Console Wars VI

[DrSpike]

Yeah the Wii can only go down given how successful it's been, and now that hardware constraints are beginning to bite more. But no sane person can look at those numbers and say the Wii is/has cancer (your phrase).

It's comprehensively outsold the competitors and continues to do so. The fact that it is outselling them by a smaller margin than previously, and this trend is likely to continue, does not change that fact, no matter how much you want to rewrite history to support your views on the Wii.

[Asher]

Yeah the Wii can only go down given how successful it's been, and now that hardware constraints are beginning to bite more. But no sane person can look at those numbers and say the Wii is/has cancer (your phrase).

Are you retarded, DrSpike?

I said the Wii is a cancer. That only thing that could POSSIBLY say about the sales is that they multiply to an astounding degree.

It's a cancer because it's ****ing everywhere and won't go away and it's causing harm to the industry, from my perspective. Now we've got publishers spending their money trying to make the next Wii Fit and cash in on this new "casual" market, which doesn't consist so much as "gamers" but fat-asses who think the Wii Fit will fix their problems and 45 year old women who hear the Wii is fun at parties they may or may not ever actually host. Microsoft is spending way too much money and effort on Natal, and something like 80% of licensed 360 developers are now working on Natal-based games instead of traditional 360 games. Gamers like us, DrSpike -- we lose here. We're sharing the same development resources as the people who buy Wii Fit, it's a zero-sum situation. And don't tell me they just hire more people to do Wii-like games, it's not true. Tons of companies have been closing shop and issuing massive layoffs this year as it is, they're not growing.

Maybe the phrase "it is a cancer" is a North American thing, and you are just not cultured. But it can, in no reasonable way, be interpreted as you interpreted it. But it usually means something is ubiquitous, and in a bad way.

It's comprehensively outsold the competitors and continues to do so. The fact that it is outselling them by a smaller margin than previously, and this trend is likely to continue, does not change that fact, no matter how much you want to rewrite history to support your views on the Wii.

I would appreciate if you read and understood what I write if you wish to respond. Please don't waste my time like this. I don't like having to dumb things down for your benefit.

[DrSpike]

Ok - I forgive you for being unclear. Your tantrum is precisely because you agree the Wii is very successful and you don't want it to be.

I'd be interested in seeing what supporting links you can provide around MS "spending way too much money and effort on Natal", and "something like 80% of licensed 360 developers are now working on Natal-based games instead of traditional 360 games"

[Asher]

Ok - I forgive you for being unclear.

It was very clear. Your interpretation was unreasonable and borderline Benesque.

As I've said before, I don't buy the zero sum arguments.

Yes, you've expressed your ignorance of how game development works before. Have you ever been exposed to something called a 'budget' in your career as an economist?

Additional resources spent on developing Wii fit style/Natal games will largely be supported by the larger market, with all the new casual gamers and their cash.

Problem is this isn't how the real world works. Look at what is selling on the Wii -- it's Nintendo's games only. Third party games are NOT being sold to any reasonable degree, especially compared to the 360. There's simply no money to just magically create new games (you also don't seem to comprehend the concept of human capital, which is odd considering your career...again). The headcount at the major development studios has only gone down over the past couple years, and now games are being developed for the 'casual gamers'...and this is at the expense of other gamers.

Despite your error, I'd still be interested in seeing what supporting links you can provide around MS "spending way too much money and effort on Natal", and "something like 80% of licensed 360 developers are now working on Natal-based games instead of traditional 360 games"

I'm at work, I'm not going to dig through the financial statements to educate someone like you who apparently does not keep tabs on the industry you like to provide commentary on. It's a demonstrable fact that head count at Electronic Arts, Microsoft Game Studios, etc has gone down over the past few years. A number of high profile studios have closed as part of these brands. Yet, we know that both EA and MGS are making massive attempts to reach the casual crowd with less people than they had two years ago. Where do these people come from? You don't think with less people overall, developing whole new sets of games would not take developers from 'traditional' games?

How about Natal itself? Without the Wii, we would not have Natal. Without Natal, we'd have a new Xbox console with improved hardware (and probably backwards compatibility) within a year or so. Now we're not going to see new hardware for at least four years, because "Natal" (for MS) and "PS3 Motion Controller" (for PS3) constitute "new hardware" in their eyes. Wii, here, has screwed up the product lifecycle for gamers and will stick console gamers with older, obsolete hardware for longer...just like Wii.

[DrSpike]

We've actually had this discussion before (you were equally wrong last time ), so I edited out that section. You must be refreshing every second to see my posts.

More generally I think you shouldn't blame the Wii or Nintendo for changes in the industry, you should blame casual gamers themselves, thinking they can horn in on our territory.

[DrSpike]

Also I seem to recall you were pro-Natal before, thinking it would bring the benefits of motion sensing etc to proper games. You now seem much more downbeat.

[Asher]

We've actually had this discussion before (you were equally wrong last time ), so I edited out that section. You must be refreshing every second to see my posts.

I spanked you and your theory of magical, mystical infinite pool of developers and development resources before. I wouldn't miss an opportunity to do it again.

More generally I think you shouldn't blame the Wii or Nintendo for changes in the industry, you should blame casual gamers themselves, thinking they can horn in on our territory.

I don't have a problem with casual gamers. I have a problem with Nintendo making **** like Wii Fit. A couple middle-aged people at work only own Wiis for Wii Fit, it's the ****ing Bowflex machine of the 21st century. And just like the Bowflex, no one uses it after the first time they try it.

Nintendo's ****ing up the market and making a killing as they do it. But it's a cancer to the industry for real gamers. Bottom line.

[Asher]

Also I seem to recall you were pro-Natal before, thinking it would bring the benefits of motion sensing etc to proper games. You now seem much more downbeat.

Yes, because of recent changes MS has announced. Clearly you don't pay attention.

Natal is not going to come to "proper games" at all now. They've removed the dedicated CPU on the device and it's going to leverage the console's CPU and suck up 20% of the CPU and 10% of the memory.

MS is also trying to combat the cancer of the Waggle on the Wii -- motion controls that make no ****ing sense, for the purpose of being motion controls. You now cannot make a Natal game unless MS greenlights it as a proper "motion controlled game" with motion controlling being the core of the game. It's going to be almost exclusively for casual games, no longer for proper games.

[DrSpike]

Well if the Wii is taking all of the resources away from proper games as you suggest then we should be able to see some evidence of that, as the Wii has been outselling the PS3/360 for a long time now.

Do we see less AAA titles? No, a quick look at metacritic shows 6 360 games from 2009 in the top 20. Do we perhaps see less 80-90% games? Or less games overall?

To be honest I think too many games are made anyway, and that if the Wii is cannibalising resources it's the lesser games that lose out. Neither of us have time to play the middling/poor games - we own pretty much the same set of top tier titles. So assuming we lose out from the Wii seems a large jump to me.

[Asher]

Well if the Wii is taking all of the resources away from proper games as you suggest then we should be able to see some evidence of that, as the Wii has been outselling the PS3/360 for a long time now.

God damn, you are dense today.

The Wii is not directly taking all of the resources away. What the Wii has brought is doing that. Microsoft Game Studio's resources are not being affected by the Wii directly, but virtually every title MGS is making coming out next year is a Natal title. Not a "proper game". What more ****ing evidence do you need?

Do we see less AAA titles? No, a quick look at metacritic shows 6 360 games from 2009 in the top 20. Do we perhaps see less 80-90% games? Or less games overall?

Considering AAA titles take many years to develop, what kind of dumbass assertion is this?

Use your head. You're also being a disingenuous douche right now. Do you really want me to bump the thread you made not too long ago lamenting the lack of quality games for the 360?

[DrSpike]

Yes, because of recent changes MS has announced. Clearly you don't pay attention.

Natal is not going to come to "proper games" at all now. They've removed the dedicated CPU on the device and it's going to leverage the console's CPU and suck up 20% of the CPU and 10% of the memory.

I haven't followed Natal news at all no - it doesn't really interest me.

MS is also trying to combat the cancer of the Waggle on the Wii -- motion controls that make no ****ing sense, for the purpose of being motion controls. You now cannot make a Natal game unless MS greenlights it as a proper "motion controlled game" with motion controlling being the core of the game. It's going to be almost exclusively for casual games, no longer for proper games.

That seems to be in our favour as we won't be forced to waggle to play proper games.

[DrSpike]

God damn, you are dense today.

Considering AAA titles take many years to develop, what kind of dumbass assertion is this?

Use your head. You're also being a disingenuous douche right now. Do you really want me to bump the thread you made not too long ago lamenting the lack of quality games for the 360?

Ok so we're getting close to a testable assertion here. You think there will be less AAA titles next year, because of Wii/Natal stealing development resources from 'proper games'.

Why don't we wait and see.

[Asher]

I haven't followed Natal news at all no - it doesn't really interest me.



That seems to be in our favour as we won't be forced to waggle to play proper games.

Yes, it's a good idea. But the existence of Natal now fragments the game development market. You need to choose if you're going to make a Natal game or not. And of course, the vast majority of MGS cames coming down the pipeline are Natal games now.

Rare, for example, has ZERO "proper" games in development and 3(? or 2 or 4...something like this, can't recall the number) Natal titles in development alone.

Your assertion that the existence of the Wii and its counterpart on the 360/PS3 not having an impact on the development of proper games is logically retarded and demonstrably false.

[Asher]

Ok so we're getting close to a testable assertion here. You think there will be less AAA titles next year, because of Wii/Natal stealing development resources from 'proper games'.

I'm not going to make a ridiculous assertion like that. It's untenable. What is a AAA title? What is less?

It's retarded. I know for a fact that big studios are making Natal games INSTEAD of "proper games". That's a simple fact. Rare is a terrific example -- they are only making Natal games instead of proper games. That's my position, and it's a fact. Deny it all you want, but you're being an idiot by doing so.

There may or may not be more AAA titles next year. It depends on a great many things, none of which are central to my point of resources dedicated to proper games being diverted to make motion/casual games.

[DrSpike]

Not so fast - above you went much further than that and said "gamers like us lose". It's this part that's overly simplistic. There are many factors in between some resource reallocation taking place as a natural part of the evolution of the market and there being a demonstrable impact on more serious gamers.

There's the size of the market growing to accommodate the casual gamer (which has happened, even if the recession has hidden/reversed this in some cases), there's reallocation away from trashy 360/PS3 games (and god knows there are enough of those), there's exogenous improvements in the game industry, and I'm sure many others.

Your assertion simply doesn't stack up. We're both always bemoaning how many good games we have to play. I personally don't think this will change in 2010, which is why I tried to pin you down to something testable. But obviously you will wriggle, because deep down even you know that several of your statements above are overly simplistic.

Simply put - 360/PS3 gamers have it pretty good, and unlike you I don't see that changing in the near future.