There's no question that the Wii is the clear winner this generation and the system brought Nintendo back from the dead. The system is hugely popular and should have no problem becoming the best selling console of all time. However, the question I have been wondering about and want to ask fellow gamers is, "Where does Nintendo go next?" Obviously everyone and their mom (literally) knows Nintendo now as a company who has a console that gets people off the couch and moving. So is there any way that Nintendo could ever make a classical styled system like the 360 or PS3 where its just you, a couch, and a controller? For me I don't see how especially with the success of the Wii, I even wonder how Nintendo can even make another system. Nintendo has already reached the apex of what a system can be, so how can they go higher? I've heard about a new Wii that has HD capabilities but that isn't a new system. I tip my hat to Nintendo for making such a great system but I am perplexed about where they will go next. So my question to all of you is, "Where do you think Nintendo goes now?"
A system with a small hard drive, has HD video capability, and has more refined motion controls than it has now.
Super Nintendo Wii. No matter where Nintendo goes from here, the word "Wii" will undoubtedly be in the title of their next console. Its a brandname now that the world knows. People know "wii" more then they know nintendo. They also can't abandon motion controls entirely, cause that's what the Wii is. Theres obviously room for the system to get more powerful, and definitely a need for online functionality, but the motion based games are here to stay. We will have a much better understanding of what motion controls are capable of when Wii Motion plus comes out later this year. Supposedly that little add on makes the motion controls work 1:1. Whether or not such a claim is true, we'll see. But if it is 1:1, then the future of motion based games (Tiger Woods, EA grand slam tennis, baseball games, sword fighting games, etc) is very bright.
Wii HD is a great idea, and would be a perfect name for it, particularly if they would make it backwards compatible with their existing games. I think the area they could work on improving with the existing Wii is the delivery and usability of their DLC. For example ... they've sold a ton of Wii Fit games ... they could put out expansion packs to that game via the store and make a bundle on it ... rather than releasing a Wii Fit 2 that would erase all of your existing stats. Enhancing DLC would be a good option to tide them over while developing the Wii HD.
I really don't expect much more than Wii HD (enhanced graphics and bigger hard drive). That alone will get it selling (see DS vs DS Lite vs DSi for example of it working) more. They went from the gamecube to essentially a gamecube with motion controls, next in line seemingly would be a gamecube with motion control and better graphics/specs.
Well if the consensus is that we will just see the Wii 1.5, 2.0, etc. then the next question is, "would that mean Sony and Microsoft are always going to be playing second fiddle or would you expect to see the next Sony and Microsoft consoles to be a bit more "motion controlled" shall we say." I never expect the traditional console to go away but it is interesting how much Nintendo has changed things.
I am sure next go around the others will streamline some (or at least make streamlining an option) like MS has done with the arcade. It's really tough for me to say. For all I know this generation could be Sony's gaming division's first step towards the way of Sega (see saturn and game gear vs ps3 and psp). I think it is a lot easier to predict what Nintendo will do (and that is not stray too far from their money tree) vs what the other 2 will do.
Hum and with Sony as a whole doing badly that could happen, but like you I am not sure as Sony has had more success than Sega ever did in the gaming industry. However, Sony is just as stubborn. I would love to see a Sony-Sega merger console (yes I know I am dreaming).
Next couple of years are crucial for Sony's gaming division. Now they'll also have to consider the economic state of things as well as console features and progression of Blu-Ray.
Seeing Sony out of the gaming industry would be very strange. I "hated" them for taking Sega out of the game industry but to see them go out now after the success of the PS1 and PS2 I would "hate" to see as well. I still don't think Sony is done though, I think the PS3 is more like the Gamecube than the Dreamcast or Saturn (meaning I think they'll bounce back).
True. And Sony's not just a one-trick pony who's overly reliant on gaming to survive. They'll hopefully find a way to better and more efficiently tie in their movie and electronics biz with their gaming.
Sonys not going anywhere, they just slipped up this generation. Charging so much for their console, or maybe just trying to offer everything in one console anyway, was a mistake. This generation proved people didn't want that overall media hub that Sony was offering, just a fun little system to waste their time with like the wii. But maybe sony was onto something, but just too ahead of their time.
Thank you for saying this because I have been waving that flag for so long. Oh and as far as the PS3 being ahead of its time...you do know that saying is the kiss of death right (ie the Dreamcast, Game Gear, etc.).
If the PS3 opened up at $300 or even $350 how much better sales do you think it would have? Honestly? How about if it had come out within 3 months of the 360 instead of a year? And at the same price? I'd say the time was a bigger factor than the price, though I'd bet both are the biggest two reasons for the "slow" sales.
I have to disagree my friend. What I remember the outrage being was that Sony's cheapest offering at launch was $500 and that was for the crappy model (at the time, it seems like a great model now). Remember the 360 didn't necessarily have a huge library when the PS3 released but I will agree that Sony thought the PS3 would release and dominate even with the delay (as was the case with the PS2 and Dreamcast, the difference being Microsoft had a lot more money than Sega and was able to weather that delay). I agree time was a factor but I think it was the price being ridiculous. Had the PS3 been $300 even with the year delay they would be in second place now. Also remember Stitches that the Wii released a year after the 360 so if time was more important than price ($250 at launch) then how come the Wii sold like hotcakes out of the gate? I can almost guarantee if the Wii launched at $500-$600 it would have taken longer to catch on even if then (I think the motion control would have given it enough to be ahead as they are now but the gap would be nowhere near as much). Had to get things back on to the Wii.
I thought we established the Wii caters to a different crowd (at the very least a far more diverse crowd) than the 360 or PS3? I know many people who would have bought a PS3 over a 360 had it come out sooner (in my case I would have bought a ps3 first, as I initially planned). Like some have said as to why they won't get a ps3/360 now that they have another because they don't want to pay for two systems, or don't like the idea of one system sitting there while the other is being played more often because it makes them feel like they wasted the money.
As a pure gaming console the PS3 was behind the 360 and that is what has affected the sales. Not price. The PS3 was down to about 400 within about 6 months of launch. Virtually the same price as a good 360. Why are people grabbing 3 to 400 dollar 360s but suddenly too cheap to buy a PS3? It's because it didn't have the game library they were looking for. The price is a scapegoat. We've discussed this. Come on, tell me you don't see the logic here. And the Wii is its own thing. A 360 arcade is priced pretty closely and can't touch it. So price obviously is only one part of the equation of Wii's success.
i think the reason price is a good scapegoat is because the Wii also had no games worth a crap at launch. It did have Zelda, but Zelda players weren't the people eating up the Wii. It was everyone else. Because it was only $250
I understand that the Wii caters to a different crowd and have even said so but my argument is that part of the reason it was able to cater to a different crowd was because of price (other than than the "sweet motion controls"). Think of it this way 40 somethings Jane and John Doe have a kid named oh I don't know Johnny and Johnny wants to get a gaming console. Well when his parents see the price of the PS3 at $600 (or even $400 now) their eyes will immediately move on to see the other options and there sits the Wii at $250 or even the 360 at around $300-350. Plus mom is going to like that she can do her workout on the machine and Nintendo in the parents minds will conjure up thoughts of cute Mario and his little pet dragon. Of course with the low price catching their eye and Nintendo's kid friendly and casual gamer appeal that is the system the parents will pick. To me price is the gateway and if little Johnny wanted a PS3 that was $200 that would be a little easier to handle. Now of course you guys will take this to but within the hardcore gamers crowd such and such is the case. To me once again hardcore gamers go for the 360 because its cheaper along with the fact that it has a better library. Now could the library be a result of their head start, I would say not really as Gears was about all the 360 had when the PS3 launched. Its been the library since then and the cheaper price that has kept them ahead. Sony thought the PS3 could be priced high and dominate the 360 like the PS2 did the Dreamcast but the fact is that people think its just a little too much when a console hits the $400 mark. In fact I would venture to guess that the cheaper 360s outsell the Elite, especially the Pro. Now fire away.
Don't mistake this for a Wii hate post, because I love my Wii. But Nintendo got lucky with this one. They took a system with essentially the same processing power of their GameCube which was considered a failure for the most part, added motion capture and some great marketing and now they are winning the console war. It's really a genius stroke in business. It kind of reminds me of when a musician puts a good song on a really bad CD so it gets ignored. The next time they release it, they put the same song on the new CD and everyone eats it up. A lot of the games that are poplular on the Wii are rehashed GameCube games. Anyway, what's next for the Wii? A system that has all the HD and processing capabilities of a PS3 and Xbox360 with the motion control stuff. I always see Nintendo as being a little behind PS3 and Xbox in terms of graphics, complexity, etc. But as long as they stay ahead in marketing and fun factor, it won't matter.
Johnny gets a Wii almost every time. I think sales reflect that. I'm sorry but I will never be convinced that a serious gamer chooses one console over the other because it's 50 to 100 bucks cheaper. This is not that much when you're already spending 300+. I can't believe that when I've seen plenty of adults and even teenagers dumping off hundreds on games and consoles over the years. It's a scapegoat and that's all there is too it. I've seen people buy multiple 360s after losing one. They just wanted the Xbox. If PS3 could offer something [gaming related] that Xbox 360 couldnt' then people would pay the extra 100 for it. I absolutely believe that. Would PS3 sell more if it was cheaper? Of course, that doesn't mean the current price is the problem. What product wouldn't sell more if it was significantly cheaper?
You'd think they'd just make a Wii with HD capability and maybe a hard drive and they'd be set. Maybe up the power a little bit.
Well I consider myself a serious gamer and I chose the PS3 which illustrates your point but I made that choice based on money (the price of Live would eventually eclipse the price of the PS3 but the masses don't know or think about that). However any company's goal is to get as many customers as possible and cheaper prices do that, the cheaper something is the better it sells as you said. Well I could easily way that the delayed time of the PS3 release has been used as a scapegoat since I think price is the true reason it isn't selling. Also the PS3 does offer plenty for gamers too want and have had how many games so far that has supposedly supposed to take the system into a new dimension but it hasn't happened and I accreddit that to price (along with the 360 still having more which illustrates your point but I think its a 80-20 balance their). Especially in a bad economy prices are going to be huuuuggggeeee. This is really an endless argument however and I say we just agree to disagree. By the way I still want to see if I can prove my point though by looking at the sales figures of the 3 Xbox360s.
You guys are all silly. There are 2 reasons, and ONLY 2 reasons why the PS3 is in third place. First, because of the ridiculous price. Only the fanboys wanted to pay $600 for one, and developers took notice. Which is why the second point came about. Second, because of the lack of truly great exclusives. Why the lack of exclusives? Because developers didn't want to limit their profits by making a game for a console that only the small minority wanted to own. We are all serious gamers here, and we all know that first-party (and third party) exclusives are what separates one console from the next. I think we can all agree that both Sony and Microsoft are relatively weak with their first-party titles; basically Sony has God of War, Microsoft has Halo. Nintendo, on the other hand is the best videogame developer on the planet, and they have been since 1985. Don't agree? Just look at the all-time sales charts. 17 out of 20 (and ALL of the top 10) best-selling games ever were made by Nintendo. Sony was able to get on top and stay on top because of the exclusives from third-party developers. They no longer have that, and it is killing them. I don't think that they will be able to recover. They just don't have the first-party titles, and they aren't going to be getting much in the way of exclusives in the future. I don't see why ANY developer would sign on for an exclusive for the company sucking hind tit in the market, it's just bad business.
All good points but since you are the minion of Satan how can I trust you? Also its all in good fun the arguing that goes on here as I've said before this is basically the POFO 2.0 (well actually I think the POFO gets personal where here that's not the case).
I'd like to see the Wii become more of a computer for the TV. You can browse the internet but its really clunky. The graphics do have room to improve. I'm not sure if it's even possible but I'd like a desktop type setup where you can use your console as a kind of PC. Oh you know what Nintendo can focus on? FIXING THE SONIC FRANCHISE. It's hit absolute rock bottom. They havent put out a good game since Sonic Adventure 2 for gamecube. Fire the damn Sonic Team and hire a new one
the next wii will be able to walk over to other consoles you have, break them, then proceed to choke you with the entrails in a quest for world domination.
They sure could. Sonic may be multi-platform but I'd be willing to bet it sells a LOT more to the Wii audience. Also has more exclusive games for Nintendo if I'm not mistaken. Okay so they can't fire Sonic Team but they could put some serious heat on them.
