>Wii U
>Saviour of the Gaming Industry
Oh-ho-ho!
So far, the Wii U is shaping up to be the Atari Jaguar of this generation, I think you're overestimating its abilities to influence the crowds.
Report - Video Games At Risk For Another Crash
- Thread starter Gahars
- Start date
- Views 10,825
- Replies 126
- Likes 1
>Wii U
>Saviour of the Gaming Industry
Oh-ho-ho!
So far, the Wii U is shaping up to be the Atari Jaguar of this generation, I think you're overestimating its abilities to influence the crowds.
What I mean is the wii u is great but with all these other consoles like back in the 80s Nintendo didn't really market the NES as a game console but more of some sort off toy to sell has there was a big crash with all these consoles coming in>Wii U
>Saviour of the Gaming Industry
Oh-ho-ho!
So far, the Wii U is shaping up to be the Atari Jaguar of this generation, I think you're overestimating its abilities to influence the crowds.
I know what you're referring to, thing is, the NES was top-of-the-line hardware during its lifespan and truly was an "Entertainment System". The Wii U isn't - these days it takes a bit more than just playing games to be called an "Entertainment System", things the Wii U just doesn't do... while every other system out there does.
monopoly or not more consolidation means less consumer choice and higher prices ,you just said it "most are made by different companies" there is a difference between technical standards like dvd and blu ray and " merging "nintendo ,sony ,microsoft into one corporation" putting them under one umbrella if you will , look at google, and youtube perfect example YT sucks now that is has been acquired by google ,what the poster said is like saying google MS and apple should all merge so that consumers can have cheaper prices and better products, it runs contrary to any conventional knowledge as to how markets work
Well that may be true but the wii u does everything I want it to do.....play gamesI know what you're referring to, thing is, the NES was top-of-the-line hardware during its lifespan and truly was an "Entertainment System". The Wii U isn't - these days it takes a bit more than just playing games to be called an "Entertainment System", things the Wii U just doesn't do... while every other system out there does.
opinions opinions opinions...I know what you're referring to, thing is, the NES was top-of-the-line hardware during its lifespan and truly was an "Entertainment System". The Wii U isn't - these days it takes a bit more than just playing games to be called an "Entertainment System", things the Wii U just doesn't do... while every other system out there does.
...and once the developers catch up with the specs of the upcoming systems, it will stay far behind with decreasing support, living on first-party life support like the Gamecube has.
Of course it's an opinion - I don't have a crystal ball, I can't see into the future. I can analyze the situation and draw basic conclusions though - it's not selling for a reason.
The market can crash for all I care. Games have been getting too dull with only a few exceptions.
Wait, there's people on the internet that just want their consoles to play games? Shit, all this time I though I was the only one!
D
Dork
Guest
>Wii U
>Saviour of the Gaming Industry
Oh-ho-ho!
So far, the Wii U is shaping up to be the Atari Jaguar of this generation, I think you're overestimating its abilities to influence the crowds.
Your not shitposting or anything.
A game console is never "fun" in and out of itself, it's a piece of plastic. Games are fun - that's what you buy a gaming platform for, and so far other than the usual Nintendo serving (which is not enough, as shown by the Gamecube and the Nintendo 64, although many tend to disagree here, mostly due to blind brand loyalty) and a couple current generation ports (which aren't a reason to buy a new system since you can play those games on a system you already own) it doesn't have a lot going for it.
Facts are that development is going to shift towards PC/PS4/XBox One this generation since the platforms are structurally similar, and the fact that they're leagues ahead of the Wii U in terms of specs means that many games will simply skip the platform altogether to cut multiplatform development costs. This equals game drought and a scarcity of games will lead the Wii U into the realm of obscurity with only a handful of gamers interested in it for the sake of these "rare and far between" Nintendo exclusive titles.
An opinion I don't share or downright dislike = Shit Post, the GBATemp way.
PC isn't going to cause the gaming crash, it's the mobile and browser games that will lead to it. Face it PC can and will always coexist well with consoles, it's the social games that cannot for the most part. It doesn't help that developers want to make main series in much loved franchises mobile and browser only.
Gamers aren't all moving to PC, too many people don't have the patience needed for it since you'll have issues like games not working after downloading and having to re-download them plus it's too much maintenance to keep a gaming PC in tip top shape for the general population. Then there's the stereotype of an ideal PC costing too much to build when it is not.
If anyone wants to stop this crash from happening, go after the devs making so many social games, these are what are taking games away from console and PC alike and causing the decline in consoles.
Gamers aren't all moving to PC, too many people don't have the patience needed for it since you'll have issues like games not working after downloading and having to re-download them plus it's too much maintenance to keep a gaming PC in tip top shape for the general population. Then there's the stereotype of an ideal PC costing too much to build when it is not.
If anyone wants to stop this crash from happening, go after the devs making so many social games, these are what are taking games away from console and PC alike and causing the decline in consoles.
A game console is not to be judge buy its build of hardware or what it lacks because that shit does not matter. A game is the amount of imagination you can put into it so is consumers can play it. If you or the devs of a game can't respect that than you guys don't know what a game is. Fuck ps4,xbox0ne and pc for all I care because there still gonna have shitty games and still gonna mess up and there's still gonna be a lot of hacking.it can use Netflix, Hulu, YouTube,play games, connect with friends and a lot of other things. This system has better specs than the ps3 and the ps3 pumped out amazing stuff.Dont hate the console hate the games.A game console is never "fun" in and out of itself, it's a piece of plastic. Games are fun - that's what you buy a gaming platform for, and so far other than the usual Nintendo serving (which is not enough, as shown by the Gamecube and the Nintendo 64, although many tend to disagree here, mostly due to blind brand loyalty) and a couple current generation ports (which aren't a reason to buy a new system since you can play those games on a system you already own) it doesn't have a lot going for it.
Facts are that development is going to shift towards PC/PS4/XBox One this generation since the platforms are structurally similar, and the fact that they're leagues ahead of the Wii U in terms of specs means that many games will simply skip the platform altogether to cut multiplatform development costs. This equals game drought and a scarcity of games will lead the Wii U into the realm of obscurity with only a handful of gamers interested in it for the sake of these "rare and far between" Nintendo exclusive titles.
An opinion I don't share or downright dislike = Shit Post, the GBATemp way.
Social, casual "Facebook-grade" games hardly appeal to who we consider "Gamers" - they appeal to casual players who feel like milking a cow while they check their inbox. We're talking about two completely different target audiences which do intermingle with each other, but only to a small degree and do not clash.
Saying that social games threaten full-sized productions is like saying the manufacture of bicycles threatens the manufacture of automobiles - fair enough, both types of vehicles use roads, but one does not replace the other entirely - they co-exist, not clash.
Imagination belongs to game developers - they're the ones who craft the games. The system is the canvas they build their creations for, and a bigger, better canvas provides more wiggle room for them and gives them more tools to create more refined products.
I'm not saying that you can't paint a Mona Lisa on a crappy canvas - you can, with enough dedication. A poor artist will not paint a beautiful painting no matter what canvas is used, but a great artist may feel constrained by a bad canvas which does not satisfy the requirements for the artist's creative vision. There are good artists and bad artists, good canvases and bad ones - masterpieces are created when good artists are given tools which allow them to spread their creative wings.
A console's specs determine what sort of games can be made for it. Better specs mean developers have more freedom to bring their imaginations to life. So better specs = better games.
Also, the PS3 was the most powerful console of its hardware generation (unless you want to count the Wii U as last gen, anyway). So the PS3 pumped out amazing games because it was the most powerful. By your own admission, better specs meant better game output. QED, mofo.
The market wasn't just saturated with hardware. It had pisspoor games, every console having the exact same game, and poor ports of arcade games. There was literally close to over 20 consoles.
Today? We have what, 3 main consoles, and steambox which nobody will care about? And pc's?
Today? We have what, 3 main consoles, and steambox which nobody will care about? And pc's?
Exactly. The market was saturated with systems which were incompatible with each other - most of'em ended up with a small library of titles, mostly small ones made by a handful of developers so that they could be pushed onto the market as quickly as possible. Both system and game prices were hefty, so buying a computer or a gaming system of any kind became a gamble because nobody knew which one was going to be supported the most. Now we don't have that problem, and even the rise of Android-based platforms does not cause a similar situation as all those systems are cross-compatible for the most part.
I think the evidence does not support your conclusions. Most people are not going to go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a new console unless they have a compelling reason. If you look at the games available on the Wii U, they are only just now starting to create a compelling game library.
As for third party support, that has more to do with the relationships Nintendo builds with third parties and whether those third parties think their games will sell well on their consoles.
If you look at the last three generations of consoles, the ones with the best hardware were not the winners. The Wii had less graphical prowess than the PS3 and the Xbox and beat both. The PS2 was markedly less powerful than the gamecube or the xbox, but sold more than double the units of both competitors combined. The PS1 easily outsold the N64, despite the N64's magnificently better number-crunching power.
When I look at the gaming experience, for me personally, the Wii U has a lot more going for it. Most of the best third party games that did not appear on the Wii but only on the other consoles were also obtainable on the much more graphically powerful PC versions. Neither competitor to the Wii had very man highly-rated exclusives, the Xbox especially.
I should add, I think it is possible for a big video game market collapse, but nothing like was seen in the 1980's. In the 1980's, there were huge numbers of competing computer architectures along with a ton of consoles and hybrid computer/video game machines. Atari was the indisputable king, and the crash nearly destroyed it.
These days, there are fewer but more diverse systems. There only two major commercial OS's, only one which is commonly used for gaming. There are only three major home console makers, two major handheld console makers, and three major phone OS's used for gaming. All the companies involved have the economic power to weather a crisis. Could one or more of them be forced from the home console business? Absolutely. Could one or more major gaming studios go under in a crash? Absolutely. Will the game industry be decimated? Absolutely not.
Android and iOS developers along with PC game manufacturer's will keep churning out piles of shovelware. The biggest risk is a collapse in the market for really well-designed, artistic games who get buried.
There are good reasons why the results were as you present them. The PS2 was indeed weaker than the Gamecube or the XBox, but it was released much sooner than the two and immediately after the highly-successful PS1. Additionally it doubled as a DVD player - a newly-emerged format which enticed early adopters. The hardware was rugged and well-designed, not to mention that Sony secured killer franchises for their system. The Gamecube was admittedly beefier, but it did not support DVD or any other multimedia functionality at all and the XBox was a moderate success in the area where it was meant to succeed - the US. It wasn't meant to match the PS2 in sales - that was impossible as at the time of the XBox's and Gamecube's release, the PS2 ruled over the market with an immense adoption rate - everybody and their dog had one so developers continued to support it. The Wii U does not have the same playing card in its sleeve.
The PS1 outsold the N64 despite the N64's fantastic number-crunching power because it was far better-designed. It was cheaper, it used CD-based media (lower production costs and higher profit margin for developers and lower price-per-game for the End User), it was compatible with Audio CD's (replacing a home stero for many non-audiophile users) it was not 64-bit (something entirely new for developers, which is why most N64 games aren't actually using the 64-bit power offered, instead opting for 32-bit doubles) like the N64, it did not have a texture size limit like the N64 did (resulting in developers having to multi-layer textures or resorting to gourad shading), it did not limit developers in terms of space (cartridges offered far less storage than CD's so contemporary solutions such as music streaming or FMV's were not within reach) and was generally a more well-thought-out device, which resulted in far superior developer support. What I'm saying here is that the N64 may have been the more powerful system on paper, but it was a worse system due to its various hindrences and short-comings, similarly to the Sega Saturn which failed for similar reasons.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@realtimesave, hey there buddy chum pal friend buddy pal chum bud friend fella bruther amigo pal buddy friend chummy chum chum pal -
@
Xdqwerty:
@realtimesave, hey there buddy chum pal friend buddy pal chum bud friend fella bruther amigo pal buddy friend chummy chum chum pal
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Sicklyboy:
@Xdqwerty, Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan! is the Japanese version of the game, different settings/characters/songs but otherwise identical mechanics. I played that before I knew about Elite Beat Agents lol. Both fantastic games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osu!_Tatakae!_Ouendan+1
