[Shifty Geezer]

MS and Sony won't follow directly with a screen in the controller. That'd push their prices way up, because they'd never implemented a screen in a cheap fashion. They may integrate Wii U like function on tablets, but then you won't have the controls integrated, and I doubt patents would let them copy Nintendo. Sony could use Vita integration at a crazy total price of PS4+Vita. Would be a superb system though.

[wco81]

I don't know if Nintendo's strategy was to tap into or defend against the growing popularity of tablets and mobile devices but ironically, theres a big push for new tablets right around the same time as this Wii U launch.

Not propitious for them.

[I.S.T.]

Originally Posted by wco81

Interesting, WiiU preorders are sold out and some gougers are hoping people will overpay to get it shortly after launch:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/1...o-750-on-ebay/

Perhaps they're thinking the supply/demand situation will be just like when the Wii first came out?

This kind of thing happens all the time with new mainline console launches. Not surprised in the least.

[RancidLunchmeat]

Originally Posted by wco81

I don't know if Nintendo's strategy was to tap into or defend against the growing popularity of tablets and mobile devices but ironically, theres a big push for new tablets right around the same time as this Wii U launch.

Not propitious for them.

Honestly, I think Nintendo knew the Wii sold on fad momentum, couldn't come up with anything new in light of Move and Kinect and decided to look around and find the 'next cool thing' and decided it was tablets, so they tried to stick one into the Wuu.

Of course, there's flaws with this. The first being that they are behind the curve on the tablet craze as you mention, WCO, and the second being that they aren't actually supplying you with a tablet.

As has been discussed above, there are manufacturers out there pumping out incredibly cheap tablet computers. Now, if the Wuu had come with a fully function tablet along with the core system, then it might have made sense.

Might even have been worth the price they are going to try to sell these for.

I think they are severely underestimating just how important it was for the Wii to launch at such a low price point. Even though most of us thought it was overpriced at launch for a Gamecube 1.5, compared to the next gen market it was incredibly inexpensive.

Now it's going to be the new thing that's more expensive than existing consoles, yet only selling point is it can play the same games as existing consoles. Oh, and has this weird controller that isn't actually tablet but we'll try to call it one to jump on the tablet craze.

[Blazkowicz]

Compared to everything, the Wii had an incredibly expensive second controller. The price for one remote plus one nunchaku would make any sane person strangle itself, and the console was 250 euros I think which is pretty normal console pricing besides stuff like PS2 and PS3 at launch.

[RancidLunchmeat]

Originally Posted by Blazkowicz

Compared to everything, the Wii had an incredibly expensive second controller. The price for one remote plus one nunchaku would make any sane person strangle itself, and the console was 250 euros I think which is pretty normal console pricing besides stuff like PS2 and PS3 at launch.

Everybody likes to say things like that, they said it over and over again at the start of the generation comparing the costs of the 360 to the "more expensive" PS3. The argument went along the same lines as yours:

As soon as you add in the extra peripherals to make the systems equal then there isn't a superior cost proposition.

The problem is consumers don't think that way, and they don't act that way. They can buy a Wii and take turns playing with a single controller for a month or two until they can afford to buy their children a second controller so they can play with their friends simultaneously.

Embedded costs cannot be distributed. The Wii was extremely inexpensive and made it appear to be a good value, even if those parents ended up spending even more down the road on extra controllers, balance boards, etc.

[Blazkowicz]

Extremely inexpensive would have been the Wii launching at $99 or $149, your choice of employing the word "extreme" in this way makes me argue a bit. Dunno what a slim PS2 cost back then.
What you say about families behavior does apply. Sometimes it leads to the household only buying the Wii and passing on 360 and PS3 altogether. (also not necessarily getting the four player experience seen in advertisements)

[Grall]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

Now it's going to be the new thing that's more expensive than existing consoles, yet only selling point is it can play the same games as existing consoles. Oh, and has this weird controller that isn't actually tablet but we'll try to call it one to jump on the tablet craze.

You know, even as a near-lifelong Nintendo fan (basically ever since the Game & Watch days, early 80s, and certainly since the NES launched in Europe, which was autumn of '86), I totally agree with everything you said in your post. The Wuu is a clear sign of desperation from the company, and it's really wonky, and a damn risky move as well. Yet even so, it doesn't mean the Wuu doesn't have merit.

In fact it has really great potential, in the hands of the right devs. Doesn't mean it'll be enough to succeed, since it's so wonky a system, but the potential is there. I certainly don't think it'll be nearly as successful as the wii was (which certainly rode a giant hypewave for the first couple years of its life). Still, I think the wuu concept HAS merit, despite its flaws and drawbacks. It's a cute system, and there is potential. I think we should give the console a chance.

...If for no other reason, then simply because it'll be the only new piece of hardware to have launched in over half a decade. That's worth some measure of celebration, don't you think?

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Grall

...If for no other reason, then simply because it'll be the only new piece of hardware to have launched in over half a decade. That's worth some measure of celebration, don't you think?

If the WiiU fails, what hope in hell would Sony or MS have to reach a large market? They'll offer the same old only now with improved shadows and lightning calculations. They can't even claim better resolution since they already sold HD... Wow, that is bound to set the consumers on fire.

It's amazing to me that even when people have statistics and trends in plain sight, they can still be in denial. Look at the Vita and the 3DS. The 3DS sells less than projected by Nintendo and analysts. The Vita, for all its technical merit is completely dead with no hope of revival. They show that the time for handheld consoles is ending, and only strong franchises and gimmicks gives them any reason to stay around at all. Are home consoles different? How much so? If there isn't a market for the WiiU, how many will feel compelled to upgrade their current HD consoles that already provide a smorgasbord of functionality to something which does the same thing only in a bigger, more expensive, noisier package, with better lighting calculations in games?

To me the WiiU is a litmus test. How large is the interest in new home consoles? To a large extent it targets the demographic that stands to gain most in terms of graphical performance (current Wii owners), and it provides the capability for entirely new asymmetric gameplay modes, and off TV gameplay at full console power. And it is the only new hardware the audience that is interested in game consoles in general can put their sweaty palms on for a significant amount of time. (Sold at below Nintendo cost as revealed at their recent conference call.)

If that fails to attract consumers, I have no hope for the home console market at all, and will reckon it to steadily shrink with time, slower than the handheld market but just as inexorably.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Entropy

If the WiiU fails, what hope in hell would Sony or MS have to reach a large market? They'll offer the same old only now with improved shadows and lightning calculations. Wow, that is bound to set the consumers on fire.

It'll be good enough for 80+ million core gamers who want the same game experience as now only with much better visuals and nice extras.

To me the WiiU is a litmus test. How large is the interest in new home consoles?

As it's not offering a traditional 'new' console to the traditional console market, it's not much of a litmus test. If it offered a generational leap in power, then it'd be a litmus test.

If that fails to attract consumers, I have no hope for the home console market at all, and will reckon it to steadily shrink with time, slower than the handheld market but just as inexorably.

I expect it to shrink over time anyway, as it's being attacked on all sorts of fronts. Wii U is hardly a reference point for that though. I find the execution of Wii U so lacking (as it's been described so far) that I expect many interested console owners to give it a wide berth. Like the first electric cars. They are so wrought with problems that people who would like to own an electric car aren't buying them. That doesn't prove the concept is dead, but that the market wants the right product at the right price. Same with consoles. People want to play their action games and AAA titles with gorgeous visuals, higher framerates, etc. A new console with give the option to do that. If the new consoles don't advance the tech, these gamers will migrate elsewhere.

[Brad Grenz]

If the WiiU fails it will be because it's not a hardware upgrade. It's offering mostly what you've been able to get on HD consoles for 7 year with a poor-man's iPad built into the controller. Let's not forget that overall, the "HD console" market significantly outsold the Wii this generation. People still have an appetite for better graphics and more detailed and dynamic simulations. If people don't buy into Nintendo's controller concept, that has little bearing on their interest in a real generational upgrade next year. There is no force like smartphones cannibalizing the console market as there is with dedicated handhelds. In fact, thanks to the rise of smartbooks, "personal computers" are less capable as games machines comparatively than they've perhaps ever been. The 25 million people who buy Call of Duty, the 10 million people who buy Assassin's Creed and the 12 million people who buy FIFA or Madden every year aren't going to disappear overnight.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

It'll be good enough for 80+ million core gamers who want the same game experience as now only with much better visuals and nice extras.

Sorry, but this is bizarre.
That number is pretty much all functioning HD consoles, PS3s and 360s, put together. You are saying that every single one of those is owned by a core gamer "who want the same game experience as now only with much better visuals and nice extras", and is prepared to pay for it.
That makes no sense at all.

The HD-twin core user base is not the primary target of the WiiU, that would be suicidal of Nintendo. They target a wider demographic, previous Wii owners being central, and whoever else who is curious and want to try something new is welcome. Previous Wii owners have much more to gain both in terms of visuals, and in terms of added services than the HD-twin audience has, I think everyone can agree on that. If Nintendo fails to attract that wider demographic, then I think it is pretty much a given that the PS4/720 will as well, which is why I call it a litmus test for stationary consoles. Mind you, the WiiU could be reasonably successful, and the PS4/720 could still flop, just as with the 3DS and PSVita. The Wii user base, and the fans of its exclusive content together with novelty seekers may or may not be large enough for that to occur. But the reverse? I fail to see how that could be possible at all.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Sorry, but this is bizarre.
That number is pretty much all functioning HD consoles, PS3s and 360s, put together. You are saying that every single one of those is owned by a core gamer "who want the same game experience as now only with much better visuals and nice extras", and is prepared to pay for it.
That makes no sense at all.

NES = 60 million
Master System = 12 million
Total gamers = 72 million

SNES = 49 million
MD = 41 million
Total gamers = 90 million

PS1 = 100 million
N64 = 33 million
Total gamers = 133 million, mostly 'core' gamers because the casual markets (SingStar, EyeToy, etc.) hadn't really been evolved yet

There's clearly a large market for traditional computer games

The HD-twin core user base is not the primary target of the WiiU, that would be suicidal of Nintendo.

Which is precisely the point. Nintendo are after a different market, like Wii. If Wii never sold, that wouldn't mean no-one would want an PS3 or XB360. If Wuu doesn't sell, that doesn't mean no-one will want an XB3 or PS4. Unless consumer tastes have changed over this generation such that there isn't tens of millions of people who'd enjoy twin-stick shooters, arcade racers, D-pad fighters, FIFA and Madden, etc., then the base market for core games with a generational advance in tech should still be the many tens of millions, as it's been for some 30 years.

The Wii user base, and the fans of its exclusive content together with novelty seekers may or may not be large enough for that to occur. But the reverse? I fail to see how that could be possible at all.

Why did people buy PS360 instead of Wii? For the better graphics and core games. Would would people choose to buy XB3/PS4 instead of Wii U? For the better graphics and core games.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

NES = 60 million
Master System = 12 million
Total gamers = 72 million

SNES = 49 million
MD = 41 million
Total gamers = 90 million

PS1 = 100 million
N64 = 33 million
Total gamers = 133 million, mostly 'core' gamers because the casual markets (SingStar, EyeToy, etc.) hadn't really been evolved yet

There's clearly a large market for traditional computer games

That has no bearing whatsoever on your thesis that core gamers would reject the WiiU because it doesn't provide enough of a graphical step up from the PS360. Note btw that you are including Nintendo users above.

The number of PS3s and 360s sold to date is just under 140 million. I've seen rough estimates that half or so of these system are in actual use, any use. Accurate statistics are obviously hard to come by.

Which is precisely the point. Nintendo are after a different market, like Wii. If Wii never sold, that wouldn't mean no-one would want an PS3 or XB360. If Wuu doesn't sell, that doesn't mean no-one will want an XB3 or PS4. Unless consumer tastes have changed over this generation such that there isn't tens of millions of people who'd enjoy twin-stick shooters, arcade racers, D-pad fighters, FIFA and Madden, etc., then the base market for core games with a generational advance in tech should still be the many tens of millions, as it's been for some 30 years.

It seems you are arguing that a Wii user who bought Mario Kart is going to reject the WiiU because it doesn't represent a sufficiently large graphical step up from the PS360, but will instead choose to buy the PS4 and run GT6 on it? That kind of reasoning makes no sense at all.

Why did people buy PS360 instead of Wii? For the better graphics and core games. Would would people choose to buy XB3/PS4 instead of Wii U? For the better graphics and core games.

The core of your argument hinges on that the overwhelming majority of the market bases their purchase decision on graphical prowess, (and will thus reject the WiiU and rather sit around waiting for the PS4/720).
I argue that this premise is WRONG.

The success of the Wii as well as the success of the 3DS demonstrates that it just isn't the case. Not only that, I submit that even among users of the PS360 there are factors other than graphics prowess that are very influential - what exclusives they prefer, price point, whether they got one from their cousin who upgraded to a slim or they bought a PS3 as a Blu-Ray player with benefits, or....

We can't know just how many are going to base their purchase on graphics power, but it is bound to be lower than the number of active PS360 users. I'd argue much lower, as there are good reasons to chose those systems other than graphics, and graphics will be less of a differentiator next generation than the last.

15 million who base their purchase on graphics? 30 million even? Even if your estimate climbs that high, that's still just a fraction of the console market as we know it, and that's why I propose that if the WiiU fails, then it says something dire about the future of the console market as a whole, because there is no way that better graphics will bring in the masses to the PS4/720 if it failed to bring them from the Wii to PS360.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Entropy

The core of your argument hinges on that the overwhelming majority of the market bases their purchase decision on graphical prowess, (and will thus reject the WiiU and rather sit around waiting for the PS4/720).
I argue that this premise is WRONG.

Well I've weighed in on this many times and my theory is that there's core gamers where graphics (more or less, within reason) are king, and then casual gamers where it's not.

Wii captured that casual gamers, so it was able to lose the hardcore and still succeed (though still it's an under noticed fact that taken together, the HD twins did better than Wii).

Wii U seems aimed more at the core if anybody, and it's hard for me to see the tablet control grabbing the casuals the way motion initially did. Therefore it's going to be playing in a space where graphics are very important, and it is under equipped.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Entropy

The core of your argument hinges on that the overwhelming majority of the market bases their purchase decision on graphical prowess, (and will thus reject the WiiU and rather sit around waiting for the PS4/720).

No, my argument is that the core gamers who buy a console each generation buy a new console typically because it offers their favourite core experience vastly improved (all tech, not just graphics) from the console they currently own. These console buyers bought PS360 this gen, and Wii U isn't offering them an advance on their core game tech so won't be bought by them. Thus it's possible Wii U, trying to sell on the merits of its touchscreen, controller will fail to sell to both this core and the Wii upgraders who aren't as enamoured with the pad as they were the Wiimote, whereas PS4 and XB3 will sell to their core audience. Hence, your reference to Wuu performance as indicative of all next-gen is faulted.

The number of PS3s and 360s sold to date is just under 140 million. I've seen rough estimates that half or so of these system are in actual use, any use. Accurate statistics are obviously hard to come by.

How many Wii's are in use? What has that got to do with upgraders anyway? Could be they aren't being used because the core that played them are wanting better graphics.

It seems you are arguing that a Wii user who bought Mario Kart is going to reject the WiiU because it doesn't represent a sufficiently large graphical step up from the PS360, but will instead choose to buy the PS4 and run GT6 on it? That kind of reasoning makes no sense at all.

Then you misunderstand my position. I'm sure there are Wii gamers who want better graphics, but Wii U changes what they bought about the Wii in the first place. Every Wii owner might buy Wii U to play Mario in HD, but it's also a possibility that everyone who bought a Wii play Wii Sports won't see the appeal in the Wuublet. Whatever the Wii owners choices, they won't tell us what the core HD gamer's buying habits will be.

The success of the Wii as well as the success of the 3DS demonstrates that it just isn't the case.

Wii and PS360 are different markets with different tastes. The COD and FIFA players of this world chose to go with the conventional HD graphics over Wii.

...and that's why I propose that if the WiiU fails, then it says something dire about the future of the console market as a whole, because there is no way that better graphics will bring in the masses to the PS4/720 if it failed to bring them from the Wii to PS360.

Better tech was enough to get 80ish million to upgrade from NES to SNES, from SNES to PS1, from PS1 to PS2 and from PS2 to PS3 (or alternatives). Wii operated in parallel, not an upgrade path for these tens of millions of users, but an alternative experience for new gamers as it were (with some crossover of course). Wii U offering a graphical upgrade to Wii owners may fail because Wii owners didn't buy on graphics but interface, and Wii U is principally offering a very different interface. The Wii customer may or may not be interested in Mario Kart HD. But the COD and FIFA and Halo etc. players are going to want to play their core AAA games in HD with better graphics just like every other generation. You need to present a case as to why these cores gamers won't want another round of tech updates.

Remember console sales this gen are over 220 million. Let's say half of them are the core gamers wanting better tech upgraded every generation, and half were only interested in novel experiences. That's 110 million console owners not being served by Wii U who will be served by PS4/XB3. In what way is Wii U thus indicative of the XB3/PS4 market when it's dealing with different consumers?

And whatever reductions you want to make in those numbers due to failed hardware or unused hardware, you have to also apply to Wii. It's not like this gen is 90 million active Wiis and 60 million combined PS360s because they all break or people are bored with them (unless you can present evidence of that).

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Rangers

Well I've weighed in on this many times and my theory is that there's core gamers where graphics (more or less, within reason) are king, and then casual gamers where it's not.

You postulate core gamer = graphics enthusiast. I'm not sure that's the common definition.

Wii captured that casual gamers, so it was able to lose the hardcore and still succeed (though still it's an under noticed fact that taken together, the HD twins did better than Wii).

I don't think it is that clear cut. The Wii didn't capture anyone for whom graphics is the main attractor, that's for sure. However, that doesn't mean that all who bought PS360s did so because of their huge graphical superiority. They might have liked the games, XBOX Live features, Blu-Ray playback, network content streaming and so on. The list is actually pretty long. So we end up in a situation where the Wii captures pretty much no graphics enthusiasts, and where some of the PS360 users chose their console due to graphics.
So, given the number of active PS360 users, how many graphics enthusiasts can there be?

Wii U seems aimed more at the core if anybody, and it's hard for me to see the tablet control grabbing the casuals the way motion initially did. Therefore it's going to be playing in a space where graphics are very important, and it is under equipped.

You may or may not be correct about the screened controller not having the appeal of motion controls. (Incidentally, I agree with you.) It's hard to say, because it would seem that some games enthusiasts are very curious about for instance asymmetric game play possibilities, and others view the option of playing full console titles on or away from the TV-set a godsend. Hard to say really.
Regardless of its mass appeal, the Wuublet is new, the WiiU is the only new hardware around for some significant time, it has at least a short leg up on the graphics side, and seems to be a generally easy to live with little device. I have no problems seeing people pick one up to see what it brings to the table and if feels like useful additions to their gaming, and if it turns out that it doesn't it can be passed along and the money spent on the next upcoming console. It could well pick up quite a lot of sales to existing PS360 users this way, (and resales if it turns out to be a dud.)

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

No, my argument is that the core gamers who buy a console each generation buy a new console typically because it offers their favourite core experience vastly improved (all tech, not just graphics) from the console they currently own. These console buyers bought PS360 this gen, and Wii U isn't offering them an advance on their core game tech so won't be bought by them. Thus it's possible Wii U, trying to sell on the merits of its touchscreen, controller will fail to sell to both this core and the Wii upgraders who aren't as enamoured with the pad as they were the Wiimote, whereas PS4 and XB3 will sell to their core audience. Hence, your reference to Wuu performance as indicative of all next-gen is faulted.

Hmm. We may be arguing about slightly different points.
It is certainly true that the PS4/720 can do better than the WiiU the next generation. My contention was that if the WiiU fails, then it indicates that the console market as a whole will shrink. These two points are not in any fundamental conflict. I would actually argue a bit stronger than this though, to the point that if the WIiU fails, then the PS4/720 are likely (<=note) to drop in total sales as well, but probably not as much as the Wii->WiiU drop, and that to this extent it constitutes a litmus test - has the stationary console market gone sour? yes/no

[dobwal]

Nintendo's main attraction has always been its software and not its hardware. Every generation Nintendo has released rather "meh" hardware with some quirky controller and its main draw and that is its software.

Nintendo's potential for success will rely on its publishing arm pumping compelling software. Software is Nintendo's moat around its business and its been protecting Nintendo for decades. When that moat dries up (and its been drying up as of late) Nintendo will be done, end of story.

You can make better tech than Nintendo all you want. If people want Mario there is only one place you can get it. Its one the reason Nintendo is so protective of its library and has never really rolled out the red carpet for third party publishers like MS or Sony. EA, Ubisoft, Activision and others have built their organizations off the growth of console popularity but will ditch consoles and their licensing fees the moment it become advantageous to do so. A Nintendo library dominated by Nintendo software has always been Nintendo's desire. It makes Nintendo less reliant on having to heavily invest in technical improvements of the guts of its consoles, generation after generation. You don't invest in a console with an embedded 6 inch touch screen if your main concern was graphics.

I don't understand why people judge Nintendo's ability to survive based on variables more applicable to Sony or MS. Sony and MS push graphics. They also emphasis non gaming features more relatable to the PC or TV like Netflix or Facebook. Nintendo does none of this and has never shown the desire to become the epicenter of your home entertainment center.

Nor does its console seem to be aimed or marketed at the demographic of gamers who find this important. Nintendo aims and markets its console towards the younger crowd. Its why their consoles look like toys versus serious pieces of AV equipment found in most entertainment centers. Furthermore, look at its software and tell me who its aimed towards. Tell me how many 8-12 year kids and/or their parents base their desires or buying decisions around whats being discussed here hardware wise? You might look at Nintendo's controller and not be impressed but how about a 8 year old girl or a 10 year old boy?

I don't find Nintendo attractive as a console manufacturer but I am 36 years old. But when I was 12 old my console discussions with my friends were about as technical as, "what tastes better, fruit loops or captain crunch?". And our topic of conversation centered around which console had the better games and not which games looked better simply based on technical merits.

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by Entropy

If the WiiU fails, what hope in hell would Sony or MS have to reach a large market? They'll offer the same old only now with improved shadows and lightning calculations. They can't even claim better resolution since they already sold HD... Wow, that is bound to set the consumers on fire.

Isn't it a bit early to make such a decisive statements on what Sony and MS are bringing to the table, considering that basically a zero amount of official info has been released by them? and even the leaks are at best old or uncertain.

If they for example show footage that looks relatively as good as Gears of War looked in 2005, I'm betting that there will be a market for such console.

On a separate issue, I'm not that down on WiiU. I like the tablet controller and think it can offer great gaming experiences and while it won't be nearly as powerful as the other next gen consoles, it will be much more competitive with them than Wii was against PS3 and 360, at least if we factor in the launch dates. The jump from Wii to WiiU is probably the biggest generational jump that there has ever been and if so many people bought the Wii despite it's ancient tech, the WiiU should be ok. People who like Nintendo's mascot games should be happy with the WiiU versions I think.

[Sonic]

Graphics still matter to a lot of people, and better graphics is a large incentive to get people to upgrade. It's actually a no brainer as it marks a new generation and along with it a whole new set of experiences. The market doesn't depend solely on graphics of course, most of it is on the games. The games matter first and foremost, and with being able to experience favorite gaming franchises on machines with better graphics doesn't mean the experience will be better in a gameplay sense, but for many it will make their gaming experience more enjoyable, not for all. I think it's premature to discount the impact better graphics and more powerful machines has on the market. These companies want to dominate the living room, and MS is poised to do it as well as Sony. Nintendo's market may not be the core gamers and more a "wider" audience but then again Sony and MS can cater to that crowd as well. How many Wii users already upgraded to PS360 for better graphics?

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Entropy

I would actually argue a bit stronger than this though, to the point that if the WIiU fails, then the PS4/720 are likely (<=note) to drop in total sales as well, but probably not as much as the Wii->WiiU drop...

Why do you think that? It assumes that the purchasing habits of Wii owners are representative of the HD console owners, and if Wii owners don't want to upgrade, PS360 owners won't. We all agree that Wii owners don't represent the core gamer who have been upgrading every gen, so what's the connection between Wii -> Wii U and XB360 > XB3?

and that to this extent it constitutes a litmus test - has the stationary console market gone sour? yes/no

No. The console market shrinking due to Wii customers leaving doesn't mean the entire console market has gone sour. The stationary console market is that tens of millions wanting to play core games on their TV, and they aren't going away. There's another lot of peeps who just want to play games, who once bought a NES but now use their phone, and there's another lot who want to play for entertainment and who a new experience might have appeal, who bought Wii Sports and Singstar and Kinect, etc., but they don't represent the backbone of the industry. If they all left, there'd still be a large number of people wanting to play core games on their TV. Thus I don't think Wii U is in any way representative, as it's not the next platform choice for this core and doesn't represent how they'll respond to new consoles. I do think consoles will start to fade as they are replaced by other devices, but not next-gen.

And this goes both ways. Wii U could sell the fastest of any console, but that wouldn't show the core console industry is on a massive rise and PS4 and XB3 will similarly sell well. Like Wii, Wuu is outside the loop doing it's own thing. Maybe. Maybe actually it'll offer the most amazing core game experience and the core will switch, forgoing a graphical upgrade for a controller one. But I seriously doubt that!

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Sonic

Graphics still matter to a lot of people, and better graphics is a large incentive to get people to upgrade. It's actually a no brainer as it marks a new generation and along with it a whole new set of experiences. The market doesn't depend solely on graphics of course, most of it is on the games.

Yup, and what I have tried to do is estimate the number of people for whom graphics quality was the main attractor this generation. My estimate was somewhere between 15-30 million. Note - this generation. None of us can put a hard number on how many will fall into this category for the next generation of devices, but it stands to reason that it will be fewer, both because the benefits grow ever smaller at typical viewing distances, and because diminishing returns lies in the nature of asymptotically approaching anything, in this case "realism".

To me that paints a disturbing picture for the new MS/Sony consoles. They already provide gaming, media streaming, Blu-Ray playback, and so on. Shifty Geezer asserted above that all the current HD twin users are chomping at the bit to play their favorite franchises with better graphics, and pay the price of a new console to do so.
I don't think that's necessarily the case.

That's where the WiiU comes in, and it is interesting because the situation so neatly parallels the situation with portables and the introduction of the 3DS and the PSVita. And we know how that worked out - the 3DS launching first, and after skimming the fanboi cream stopped dead in its tracks until the great price drop, after which it has enjoyed reasonable but lackluster sales. The PSVita, launching just under a year later, with excellent technical specs and from a gadget point of view, good value for the hardware on offer, bombed completely, to the point that publishers cancel even their announced games. That platform, for all its excellence and reasonable value, is dead. (I think it would be a good idea for the people who enjoy discussing the future of console gaming to show that they observe and learn something from what's in front of their noses. Makes the whole exercise a bit more satisfying.)

Like the 3DS, the WiiU brings a lot to the table to previous Nintendo owners, and just like the 3DS it provides a novelty hook, and good/the best graphics around at the time of introduction. So if the WiiU fails to attract consumers, what does that indicate about the chances of PS4/720, when the strongest card they have to play is better graphics?

Now, the mobile console market and the stationary don't follow quite the same rules, but then again, there is no reason to assume that the same general mechanisms don't apply at least to some extent. That's why I say that the fans of graphics performance have every reason to hope that the WiiU does reasonably well, because if it doesn't, it indicates that the public just isn't particularly interested in stationary console gaming and the upcoming generation from MS and Sony will have a hard time attracting customers beyond the hardest core. There's just not that many of those around, and lower total revenue will have repercussions throughout the eco-system.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Yup, and what I have tried to do is estimate the number of people for whom graphics quality was the main attractor this generation. My estimate was somewhere between 15-30 million.

So where 80 million ish upgraded from NES to SNES and SNES to PS1 and PS1 to PS2, only 15-30 million upgraded to PS360 and the rest just happened to buy a console anyway? I don't understand your reasoning here.

because diminishing returns lies in the nature of asymptotically approaching anything, in this case "realism".

We are very far from hitting a graphical ceiling. The diminishing returns issue has been partially solved by a very long generation. The advance in visuals over a five year old console wouldn't have been as pronounced as they are likely to be now. The core gamers are presently wrestling with poor framerates, tearing, and low IQ, and the wow factor of next-gen visuals will get the core gamers to upgrade once again.

Shifty Geezer asserted above that all the current HD twin users are chomping at the bit to play their favorite franchises with better graphics, and pay the price of a new console to do so.
I don't think that's necessarily the case.

But why? You're saying that suddenly buying habits have changed and 80 million core gamers aren't interested in buying a new console like they have every previous gen. What has changed?

That's where the WiiU comes in, and it is interesting because the situation so neatly parallels the situation with portables and the introduction of the 3DS and the PSVita.

The portable platform is a different market with different requirements. Gamegear and Lynx show graphics aren't the be all and end all, long before Vita's market failure against 3DS. Zero parallels can be drawn between the portable games market and the stationary living-room console.

So if the WiiU fails to attract consumers, what does that indicate about the chances of PS4/720, when the strongest card they have to play is better graphics?

Do you not believe that Wii consumers are a different bunch to PS360? If you think they represent the same demographics with the same interests and same buying habits, then there's nothing that can be said to change your position - I see them as very different audiences, with PS360 owners being those same generational upgraders and Wii consumers being independent gamers who bought on a novel experience and will follow experiences. That Wii owners may not want want to upgrade wouldn't show anything about how PS360 owners wanting to upgrade.

I present a history of consoles that shows every gen, there's a solid core audience who want better tech. I'm not seeing any counter to that; only an assumption that Wii owner's buying habits will mirror PS360 owner's buying habits. You need only see the list of top selling titles to see they are different audiences. Wii is full of fun, family, coop, lighthearted titles, with cartoony graphics, who's experience isn't going to be made better with better visuals, but will quite possibly be made worse on Wii U by having a different controller.

[Grall]

Originally Posted by Entropy

but it stands to reason that it will be fewer, both because the benefits grow ever smaller at typical viewing distances, and because diminishing returns lies in the nature of asymptotically approaching anything, in this case "realism".

I've heard this "diminishing returns" canard repeated a number of times on this board, and SERIOUSLY... It ought to be obvious to anyone actually looking, that as far as we've come, we've still got AT LEAST as far to go as we've come already when it comes to graphics realism. Longer, probably, considering pretty much every technique we use in current realtime 3D rendering, and most offline rendering, are either (simple) approximations, or outright fakery.

We're quite far from achieving comprehensive, actual realism that don't require massaging or corner cases to look good, especially with realtime graphics. Offline rendering obviously is closer, since it can throw orders of magnitude more calculations at the problem, but even so we're not there, and many seemingly simple things are difficult to achieve, and/or very manual work-intensive.