it is a case of PS3 or 360 ports then the Wii will suffer because people will go for the pretty pretty graphics over the quirky controls, no matter how intuitive the controls are, pretty pretty graphics will win hands down, if it is on all 3 systems. No matter what the gameplay.

DO you have any evidence to support this? Last time i checked the console that has won the previous 2 generations was also the weakest (ps1 & ps2). THe DS is also weaker then the psp and its slammin' the psp. The Wii is still selling extremely well consistently outselling HD capable consoles worldwide. So can anyone here please tell me why people here are still of the opinion that better graphics=larger market share, when frankly there is no evidence currently and historically to support that view? ANybody?

Note i realise this was taken out of context but it is a valid question.

Good graphics can be found in great software . Good gameplay can be found in great software.
So what is the secret ingredient that makes a console succesful? Hmm, what did PS2 have lots of and GCN very few of? What did the DS have lots of that the PSP didn' t have for a while? What is the most important thing to make a console succesful?
I don' t know. Why don' t you tell me?

ORIGINAL: Terrak

it is a case of PS3 or 360 ports then the Wii will suffer because people will go for the pretty pretty graphics over the quirky controls, no matter how intuitive the controls are, pretty pretty graphics will win hands down, if it is on all 3 systems. No matter what the gameplay.

DO you have any evidence to support this? Last time i checked the console that has won the previous 2 generations was also the weakest (ps1 & ps2). THe DS is also weaker then the psp and its slammin' the psp. The Wii is still selling extremely well consistently outselling HD capable consoles worldwide. So can anyone here please tell me why people here are still of the opinion that better graphics=larger market share, when frankly there is no evidence currently and historically to support that view? ANybody?

Note i realise this was taken out of context but it is a valid question.

I wrote a response to a question/statement similar to yours a while ago. Instead of typing the same thing again, I' ll just cut and paste.

From my point of view, the whole graphics vs gameplay debate is so pointless.

When people play a game, they expect good gameplay. It' s a fact. No one argues with that.

Nowdays, when people play a game they expect good graphics too. It' s a fact.

It' s time to face it: Graphics have become just another part of the checklist in what makes a game great. " Good Graphics" have become a standard, just like " Good Gameplay" . The player expects a certain minimum amount from each. One is no longer greater than the other. They both go hand in hand. They are just as important as each other and one will find that it' s very hard to make a spectacular game with just one of these elements.

I think that toward the later parts of it' s lifecycle, the Wii is going to find this out the hard way. The graphical standard is one that is continually evolving and as we go later into 2008, we may see the Wii unable to keep up with the standards that we expect. As with many others, I am holding off my purchase of the Wii based on game selection, but I am also hesitant because I have yet to see how they are going to keep up with standards. Nintendo' s first party games will probably shine, but everything else I' ve seen has been poor - and that smells like Gamecube syndrome.

Thank you Unlucky one, that was the point I wanted to make, gaming in the past what 5 years or so has changed, before it was about gameplay, hell I remember the non graphic adventures, where you had to use your imagination to see what a place looked like,or when you had graphics they were made up of various characters arranged in a way that would look like a dungeon, but in the past 5 years or so all that has changed, the gameplay is not the be all and end all, as Unluckyone states," When people play a game they expect good graphics too."

The point I am making with ports is, if the game is out for the more graphically powered machines as well as the Wii people will buy those rather than the poorer quality graphics of the wii. Hypothetically the Wii and the 360 both had " superdooper FPS" launch at the same time, you own both systems how would you decide which system you would get it for?

The PSP Vs Ds debate is more a question of mass market appeal, and Nintendo have that with titles like Nintendogs and animal crossing, there isn' t a mass market appeal with the PSP I am afraid.

I' m sorry Unlucky but no where in your comment did you address the argument at hand. You were talking about what people expect from there games.
I' m asking why people here still hold the view that

Best Graphics = Largest market share

when there has been no historical or current evidence to support this assumption.
Lets look at the evidence

From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars

Nintendo Game Boy & Game Boy Color: 118.69 Million
Sega Game Gear: 8.65 Million
Gameboy is the weaker console yet it won the war

PlayStation: 102.49 million
Nintendo 64: 32.93 million
ps1 is the graphically weaker console but convincingly wins the war

PlayStation 2: 115.36 million
Xbox: 24 Million
Nintendo GameCube: 21.52 Million
again ps2 the weakest of the 3 smashed the 2 graphically more powerful consoles in xbox1 & GC

Nintendo DS: 38.26 million
PlayStation Portable: 21.07 million
The trend continues with the DS which has almost doubled the graphically superior psp' s sales within the same time period.

Which brings me to the final example -

http://www.vgchartz.com/?b=6
http://www.nexgenwars.com/

Even though the Wii is the last console to launch, has weakest graphics of the 3, No AAA exclusives, Currently no online and yet it appears that it has sold over half the 360' s numbers in less then half the time (360 had 2 holiday seasons aswell). With Wii sales continuing to remain strong Worldwide (consistently beating all but the DS) one can conclude that the same trend could be applied to this scenario as well.

So why do you all still think that graphics is the deciding factor in a console generation? You can believe this is so, and it doesn' t really worry me if you do but as i have pointed out there is absolutely no EVIDENCE (or trends) current or historical that backs this up.

Looking at these numbers its not hard to conclude that Graphics play little to no part in determining the Winner of a console generation. That view will remain Until i see numbers that prove otherwise.

ORIGINAL: ginjirou

Good graphics can be found in great software . Good gameplay can be found in great software.
So what is the secret ingredient that makes a console succesful? Hmm, what did PS2 have lots of and GCN very few of? What did the DS have lots of that the PSP didn' t have for a while? What is the most important thing to make a console succesful?
I don' t know. Why don' t you tell me?

LOL if i knew that then you would have a ' Terrak' branded console in your living room right now

Price, and 3rd party support.

Gameboy, Playstation, Playstation 2 and Nintendo DS were not only cheaper than their respective rivals but they had far far more in terms of 3rd party support.

Playstation and Playstation 2 didn' t really hit their stride until they received their first price drops.

It' s been proven that the closer a console is to the $150-$200 impulse buy bracket the higher the sales. Handhelds, ...or at least Nintendo created handhelds have always been in that range anyway. PSP exceeded it and so when the price was dropped a couple of weeks ago it saw a 400% boost.

Wii is cheap, but it doesn' t have the 3rd party support that PS3 and 360 have, and until it does it' s sales spike will be directly tied to price and the fact that it' s gimicky.

It' s alright saying " well look at the sales!!!" , ...but the same was said about Dreamcast and Gamecube when they broke launch sales records, ...and look what happened to them. A serious lack of 3rd party support sent both machines down the same path as Sega' s Saturn.

The question that needs to be answered is whether Wii has legs because we know damn well that the other consoles do. When supply and demand equalize, will we see a drastic drop in interest and thus sales, or, like 360 and PS3, will we see steady sales month in month out?

3rd Party support will always gravitate towards the console with the largest sales, that' s simple economics.

the fact that it' s gimicky.

That' s not a fact, that' s an opinion.

When supply and demand equalize, will we see a drastic drop in interest and thus sales

Well, the hype has lastest longer than usual but I doubt we' ll see a dramatic drop in sales any time soon. Wii will win this generation at a canter. It has the ' X-factor' - whatever that is.

When supply and demand equalize, will we see a drastic drop in interest and thus sales

Well, the hype has lastest longer than usual but I doubt we' ll see a dramatic drop in sales any time soon. Wii will win this generation at a canter. It has the ' X-factor' - whatever that is.

Hype fueled by engineered sellouts.

But it has fewer 3rd party games in the pipeline than PS3 as well as fewer games on the shelf than PS3. Games aren' t pushing the sales right now, the control mechanism is, and that' s not a good thing.

Until 3rd party games are selling strongly on the platform it' ll be seen as risky by all but the biggest publishers and will continue to receive PS2 ports.

But yeah, thanks for your uneducated input. I' ll go Google " X-factor" and see if i can apply it to the Gimp.

Hype fueled by engineered sellouts.

Do you honestly believe that? 6.5M sold in four months does not whiff of engineered sell outs.

thanks for your uneducated input.

7K+ posts and you haven' t learned how to keep a civil tongue? I' ve been gaming for longer than you' ve been alive sunshine, my input is educated by that.

I notice that you managed to skirt around my main point. Here it is again in case you forgot:

3rd party support will always gravitate towards the platform with the larget user base. Simple economics.

Let' s see if you can respond without making baseless insults...

ORIGINAL: SpaceJase

Hype fueled by engineered sellouts.

Do you honestly believe that? 6.5M sold in four months does not whiff of engineered sell outs.

6.5 million sold at the end of the fiscal year. Supply was purposefully held back for this financial quarter, so if more console were made available then the actual sell-through figure would be higher.

However, i' m putting the high sales so far down to price and curiosity.

7K+ posts and you haven' t learned how to keep a civil tongue? I' ve been gaming for longer than you' ve been alive sunshine, my input is educated by that.

I notice that you managed to skirt around my main point. Here it is again in case you forgot:

3rd party support will always gravitate towards the platform with the largest user base. Simple economics.

Let' s see if you can respond without making baseless insults...

Buying games suddenly increases your knowledge and understanding of how what can realistically be considered a relatively new mass market industry operates?

No.

But yes, i was out of order and i apologize.



With regard to 3rd party support being granted to the console with the largest userbase, ...that' s not exactly true.

Until 3rd party Wii games are selling 1M+ it' ll continue to receive PS2 ports and licensed franchises from the biggest publishers because they' re far less risky.

The most anticipated games for Wii are what, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3 and Super Smash Bros Brawl? 3 in-house developed Nintendo games?

The best games available are Wii Sports, Twilight Princess (a Gamecube game) and Paper Mario? 3 in-house developed Nintendo games?

Sounds a lot like the situation Gamecube found itself in if you ask me, ...and you can guarantee publishers are watching rival 3rd party releases to see how they sell.

You should also bear in mind that casual and non-gamers will buy far less software than hardcore (?) gamers and so even if Wii had a huge install base it would be impossible to project how well a game would do.

Right now it' s trial and error.

The Wii is the only next-gen home to close to two dozen of these games. So while these titles will also appear on the PS2, Xbox or GC now, that won' t always be the case. The Wii will eventually reach a critical mass where it will be profitable for companies to create these games only for the Wii (and likely won' t be making any extra money from a PS2 version). And if the Wii continues its phenomenal sales run, that critical mass could be reached by the end of the year. All of a sudden those " Wii + Last-Gen Exclusives" will just be " Wii Exclusives."

The most interesting aspect of this list is the disconnect between the " low-power" Wii and the " high-definition" Xbox 360 and PS3. There are lots of games that come out for the PS3 and Xbox 360 but not the Wii. Basically, any game that' s not exclusive to one will come out on both. There are still plenty of titles that appear on all three thanks to megapublishers EA and Activision, but there is a very clear separation. In fact, there is only one game currently announced that will appear on the Wii and only one of the high-definition systems. That game is Looney Tunes: Acme Arsenal, which is currently scheduled to come to the Wii and the Xbox 360.

So with this lack of cross-polination of titles between the systems, it creates the mentality that a gamer only needs two consoles to get almost everything. With the Xbox 360' s massive list of exclusives (along with all of the Xbox 360/PS3 only titles) and the Wii filling in the low-power and quirky niche (along with a healthy batch of exclusives that are only possible with the Wiimote), the decision of which two consoles to buy becomes clear.

It' s still not over, but history has taught us that a company that is slow to give gamers compelling reasons to purchase their machine (the N64, the GameCube and now maybe the PS3) will be left in the dust by the more nimble competitors.

http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=6759&pg=3&comments=

Good article.

Buying games suddenly increases your knowledge and understanding of how what can realistically be considered a relatively new mass market industry operates?

No.

No, but I' ve been passionate about games for a long time and have always taken an interest in how the competiton pans out.

but yes, i was out of order and i apologize

Okay, no worries :)

You should also bear in mind that casual and non-gamers will buy far less software than hardcore (?) gamers and so even if Wii had a huge install base it would be impossible to project how well a game would do.

Right now the attach rate is much higher on the Wii than it is on the PS3.

http://vgchartz.com/japconscomps.php?name1=Wii&name2=PS3&type=3&align=1

I get your point that the 3rd parties have traditionally struggled to compete with Nintendo on their own consoles but their hand is being forced by the strong sales of the Wii.

I don' t buy into the idea that Nintendo are purposely holding back stock. I simply believe that the demand has caught them by surprise and they have not been able to respond quicky enough. It would make no sense at all for them to hold back stock where it is available. Didn' t this whole rumour start because of the comments of one US retailer anyway?

ORIGINAL: Nitro

Price, and 3rd party support.

exactly. Market share is not driven by graphics alone. So why then do people automatically assume Wiis limited graphics mean it will ultimately lose?
Price can' t be the main reason because the GC launched at US$200 (AUS$400) which was much cheaper then what the ps2 launched at US$400 (AUS$700). I think that strong and exclusive 3rd party support is the strongest way to gain market share and the way to get strong 3rd party support is to provide developers with a large user base. Larger user base larger potential sales for developers. Wii is doing this and in a short time too.

Hype fueled by engineered sellouts.

I have yet to see actual evidence of this, only rumours. If there is please link us to it, otherwise please avoid the speculation. If you want some more rumours heres one
http://nexgenwars.com/gaming_news/146/Rumors-of-Microsoft-Cheating-Their-Sales

But it has fewer 3rd party games in the pipeline than PS3 as well as fewer games on the shelf than PS3. Games aren' t pushing the sales right now, the control mechanism is, and that' s not a good thing.

OF course the ps3 is getting lots of 3rd party support, its won 2 generations in a row very convincingly, and the ps3 is a very powerful console. sony also promised 6 million ps3 shipped by end of March 07. Of course developers are going to flock to the ps3. However the reality today is very different. sony has not shipped its promised 6 million, and sales haven' t been quick either. I think its games attach rate is the lowest aswell.
Control mechanism selling the Wii not a good thing? Thats pretty much the only compelling reason to buy a Wii. Well its definately not selling due to the graphics, brand, price (ps2 is cheaper and most of the Wii games are ps2 ports).

Until 3rd party games are selling strongly on the platform it' ll be seen as risky by all but the biggest publishers and will continue to receive PS2 ports.

On the flipside Nintendo has suffer 2 crushing defeats in previous generations, on top of this the Wiimote concept was a radical and rather risky. ITs no wonder the third party support has been rather crap.
Inspite of this the Wii is still selling out, and out selling all but the DS, like you said, with little to no real 3rd party support, and with those sales developers can' t ignore for too much longer.

Secondly as i showed in a previous post Wii games cost only $2-3 million as opposed to 360 or ps3 costing around $20-30 million to develop, so they don' t need to sell as many games to profit on the Wii compared to ps3 or 360. Ubisoft who has been there from the start has already stated that Wii development is no longer a risk

http://forums.kikizo.com/tm.asp?m=98761&p=3&tmode=1&smode=1

But yeah, thanks for your uneducated input. I' ll go Google " X-factor" and see if i can apply it to the Gimp.

gimped in graphics maybe, but not in sales and thats all that counts really. Like Spacejase said developers gravitate towards the console that sell more.

ORIGINAL: SpaceJase

I get your point that the 3rd parties have traditionally struggled to compete with Nintendo on their own consoles but their hand is being forced by the strong sales of the Wii.

Ah but all they' re doing is releasing PS2 ports.

I have no doubts that exclusive-to-Wii 3rd party games will perform very well further down the line but until that happens it' s safer for publishers to port games.

The problem i expect is that Wii will go through software droughts like Gamecube did with a big game coming every six months and trash inbetween.

When 360 and PS3 see price drops they' ll become far more competitive.

You' re talking like a console generation is some sort of sprint but conveniently forgetting that PS2 didn' t sell in huge numbers until the price was dropped 18 months after launch, ...and then again when PStwo was released.

The PS3 launch hasn' t been impressive (although Sony are claiming that they' ve sold 800,000 in the EU in the past month) comparatively. Hell, no launch has been as impressive as Wii' s in the history of gaming. But if you think for one second that it' ll continue to sell at this rate then you are completely misguided.

Wii will slow down and both PS3 and 360 will speed up, PS3 more so. When the prices drop sales will spike. When massive franchises from the gaming industries biggest developers (like Final Fantasy XIII, GTA4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Gears of War 2 etc...) then sales will spike. Strong sales now that are not fueled by software is definitely something to worry about because it can' t go on forever, and when demand and supply equalize we' ll see a colossal drop.

Games sell consoles, not hardware. Without major 3rd party support any console will fail, funky controller or not. PS3 and 360 have the support, Wii does not. There' s very little that will be worth buying before September, ...just PS2 ports and movie tie-ins.

Mario, Metroid, Smash etc.. will sell machines, not the garbage that' s already out or fast approaching and Nintendo will delay those games until they are needed. they' ll be used tactically to maximize console sales and it' ll be up to 3rd parties to keep the monthly sales high and i just can' t see that happening.

EDIT: And meh, it' s not as if i don' t love Nintendo... LINK

You' re talking like a console generation is some sort of sprint but conveniently forgetting that PS2 didn' t sell in huge numbers until the price was dropped 18 months after launch, ...and then again when PStwo was released.

The PS2 was launched with no competitors (apart from the DC which they trounced easily with all the ' Emotion Engine' marketing nonsense.

And in any case it' s simply not true to say that the PS2 did not launch with big numbers. It shifted units at a pretty similar rate to the Wii in Japan. Remember that the PS2 had a staggered launch.

http://vgchartz.com/japconscomps.php?name1=PS2&name2=PS3&type=0&align=0

when demand and supply equalize we' ll see a colossal drop.

That makes no sense.

I guess what you' re trying to imply is that people only want to buy a Wii because of it' s lack of availability - strange argument.

When Nintendo' s manufacturing catches up with demand we will see an increase in sales.

Games sell consoles, not hardware.

As I mentioned earlier, the Wii has a much larger software attach ratio than the PS3.

There' s very little that will be worth buying before September, ...just PS2 ports and movie tie-ins.

Well a software drought in the summer is nothing new and Nintendo have no reason to rush titles into a market where demand already outweighs supply.

Project Hammer, Paper Mario (EU) and the 2 RE games look good though.

Mario, Metroid, Smash etc.. will sell machines, not the garbage that' s already out or fast approaching and Nintendo will delay those games until they are needed.

Agreed.

it' ll be up to 3rd parties to keep the monthly sales high and i just can' t see that happening.

That seems to be the main crux of your argument - it has basis if you look at the N64 and GC, but those consoles suffered from poor 3rd party support for different reasons:

N64: Cartridges, liscensing fees. Simply easier to cater for the PS1

GC: Poor system sales compared to PS2.

The Wii is unlikely to suffer any of those drawbacks and benefits from significantly cheaper dev. costs than the PS3/360. Why would devs not support it?

I agree that the PS3 will likely stage something of a comeback when the price drop hits but that could be a year away.

The N64 and the GC failed for reasons other than software.

The N64 was using old technology (carts)

The GC failed because it was butt ugly and the PS and PS2 already had a major share of the market and it was hard to break it.

The GC failed because it was butt ugly and the PS and PS2 already had a major share of the market and it was hard to break it.

Not to mention it used stupid discs and had no DVD/CD capability.