. But with the new consoles, unless the game you want is already available (eg. I bought a DS for Super Mario) there's no point buying now. And anyway, the N64 didn't "win" and yet it provided me with many hours of pleasure.

        One thing I'll mention: when I bought my DS, some people said to me "but the PSP is so much more powerful", and I could have afforded the PSP. But the DS gave me what I wanted. However, I can see how some people would probably have caved in under the pressure from friends pointing out that they didn't have the "most powerful". That's a bit sad. Maybe that's what this is really about, people wanting bragging rights to having the "best" console instead of considering "what is the best console for me?". (Or conversely, "who is this console best suited for?")

  • Devs like Wii because it's better for them. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ZombieRoboNinja ( 905329 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @02:15PM (#16888430)
    Nintendo's push for innovation over graphical prowess is exciting for game developers, both because they like innovation and they dislike cutting-edge graphics (which require 8-figure budgets, which leads to more conservative game publishers who don't want to risk such huge investments, which leads to tough times for any developer who doesn't want to spend his or her life updating the facial animations for Madden 20XX).

    This doesn't mean ordinary GAMERS should necessarily prefer Wii. A lot of gamers only go for the AAA titles that can afford to have great graphics AND excellent gameplay, plot, etc. For them, it comes down to a much more difficult personal preference between new controller schemes and advanced graphics.

    Oh yeah, and a few hundred bucks and a six-day line outside a Gamestop in a gloomy strip mall.
  • The real problem with the PS3 was that Sony underpriced them. Yes, I meant to say underpriced. With the pent-up demand, they should have slapped a "First Edition" sticker on the initial shipment and sold them for $1200. They still would have sold out, but people would be much less upset at not getting one if they could never had afforded them anyway.

    Then ship a million of them in December at the regular price. Why is Sony taking a loss on this first shipment when they don't have to? All they're doing

    • Re:real problem with the PS3 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Thraxen ( 455388 ) on Friday November 17, 2006 @02:44PM (#16888928)
      Bad, bad, bad idea. Sure, they would still sell to the hardcore gamers, but that would piss off so much of their fan base that it would hurt them more in the long run. People can accept the fact that some hardcore geeks snatched them all up and flipped them on Ebay... they get to be the a-holes, not Sony. At least the average consumer still has hope they might catch a break and grab one at a store for a reasonable price. But if Sony did that themselves then they become the a-holes and that is NOT the image you want as a company. You also might also make a fair number of your software developers a bit uneasy with a stunt like that.
  • ...so I'm certainly not going to wait until next Summer when I'm allowed to buy one. Kiss any thought of an HDTV sale goodbye, Sony.

    The Wii looks very good, but to be honest I think the DS is the better choice for adults, though it's not "next gen", because you can take it to work.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close