Problems With This Generation - Two Related Musings
Wii – What’s Inside?
Back in May I shared my thoughts about the Wii after it was announced that the Wii would be less than $250 and I had a few outstanding questions at that time.
Here’s what I need to know. I am really curious what the cost of software will be and if they will follow Microsoft’s (and past Nintendo’s) lead with higher tags or stay with the current generation’s pricing. I’m also curious what you will be getting in the box. Will it come with one Wiimote or two? I’m also hoping and curious if any software will be bundled. Wii Sports anyone? Most of all, I want to know what kind of hardware I am paying for? I don’t care if it is less powerful than a 360 or PS3, but I do want to know what I am buying.
So, Nintendo has answered many of my questions. We know the final price of $249.99 and that the package included the console, composite cables standard AV cables, one Wii remote and one nunchuk add on controller, a copy of Wii Sports, and it will be released on November 19th in the Americas, December 2nd in Japan, December 7th in Australia, and December 8th in Europe. Did I miss anybody or anything? Oh, yes there’s all the additional pricing of accessories and virtual console games of around $5 for an NES game, 8$ for SNES, and $10 for a N64 game using Wii points. There are reactions all over the gaming web about the pricing and though I am mostly positive about the Wii, there is still something that I don’t know that I find a bit grating. What’s inside the Wii? Here’s what Nintendo tells us:
CPU/GPU
PowerPC CPU (code-named “Broadway”), made with a 90nm SOI CMOS process, jointly developed with and manufactured by IBM; GPU developed with ATINetwork
The Wii console communicates wirelessly with the Internet via IEEE 802.11 or a USB 2.0 LAN adaptor. Wii also can connect wirelessly with Nintendo DS.Media
A single self-loading media bay plays single- or double-layered 12-cm optical discs for the Wii console, as well as 8-cm Nintendo GameCube discs
There’s a little more about the size, design and backwards compatibility of the console on the wii.nintendo.com site; however, the point is I don’t think I have ever purchased a relatively expensive piece of electronics equipment where I didn’t know what it was capable of doing. It was not enough to know my home theater receiver supports Dolby Digital and Pro Logic. I needed to know what the sound was like and how the $200+ dollars I was going to spend compared to the output and features of the $500 dollar biggies. It was not enough to know that an iPod plays music and video. It was important to know the level of quality of the music and video I could download in order to decide its value for me. It was also not enough to know that the DS has dual screens and a touch screen. It was important to know the power behind the machine to know that I could expect N64-like visuals and that the combination of all its features and interface could provide developers with some unique gameplay opportunities.
I could go on listing reasons why knowing what I am buying helps make my purchase clear, but it is enough that I stopped at the DS. Nintendo has always disclosed the specifications of their hardware and it is not clear why they are not doing so now. They have expressed that they want to deemphasize the hardware and focus on the software; however they did that with the DS and revealed specs so I’m not sure I understand the marketing differentiation now.
The practical shortcomings of the DS compared to the PSP did not hinder its success, has it? Gamers who follow the industry closely know that the Wii is not in the same league with the Xbox 360 and PS3 in terms of visual and audio capabilities. What is the reason for not sharing the technicalities of this information? Maybe their struggles in the console race demand that they don’t have the consumer trust as they do in the handheld space to get away with being open about the power differential. Maybe if it was known how much less powerful it is compared to the competition even gamers who appreciate what the Wii offers would think twice about their $250 dollar plus investment in fun. Nintendo, I am open to a more detailed reason why if you want to share one with our readers and me. The lack of technical disclosure seems a like a fundamental tangent to any commercial enterprise. There are mandates to document the ingredients in your food and the vast majority of consumer electronics producers make available detailed specifications to name just two industries that practice a fair amount if not full disclosure for their product.
Even with my issues above, I am generally excited about the Wii. I have yet to have hands-on time with it like most of you; however with each movie I watch and impression I read I’m looking more forward to it. Zelda is a no-brainer must have for me as well as will be Mario and Metroid. Excite Truck reminds me of Wave Race Blue Storm, which has been one of my most played Cube games and will likely be on my purchase list at some point. I just can’t help but feel a bit overwhelmed with the complexities of purchase and cost that this generation is bringing upon me. I will discuss this in more detail in the next section but this issue of Nintendo not disclosing the innards of its product is, albeit minor, a contribution to my misgivings on the way the consumer is being treated. We’ve been told Broadway and Hollywood is inside the Wii. As far as I am concerned “Broadway” and “Hollywood” are simply street names that you can find in almost any city is the United States.
Where’s the Next Gen Fun?
At 33, I’ve been gaming and buying consoles for a long time. With each generation I have been excited and have generally dove in without hesitance as soon as the resources or the holidays allowed. I couldn’t wait to buy the Gamecube on launch day this past generation and September 9, 1999 is a brilliant memory. I bought the Playstation when I was living abroad and a Genesis to rise from my grave. Here I am in this generation and my excitement keeps getting levied with costs everywhere by all three players and in some cases without full disclosure about what I am buying and what my money is for. There are so many issues that make simply enjoying this hobby for fun impossible when costs and marketing make it more challenging.
It is not clear why a game ported from the PC to the 360 should be so much more money than it was last generation. Didn’t it take just as much effort to port Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 to get the engines to run and redo assets to make them run on the Xbox as it takes to bring Prey or Battle for Middle Earth II to the 360? Maybe there are reasons, but as a consumer who is relatively knowledgeable they are not clear and make purchasing those titles at full price unfortunately challenging. Another simple case is why do I have to pay $100 for the 360’s wireless adapter to help Microsoft recoup costs from their console? Am I buying razors from Gillette here? Is the intellectual property cost of an N64 game twice that of an NES game? Why should I pay 5$ for an NES game or $10 for an N64 game that was developed and profited on years ago. Wait, to play these games I need to buy another controller because the Wiimote won’t do N64? Where is the expressed value in the Wii if it is designed to bring the family together to game and have fun if it costs an additional $180 dollars to set three of your family members up with a Wii Remote ($40) and nunchuk ($20) to play. Why does the PS3’s pricing and Bluray argument smell like 3DO and the advent of Compact Disc as game media?
Am I crazy, or wasn’t gaming a lot simpler back in the 8bit, 16bit, and even 32/64 bit days. It is no wonder that I find myself enjoying the DS so much and I know I am not alone in that. I can do without all the micro-transactions, accessory gouging, and marketing approaches that say we shouldn’t reveal our specs to our customers. If it’s about fun, why do I as a consumer have to work so hard to ignore the complications and ancillary garbage that are thrown at me? I find it hard to simply focus on the games the way I used to. I guess I’ll just go pick up Dead Rising for my 360 and standard definition TV and enjoy it … oh wait I can’t read anything … what’s the story about … is this how this generation’s consumer is treated … this is $59.99 of fun?
none
19. September 2006 at 13:40
To be honest, I am less excited about this generation than past generations of consoles. It really did seem more fun and exciting back when everything was 16bit, but perhaps I am just more conscious of the costs because I’m going to be buying this stuff.
Those prices you listed are the American prices. Speaking to my British friends, they’re being charged the equivalent of $300 USD for the Wii. In fact, the price point for the Wii in the UK is £20 less than an Xbox 360 core pack, which is utterly ridiculous compared to the relative costs for those consoles in the US. Shafted again! To be honest, I think Americans can be a bit spoilt when it comes to videogame pricing. Just look at the UK and we’d realise that it’s not as bad as it could be.
One of my American friends was whinging to me about how a Wii composite cable would cost $50 or $60 so that he could hook it up to his uber mega mondo home theatre system, totally ignoring the fact that an equivalent console package from the competition (MS, Sony) costs significantly less, and also ignoring the fact that the price for all of that is significantly cheaper than the prices that other countries get saddled with. I’m not saying that the cable isn’t overpriced — it is. But it struck me as self-centred and shortsighted for him to dismiss the big picture so easily. He is not getting a Wii (or a 360 or a PS3) because of the price of that one composite cable.
22. September 2006 at 15:40
I don’t really feel a need to know what’s under the hood of my Revo. I don’t want to know what the PS3, or XboX 360 is packing, because it doesn’t matter. If it matters to you, you should be able to find out.
I do find that knowing I’ll have to pay to play my NES games again is rather disconcerting. However, I’ll gladly pay for the games I never got to play. If Nintendo can get Konami and Capcom to let them re-release classics like Bionic Commando, and the Mega Man series.
Personally, I think that Nintendo isn’t giving out detailed specs because of the lower Visual and Audio power. But I don’t play Nintendo games for the ‘more shiny’, and I play with the sound off most of the time. I look to Nintendo for innovative games and gameplay. I look for an enjoyable experience not needlessly spoiled by trillion dollar gore-fests. Not to say that Nintendo hasn’t had some, but that’s beside the point.
Last I knew, it included a Wiimote, a ‘chuck, and the throwback controller, along with a bundled copy of Wii Sports.
22. September 2006 at 15:59
@ Triaxx2 - I hear you. Many people don’t care and to a large extent what’s inside and I won’t base my purchase solely on specs … but as you say I should be able to find out to complete my buying picture if you will.
Now, one thing I find interesting is how so many people say they don’t buy Nintendo games for the visual and audio power and that they will be fine with less power and more gameplay. What I find interesting is that I never felt before that I was sacrificing video and audio immersment purchasing a Nintendo product before because they have always been on or near the cutting edge of both visual and audio from the NES through the last generation with the recent exception of handhelds but only because Sony trumped them.
One thing that I have found playing the 360 so far is that though I appreciate the graphic and audio fidelity it’s games have provided so far, I can still go back to my cube and not be grossed out if you know what I mean. I remember when I played the Dreamcast, I had a real hard time enjoying the visuals of N64 and Playstation games again. I felt similarly about the 16bit machines compared to 32/64 bit ones. Last generation’s games are holding up for me so far, so I am curious if the smaller improvement the Wii will offer will be enough that I’ll still enjoy it visually, auditorally and experiencially.
You know there needs to be a degree of balance among game design elements to create the immersive experiences I like to play. Metroid Prime had some wonderful gameplay, but would not have been as immersive without it’s excellent looks, sounds, and overall design. I was not missing out on the immersive experience compared to what any other console could have offered at that time. Nintendo is without a doubt taking a gamble with the Wii. I think it is a really exciting move and I can’t wait to find out if the Wii is successful for a gamer like me.
23. September 2006 at 08:10
I firmly agree, but I don’t think you need cutting edge more shiny to have immersive graphics. Metroid prime had prerendered space scenes, but I felt like I was actually standing on a platform. I’ve never felt that graphics are terrifically important, but should always be a secondary consideration to everything else. There are games, such as Halo, that look just as fantastic with the greater graphical power of a computer as they do on the XboX, but I don’t think it adds much to the terrain.
The more detailed the terrain, the more has to be added to make the game look great, and the longer it takes. I have to say, that looking at Twilight Princess, in comparison to FF12, I think Twilight looks as good as FF, if not better for what it’s for. FF is loosing itself in the high end graphics. It’s fast approaching the point where it’ll morph into something else. Whether that something is actually playable, or is the death knell is hard to tell.
Not everything makes the smooth transition from platform to platform, and generation to generation. Mario and Zelda are two prime examples of changes that went smoothly. Who’d have though that moving Mario into 3D would have gone that well. I’m still enchanted by it. Zelda moved from 2 and a half D, into full 3D, and had nary a hiccup. It was a fantastic move.
On the other end of the spectruum, Mega Man’s jump to the 3D world, was pulled off terribly. I think the Legends Series should be completely disavowed. I found it to be heartily abysmal. I’m glad I only rented it. Even Final Fantasy had a major hiccup, namely FF7. I’ll admit, I throughly enjoyed the game, and beat it several times, but let’s admit it, the graphics were horrendous. Considering what the later games, both in and out of the series would do on the hardware, FF7 was just poor. It did do one thing I never saw another game do. It made a smooth transition and use of an FMV. The car from the ground station to the Gold Saucer, was a perfect use.
So far, I’ve not seen anything special about the high graphics trailers for the next-gen systems. The XboX and XboX 360 versions of Call of Duty don’t look any different to me. And not one of the PS3 trailers I’ve seen, aside from the trailer for Sword of Heaven, don’t look any better that what I’ve seen on the PS2.
23. September 2006 at 11:01
Seth,
You know, I really don’t know that what you’re saying about the last gen of consoles is correct. I don’t know the specs off the top of my head, obviously, but as I recall, the Cell processor in the GC is significantly less powerful than the PS2/XBox processors, and it does, in fact, show in some places.
What I find significantly more telling though, is the places where it _doesn’t_ show. Really, the audio/visual experience is less a matter of the hardware in the box than the software in the game. There are plenty of last gen and current gen titles that don’t effectively take advantage of the hardware they’re offered by the console they’re on, not so many in this gen since nearly every title is, essentially, a tech demo for console hardware, but still. I think one of the reasons none of us have ever felt cheated by Nintendo’s hardware is the fact that the games visual designs are done carefully enough that it simply isn’t an issue.
My take on it, anyway.
23. September 2006 at 21:13
“I’ve never felt that graphics are terrifically important, but should always be a secondary consideration to everything else.”
If only everyone felt that way! I very much agree (I’ll take a game that looks so-so over that beautiful blockbuster if that graphically lackluster game has thought behind things like, oh, I don’t know, GAME PLAY and is FUN to play), but being an RPG person myself - you can definitely see the rush for ‘Oooh, aaah, pretty!’ over ‘We’re going to make a solid & fun to play game, Square quality graphics be damned.’ But if games don’t have that, you then get multitudes of fanboys bitching that it’s ‘ugly’ or ‘not pretty enough’ or ‘the graphics suck.’ Etc.
One of my most enjoyable gaming experiences on my PS2 has been the Atelier Iris games - I fell in love with the first one because it was quirky, funny, a lot of fun to play. They are a total homage to old school RPGs in both their visual style and music. The graphics are great for looking like updating 16 bit sprites, but that’s still what they look like. Were they taking advantage of all the PS2’s specs? No. Does is still blow a lot of prettier games and the like out of the water? Yes.
I think the other reason none of us have ever felt cheated by Nintendo’s hardware is that their games are, in general, FUN to play. I tend to get really pissy after forking out $$ for a game, and it’s the equivalent of a beautiful but vapid woman - pretty graphics (if you’re lucky) & nothing behind it.
24. September 2006 at 16:21
Now that is the essence of what I meant. Star Ocean on the PS1 wasn’t exactly a graphics monstrosity, but it was a fantastically fun game to play.
25. September 2006 at 05:53
Well, if you have a PS2, I would suggest checking out the Atelier Iris games. I did a play rating of the first one & I just loved it, and I’m currently playing the second one (a prequel of sorts, but they’re definitely stand alone games, no problem). Fantastically fun games. Another RPG that was admittedly gorgeous but that also got two huge thumbs up from me on fun & engaging & just a pretty classic RPG was Dragon Quest VIII.
I really wish game makers didn’t feel the need to focus so much on graphics and all the pretty extras - I don’t want to play a game that really, really looks awful, but Atelier Iris definitely shows that you DO NOT have to be even CLOSE to pushing the current systems to the limits to have an awesome gaming experience. And frankly, we don’t have enough of those NOW, I don’t think upgraded hardware is going to make one iota of difference when my real problem with games these days has to do with the content, NOT the looks or sound. Sadly, a lot of games today are just window dressing.
25. September 2006 at 11:12
I’ll have to check those out when I have a chance. If you want to talk games that are window dressing, compare Prey and Halo.
Oddly enough, I find far more content on the big MMO’s as opposed to the single player RPG’s. Everything in a single player is balanced for the maximum graphical content. An MMO, is using lower graphics, to be able to reach the maximum number of people playing, because they get the revenue from each person playing. Single player games don’t have to put as much content in, because you’re only buying it once. But an MMO can keep you paying, only if there’s enough content to keep you interested. If suddenly people start quitting, that’s revenue they’ve lost. If you don’t play a single player game any more, they don’t lose anything.
25. September 2006 at 12:01
@ Triaxx2, These comments are turning into another musing :-) which is not a bad thing mind you. I think you introducing a whole other topic when you start talking about trading looks for more content. More content and good gameplay are not really the same thing and thus is a whole nother topic to cover. Your comment does inspire a look at World of Warcraft not so much for the amount of content it provides but just to illustrate that good art design can have significant lasting power and impact. Oblivion’s visuals strike me as far more advanced technically than World of Warcraft; however I find WoW to still be a very attractive and visually engaging game because it has a unique style that is it’s own. It is for the same reason that I think Wind Waker’s beauty will continue to be appreciated over time (by those who don’t mind a little color in their gaming). The point being that power certainly does not automatically equate beauty. Hmm.. maybe what I’m saying is call for another musing, too. :-o
26. September 2006 at 10:46
I personally don’t do multiplayer games, but I can certainly envision exactly what you’re talking about. I have to wonder, though, if a large part of the problem isn’t with the gaming public - or large swaths of it - I like pretty graphics as much as the next person, but I don’t rip a game to shreds if it’s not “up to the minute” from a graphics standpoint. I remember the hullabaloo when the first Xenosaga came out - for all the flaws in that game, the thing I remember most vividly that people complained about was how the graphics lagged behind games like Final Fantasy. And the graphics weren’t bad by any means, just a bit dated thanks to how long the game spent in development.
Okami is in transit to me (and should be here soon) & I will be doing a rating for that game - I’ve just loved the screen shots & videos I’ve seen of it thus far, and I’m really curious to see if they’ve managed to merge SUPER atmospheric and BEAUTIFUL with engaging gameplay.
I guess my point (and a lot of us, I guess!) is that for all this talk about specs, what DIFFERENCE is it really going to make to me in the end? I’m not holding my breath that more power = everyone suddenly gets a clue and starts producing more games that are fun to play and engaging. I doubt it even means that we’re going to see more games that are just super-high quality window dressing (and I admit, I don’t mind those types of games on occasion - one of my favorite fluff games of recent memory was ‘Genji: Dawn of the Samurai,’ which - besides being too short - was a fun hack ‘n slash that was beautifully put together).
Sorry if we’re dragging this off topic, Seth, but I think it’s all sort of interconnected. Or at least - my bitterness towards this next gen of consoles is in my mind. :P
26. September 2006 at 19:12
A case of beauty not withstanding content is Aidyn Chronicles on the 64. It’s very not pretty at the first look, but once you start to play you see a depth of design that isn’t expressed in that first sight of the admittedly rather pointy graphics.
On the other hands, a beautifully rendered fighter, can cover the same button masher as each previous in the same series.
29. September 2006 at 22:47
On the graphics stand point, ultimately I think that developers are feeling a need to push that because society is pushing beautiful is better. So the younger generations (yes I mean the ones that haven’t even picked up a 32-bit game) are starting to purchase more games. If the game doesn’t look good, they won’t think it’s good.
Those of us who have grown up with the 8-bit, 16-bit era’s don’t care so much about the look of a game, but how fun the game is for us. I still like to play games like the original Adventures of Link or Super Mario Bros. 1, 2, and 3. This games were just down right fun.
So for me the power of a system doesn’t matter. I bought the Xbox because of Knights of the Old Republic. I bought a Playstation 2 because of Guitar Hero. I bought an Xbox 360 because of Halo 3 and games like Ghost Recon. I’ll buy a Wii because of games like Zelda or Super Mario. So the purchase is not a matter of will I make it, it is when should I make it.
Without knowing what is exactly under the hood, how can I justify paying what Nintendo is asking? I felt the 360 was a good buy at $400 for this “new generation.” Espacially knowing how Sony is and the price tag they would affix to their system. Is the technology in the PS3 something I would spend that kinda money on? No. So my question now becomes is Wii really worth $249.99? How much better than the GameCube is it? I spent $200 on it when it first launched, is it really only $50.00 better than the GC? Well okay I suppose it is now $99.99 so only $150.00 more, but you get the picture. That is why I want to know, do I wait for a price change or do I up and purchase it now?
Just to comment on the micro-transactions; I have to admit at first I was very very skeptical about it. Thought to myself never in a million years. Then I heard Ghost Recon came out with Chapter 2, a continuation of my online gaming. New missions, maps, camo and guns. I was sold. No need to go buy the sequel, they are feeding me more gaming from downloads. I wish the price tags were a little bit easier and in most cases they are a decent price. 800 points is about $10.00 so I got Chapter 2 for about $15.00. A lot better than when Ghost Recon was on the PC and they made you buy expansions like Desert Seige and Island Thunder (same game just expanded) for $20- $30 dollars. Just my opinion =o)
30. September 2006 at 14:29
I know what you mean about the pricing. I personally can’t afford a 360, and wouldn’t buy the PS3 for that amount anyway. The Wii is right up my alley though. I’ll end up shelling out 320 or so when I buy it, just for the system and Zelda.
If you’re asking yourself is it worth it, remember that unless you live in Japan, Nintendo is bundling Wii Sports with the system. So it’s not strictly necessary to buy a game along with the system. That at least would entice me to buy the system.
1. November 2006 at 09:09
I think most of the hesitation comes from the fact that aside from nintendo, nobody has justification for their prices whatsoever. Hard to get exited when you’re going to be broke. Of course, I don’t care - I’d never buy anything made by either MS _or_ Sony.
3. November 2006 at 14:07
Now that’s the Fanboy attitude Nintendo is banking on. Good for you.
3. November 2006 at 14:29
haha, thank you :) I’m proud of my fanboyism, actually - my active dislike of MS and Sony has nothing to do with their video game entries, but my mild distain for anything not from nintendo does play into it. :)
4. November 2006 at 20:42
I figure I’ll buy the other game systems eventually, but Nintendo is always the first company I buy a system from. I intend to try and get a Revo during it’s life cycle, instead of after as I usually end up with.