Not looking good for the Wii is it?

Which console before Ps1 sold the numbers to be classed as mainstream?

Gaming was niche before Sony, The casual market was created by the Wii.

I don't think were disagreeing actually, I just think I have two separate classes, mainstream and Casual, whereas you are saying all non hardcore are casual.

No we aren't disagreeing as such, but I don't think you understood my point. Sony, for a fact, wanted to attract the people who would casually buy games whilst out shopping as they as of then had no IP's and brands that could compete with the likes of Mario and Sonic. Hence why they literally had minimal quality control, because they wanted shed loads of games out there. They had little in the way of plans, they just wanted their brand everywhere.

That created the phrase then used magazines and reviewers as 'casual gamers'.


Oh and the Snes and Genesis sold bucketloads on top of all the NES and MS's sold. How much qualifies as mainstream for you?
 
So lets get this straight. Despite being the best selling console of this generation, the fact that sales have started to slow (long past most people's expectations) means that it's doomed?

Also, Sony only announced the PS3 when the PS2 sales all but dried up didn't they?

I think that you are missing the point here in that the base of the argument is about software, not individual hardware blocks. Historically, sales of any machine fall off once 3rd party output drops off, and 3rd party output drops off when 3rd parties are not making any money leaving a situation where the first party company in question cannot support the machine in question with enough software on its own, thus leading to a lower value position and an ever decreasing number of hardware sales, leading to less software sales, going around in a vicious circle. The fact of the matter is that XB360 and PS3 sales are still increasing in terms of hardware and software, the Wii is falling rapidly in both and 3rd parties are jumping or have already jumped ship. It's even worse when you consider it that XB360 was released over a year before the Wii. That's the point, Wii sales have been totally front loaded and are not sustainable.

You are living in a dream world if you honestly think the new consoles are that far off, but we've had this discussion before and only time will tell.

Why would Microsoft and Sony release new machines, incurring vast costs in the process when they both have machines that are increasing their sales in hardware and software? Especially considering that the flagship models of each are nowhere even near mass market pricing points yet?

You also miss the point that Microsoft has basically cut into Sony's market, divided it in half. If you combine XB360 and PS3 sales in hardware alone, you are getting in the region of an 83 million ballpark figure. This is larger than the Wii, and around the same as GCN, XB1, Dreamcast, and PS2 figures at the same point in the life cycle. The difference is however that combined the XB1 and GCN didn't even hit 50 million units, PS2 hit 150 million. Those two combined didn't reach 1/4 of the market, XB360 and PS3 together have over 50% of the market in terms of hardware, and growing without PS3 being anywhere close to mass market price. Microsoft basically took 50% of Sony's PS2 cake.

How you then factor in 70m Wiis says something doesn't it? That mainstream gamer market is still there, even bigger, yet console sales in this generation are way above that of the previous generation, and in terms of Wii and PS3 we are only 4 years in! XB360 is 5 years in.

As I've said, XB360 and PS3 having GPUs so close to PC counterparts allows them to very easily make games across all three platforms, and the market provided by those three platforms is much bigger than the market provided for by Wii, and XB360/PS3 owners buy a lot more software, the attach rates is much much higher, mainly due to the type of gamer that buys those machines.

It amuses me, though, that you continually talk about the amount of games on the PS2/3. There are plenty of highlights on those systems, but the PS3 is hardly swamped in actual good games now is it? The PS2 obviously has an even higher amount of shit.

The quality of the games is irrelevant. What is relevant is that 3rd parties are still making games, and making money.

Oh and the Wii must have only been a rubbish gimmick, so rubbish infact that your beloved Sony have nicked a Wiimote, stuck a ping pong ball on the end and changed the sensor bar to a camera. But of course, that's nothing like the Wiimote and the shovelware (which much of it is already on the PS3/Xbox anyway), won't just be ported across either will it.

You know very well that Richard Marks was working on Move long before Wii was even announced. In any case, the difference is that you can easily port Wii shovelware to Move, you can't easily port MW2 to the Wii.


I'll say it again, it's not really a shock that a product with such a vast sales rate and installed user base slows down in sales. The only real surprise is it's taken so long.

Yet you keep missing the point. XB360 and PS3 combined provide a bigger userbase than Wii, and a userbase more likely to buy software. And both are still growing in sales whereas Wii sales, both hardware and software are in decline. Xb360 and PS3 also provide a relatively simple path to make games for both, games that would need to be totally re-engineered to work on the Wii due to its technical limitations. 3rd parties have two options, try to compete with Nintendo for the 75m Wii owners' money, or go for an 83m market where the users actually buy their games.
 
No we aren't disagreeing as such, but I don't think you understood my point. Sony, for a fact, wanted to attract the people who would casually buy games whilst out shopping as they as of then had no IP's and brands that could compete with the likes of Mario and Sonic. Hence why they literally had minimal quality control, because they wanted shed loads of games out there. They had little in the way of plans, they just wanted their brand everywhere.

That created the phrase then used magazines and reviewers as 'casual gamers'.


Oh and the Snes and Genesis sold bucketloads on top of all the NES and MS's sold. How much qualifies as mainstream for you?

What I'm talking about as casuals is people such as 40 year old mothers and grannies that would have never dreamed of playing a video game before. They did buy Wii however in their millions. Nintendo expanded the market without ever really addressing the one that previously existed. You can argue all you want, but this is the case, there is no other explanation for the sales numbers along the lifeline curve. The vast majority of people on here for example that had an XB1 or a PS2 last generation don't own a Wii. These things have been sold to another demographic entirely.
 
2) I think Sony see the move as a direct rival to the Wii (they see it as something that's going to appeal to the casual market just as much as it will to the "hardcore" one, mind you I can't see the hardcore market ever taking to it but that's another discussion to be had!) and if that's the case, the Move will not be anywhere near as successful as they hope. Buy a PS3 for £250 + the move for around £90, over the Wii? Not going to happen imo. Ditto for microsoft's cringeworthy effort.

I think that Sony think that 3rd parties will see it as an opportunity to do Wii like games. What I meant was that I don't see the Sony 1st party studios all of a sudden developing lots of those types of games, it's not in their DNA - Studio London excepted. I have no doubt however that games such as Uncharted 3 will include it, as Killzone 3 is doing, the new SOCOM is doing, etc. The thing is that accurate that it can compete with a mouse, even for things like RTS games.
 
I think that Sony think that 3rd parties will see it as an opportunity to do Wii like games. What I meant was that I don't see the Sony 1st party studios all of a sudden developing lots of those types of games, it's not in their DNA - Studio London excepted. I have no doubt however that games such as Uncharted 3 will include it, as Killzone 3 is doing, the new SOCOM is doing, etc. The thing is that accurate that it can compete with a mouse, even for things like RTS games.

That's all well and good but can you really see people forking out another £90 on top of what they've already invested in their PS3s? When in reality the experience you'll get from it will be far from immersive, as it'll take a few years before developers get the best out of it (even the 1st party developers will need some time to get to grips with the thing, to give it an experience that's much much superior to the one that the Wii offers right now).
 
That's all well and good but can you really see people forking out another £90 on top of what they've already invested in their PS3s? When in reality the experience you'll get from it will be far from immersive, as it'll take a few years before developers get the best out of it (even the 1st party developers will need some time to get to grips with the thing, to give it an experience that's much much superior to the one that the Wii offers right now).

No, unless it brings something viewed as unmissable to the table, I can't see it succeeding until it's put in the box with the console from the get-go as the default control scheme.

Personally, I'm not sold on motion control full stop, but that could simply be my age and stubbornness.
 
I think that you are missing the point here in that the base of the argument is about software, not individual hardware blocks. Historically, sales of any machine fall off once 3rd party output drops off, and 3rd party output drops off when 3rd parties are not making any money leaving a situation where the first party company in question cannot support the machine in question with enough software on its own, thus leading to a lower value position and an ever decreasing number of hardware sales, leading to less software sales, going around in a vicious circle. The fact of the matter is that XB360 and PS3 sales are still increasing in terms of hardware and software, the Wii is falling rapidly in both and 3rd parties are jumping or have already jumped ship. It's even worse when you consider it that XB360 was released over a year before the Wii. That's the point, Wii sales have been totally front loaded and are not sustainable.

Of course that's all true, which is why I haven't bothered addressing it. I still don't get why you are so dramatic about it, after all do you think it's actually going to impact Nintendo, or increase revenues again if they come to market with a new machine? You know how fickle the market and consumers are, new machine = another 4-5 years of hardware/software sales.



Why would Microsoft and Sony release new machines, incurring vast costs in the process when they both have machines that are increasing their sales in hardware and software? Especially considering that the flagship models of each are nowhere even near mass market pricing points yet?

What, so they are going to suddenly change what has always happened? You are missing one massive point here. They are for all intents and purposes neck and neck in the race, the first one to market with the next big machines stands the best chance of taking more of the market share.

You are acting like I'm saying they are coming out next week. I'm saying that it'll be sooner than you are, that is all.

Oh, and I'm not saying it will happen, but what if this new Nintendo console you think will have to come out soon is more powerful than a PS3 with a new motion system greater than Move/Kinetic? Neither Sony or M$ would take that risk, they haven't in the past and won't in the future.


How you then factor in 70m Wiis says something doesn't it? That mainstream gamer market is still there, even bigger, yet console sales in this generation are way above that of the previous generation, and in terms of Wii and PS3 we are only 4 years in! XB360 is 5 years in.

They were always going to be higher, they probably will next generation. All you've said is correct, which is why you are still missing my point.


As I've said, XB360 and PS3 having GPUs so close to PC counterparts allows them to very easily make games across all three platforms, and the market provided by those three platforms is much bigger than the market provided for by Wii, and XB360/PS3 owners buy a lot more software, the attach rates is much much higher, mainly due to the type of gamer that buys those machines.

The Wii is basically OpenGL and a piss of piss to develop for. It's not the coding side holding anything back, it's the assets side.



The quality of the games is irrelevant. What is relevant is that 3rd parties are still making games, and making money.

You bring up quality more than I, that point was basically saying Sony invented the idea of cheap easy games.



You know very well that Richard Marks was working on Move long before Wii was even announced. In any case, the difference is that you can easily port Wii shovelware to Move, you can't easily port MW2 to the Wii.

Took his time didn't he? Think of all that market share Sony would have had if he had thought to put his technology inside a Wii remote all those years ago.



What I'm talking about as casuals is people such as 40 year old mothers and grannies that would have never dreamed of playing a video game before. They did buy Wii however in their millions. Nintendo expanded the market without ever really addressing the one that previously existed. You can argue all you want, but this is the case, there is no other explanation for the sales numbers along the lifeline curve. The vast majority of people on here for example that had an XB1 or a PS2 last generation don't own a Wii. These things have been sold to another demographic entirely.

The first part is true, the last part isn't. You are wrong, plenty of people bought the Wii, but also loads have now sold them on. It's a classic case of jumping into a new product, without pausing to think what you are buying. I bout my Wii because I wanted to see what they'd do with the IP's like Mario and Zelda, and was interested to see what they'd do with FPS's. I wasn't disappointed then, I'm not now.
 
Personally, I'm not sold on motion control full stop, but that could simply be my age and stubbornness.

I think you are correct not to be sold.

I like the way Nintendo made it the primary focus for their new console, not some tack-on gimmick - however one could argue that whilst for sales it has worked, for fresh innovative ideas it rarely has.

I don't see Move helping the cause, unless you people will be satisfied with Wii games with better graphics. I think the whole concept of actually having to move your body to play games, or hold a wand out in front of you like a gun isn't as appealing to gamers long term as a controller where movement is minimal.
 
The whole point of a game is to sit down and relax not to be jumping around and working up a sweat.

Wii/Move/Kinnect are all party add ons, thats it.
 
Personally, I'm not sold on motion control full stop, but that could simply be my age and stubbornness.

To be honest I wouldn't put that down to age. I have the same feelings. After using a Wii at a friends house in various 'wii sport' events I was just left thinking well this just isn't accurate, or serious enough.

The point being having a laugh and a joke on motion control is alright when you're in a room full of friends. But when you are alone and trying to actually complete levels and things, it's useless.
 
I'm sure however that Lambs could point us in the direction of Wii games that work similar to this.



You could do this sitting down with Move no problem. Whether it's better than using a pad I have no clue.
 
To be honest I wouldn't put that down to age. I have the same feelings. After using a Wii at a friends house in various 'wii sport' events I was just left thinking well this just isn't accurate, or serious enough.

The point being having a laugh and a joke on motion control is alright when you're in a room full of friends. But when you are alone and trying to actually complete levels and things, it's useless.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Try using it properly before making statements like that!
 
I'm sure however that Lambs could point us in the direction of Wii games that work similar to this.



You could do this sitting down with Move no problem. Whether it's better than using a pad I have no clue.


Whilst I didn't watch the whole video, that looks pretty like pretty basic use of the set-up. There are a few games on the Wii that are like that, but a couple more where you actually through grenades, or use hand gestures to command people (rather than just a button).

Some work better than pads, some don't. It's really a preference thing, though (for example) I wouldn't ever understand why someone would prefer using the pad over the Wiimote for Resident Evil 4.
 
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Try using it properly before making statements like that!

I think my point is valid to an extent. I play golf in real life and to a really good standard. I tried playing Tiger Woods on the wii and it's just pointless. It's nothing like real golf (to me anyway). So that's where my argument about realism comes into it.

Maybe other games are different?! or more realistic, I don't know.
 
I think my point is valid to an extent. I play golf in real life and to a really good standard. I tried playing Tiger Woods on the wii and it's just pointless. It's nothing like real golf (to me anyway). So that's where my argument about realism comes into it.

Maybe other games are different?! or more realistic, I don't know.

:lol::lol::lol:

Sorry, I'm not taking the piss that just really made me laugh! You play golf for real, yet are complaining it's not real enough on a video game? Of course it bloody isn't!

Oh and did you play Tiger Woods with the motion plus at all? Not that I'm a big fan myself, but it is a marked improvement :)
 
I'm sure however that Lambs could point us in the direction of Wii games that work similar to this.



You could do this sitting down with Move no problem. Whether it's better than using a pad I have no clue.


I just realy dont see the point in that, the whole point of putting things like Move into games like this is to make it more realistic correct? So its like your actualy holding the gun and shit right?

Well all hes doing is holding at waist level and hardly moving it all...its practicly just one big wireless analog stick.
 
:lol::lol::lol:

Sorry, I'm not taking the piss that just really made me laugh! You play golf for real, yet are complaining it's not real enough on a video game? Of course it bloody isn't!

Oh and did you play Tiger Woods with the motion plus at all? Not that I'm a big fan myself, but it is a marked improvement :)

Thats my point though. If you play it on the 360 or the PS3 I get what I expect, a video game of golf. If you play it lots you get better etc.

But when you swing the thing on the wii it does different things each time, it's almost like it's a little bit random. I don't think you could play it, and get an awful lot better type thing.

For me that makes it annoying, and makes it a game to have fun with mates etc (which is fair enough).

But games really have to be more serious for me.
 
I just realy dont see the point in that, the whole point of putting things like Move into games like this is to make it more realistic correct? So its like your actualy holding the gun and shit right?

Well all hes doing is holding at waist level and hardly moving it all...its practicly just one big wireless analog stick.

Why is the point of the move to be more realistic? People keep saying this, but you are missing the point.

They are just alternative ways to play the games, and actually in these cases happen to be much more fluent and fun ways. Just like a mouse/keyboard setup is even more fluent and accurate.
 
Thats my point though. If you play it on the 360 or the PS3 I get what I expect, a video game of golf. If you play it lots you get better etc.

But when you swing the thing on the wii it does different things each time, it's almost like it's a little bit random. I don't think you could play it, and get an awful lot better type thing.

For me that makes it annoying, and makes it a game to have fun with mates etc (which is fair enough).

But games really have to be more serious for me.

But it is a game! You are playing a game, one which requires effort to learn to play. I don't do random shots, in fact it was quite rewarding when I started to master it, much more so than any other version I've owned.

With the Wii and some of the more serious games (exactly like it will be on the move) you have to put effort in to get reward out. It works in some games, not in others. For golf it's a lot more realistic than twiddling a stick.

I do get your point however, I love playing football but loathe video game versions (although the wii version of Pro evolution was amusing for a time).
 
I just realy dont see the point in that, the whole point of putting things like Move into games like this is to make it more realistic correct? So its like your actualy holding the gun and shit right?

Well all hes doing is holding at waist level and hardly moving it all...its practicly just one big wireless analog stick.

As Lambs said, I think that the idea is that it gives you much more accuracy as a mouse would do in a PC shooter. With a pad you need one stick to move left, right, back, forward and the other to change your viewpoint with the reticule always in the centre. With this type of control scheme you point the reticule wherever just like a mouse, with zones on the edges of the screen then providing you the turning ability. It's different, but I suppose it allows for more accuracy.

SOCOM 4 isn't a Move game though, it was designed as a Dualshock game, they have simply added Move support in there, so you have the choice.

@ Lambs, I think that they have gesture support in there, and some sort of overview map where you can draw paths for your team members.
 
If it has gesture support also, then it'll definitely be better on the move than the pad for me.

I really don't like FPS's and the like on control pads. I hate auto-aim (I always have it off, no matter how stupidly inaccurate it makes the stick) and mouse, move and Wiimote take away the need for help and add an element of skill.

Also, framerate glitches aren't such a huge gameplay hinderance with the Wiimote/move.
 
I think that the technical demos for Move are far more interesting than the games using it so far have shown, which in the main are copies of Wii control schemes, when it can do quite a bit more due to the accurate depth tracking in the Z axis, and what the eye can add to the story with face/head tracking etc.
 
I think that the technical demos for Move are far more interesting than the games using it so far have shown, which in the main are copies of Wii control schemes, when it can do quite a bit more due to the accurate depth tracking in the Z axis, and what the eye can add to the story with face/head tracking etc.

The head tracking is the only thing above and beyond the Wiimote that I'm interested in.

As you know, all this talk of realism with a wand is nonsense, stuff like head tracking is the only way to improve realism in stuff like racers and shooters where spacial awareness is so important.
 
It's bizarre isn't it really that the Cell is perfectly suited to doing what Kinect is trying to do, with hardly any cost in terms of processing whatsoever, and the XB360 hardware isn't, yet Sony dismissed it?

Do you know how good the 3 VMX units in Xenon actually are?
 
It's bizarre isn't it really that the Cell is perfectly suited to doing what Kinect is trying to do, with hardly any cost in terms of processing whatsoever, and the XB360 hardware isn't, yet Sony dismissed it?

I have a feeling the technology isn't quite there yet, which is why they went the Wii route. Would not surprise my one bit to see the next gen being the battle for true motion control.

Mind you, Sony do have a history of dropping the ball, so maybe that's just what they did ;)


Do you know how good the 3 VMX units in Xenon actually are?

No, don't you get anything from the XNA? I know they are upgraded (vmx128 or something iirc) but not fully AltiVec compatible like the Cell (a few vector fp instructions removed).
 
Mind you, Sony do have a history of dropping the ball, so maybe that's just what they did ;)

Not sure what you mean by dropping the ball...

Kinetic is just an advanced version of the Eye Toy that requires a mammoth amount of space to work properly 'which alot of people don't have'. You can add to that games that require buttons, like car racing and FPS, and Microsoft have limited their demographic to a bunch of young girls who want a virtual pet to play with....
 
Here's something interesting that sort of adds to my point.

FIFA 11 first week sales share in the UK:

360 - 50% - 411,000
PS3 - 47% - 386,000
Wii - 1% - 8,000

Yet then Nintendo say:

One in three UK households has a Wii, Nintendo has claimed.

The impressive statistic comes courtesy of independent Chart Track data. It worked out the total number of UK Wii sales and compared the figure to the number of households in the UK – 24.9 million according to the Office of National Statistics' 2006 census data.

That means Nintendo's shifted around 8.3 million Wiis in the UK. "Over 11 million" are "enjoying Nintendo DS", the company also boasted.

Nintendo: 1 in 3 UK homes has a Wii Wii News - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Something quite doesn't make sense!
 
What, that Wii fans don't like Fifa?

No, that either the vast majority of them are gathering dust, or Nintendo did open up a totally different market. I'd probably go with both. But in either case, FIFA is one of the very largest 3rd party franchises, and it sold feck all on the leading console in terms of units sold. This is unheard of before. The PS2 version is at number 12 this week in the UK all-formats charts, THE PS2 VERSION!

01 (__) 360 Fifa 11 (Electronic Arts)
02 (__) PS3 Fifa 11 (Electronic Arts)
08 (__) WII Fifa 11 (Electronic Arts)
10 (__) PSP Fifa 11 (Electronic Arts)
12 (__) PS2 Fifa 11 (Electronic Arts)
 
Doesn't really mean much when you consider that the Wii version of FIFA is nothing like the game on other platforms.
 
Well it kind of does. If I had a wii, I wouldn't buy FIFA for it. It's a pile of shite, in fact it's pretty much a separate entity to the rest of the FIFA franchise so essentially you are comparing a completely different game.
 
Well it kind of does. If I had a wii, I wouldn't buy FIFA for it. It's a pile of shite, in fact it's pretty much a separate entity to the rest of the FIFA franchise so essentially you are comparing a completely different game.

No, it kind of doesn't! It never worked like that, otherwise, you would buy all of your games on the PC, if you have one fancy enough. It can't be the same on the Wii, it's not possible, but it's still a football game with the FIFA licence. PES on the Wii was totally different also. It matters not. It's getting decent review scores on the Wii, yet sells like crap.
 
a wii is not for simulation gaming, football games is all about simulation and realism for me.