Fortune Magazine: How Nintendo is beating Sony and Microsoft

[Vocenoctum]

Wii lasted ten years before Sony beat them?

That's even better news.

Seriously though, if you watched any E3, the Ten Year Plan came up in every conversation with Sony that I saw.

In 10 years, the Wii will be everywhere. Forget price, it'll probably be free with a happy meal and used as voting machines at elections.

And the PS3 will be trumpeting that their price is now $599, but it comes complete with a 5-terabyte HD and BluRay2 adapter.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Okay, so maybe they've improved the many problems it had...but what everyone always talks about is "THE GRAPHICS LOOK GREAT!!!" and that's it. What about oooh...the gameplay? Its yet another FPS and it needs something beyond GRAPHICS!!! to actually make it good.

Well, how can you judge anything that you haven't seen? They've focused on the graphics because that's all there is. The game will have years of development solely for the PS3, and if it can't pull off something like what is shown and have smooth frame rate and good gameplay, it'll be a very bad shot for the PS3 I think.

It's one of those lose-lose situations. Sony used the game to preach their system capabilities, so it has to be up to par just to break even.

But eh, maybe I'm just to the point where the whole graphics thing doesn't impress me like it used to.

I certainly don't pick games purely by graphics, but I do notice bad graphics as compared to other games of the time. FPS's of the same 6 month period should look roughly similar, graphics power wise, or it'll be really noticeable.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I WANT to see more about Killzone 2. I mean, maybe it will have great gameplay and a good story and all that other fun stuff beyond just GRAPHICS!!!

But that's all Sony's talking about. And that worries me. A game can look beautiful and absolutely amazing...but if the gameplay is junk, what's the point?

 

[Pants]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who remembers the first Killzone.

It was terrible.

The original Killzone was the height of mediocrity, both in graphics and gameplay. I never understood the furor over that game, but then again I'm a PC gamer so obviously my opinion shouldn't count.

Still, I'd rather play Halo on the X-Box over Killzone any day of the week.

 

[frankthedm]

Wii is a fraction of a cost of it's competitors. That alone is a big thing.

Halo 3 coming out over a year after the system is hurting the 360.

Does the PS3 even have a flagship game?

Nintendo made their system NOT targeted at hardcore console gamers. I almost don't blame them, we are not that big of a market. They dumbed down the base controller into a psudo remote control so anyone who was inclined to try a game can play it.

The normal console game controller of 10-12 buttons and 3 control pads [2 of which are hidden buttons] is a learning curve. Arcade games, even in their heyday, avoided that many. The companies that made arcade games knew folks would take one look at that number of buttons and walk away. Wii went with that philosophy for the wii-mote.

 

[Vigilance]

Does the PS3 even have a flagship game?

I think the first PS3 game I'd actually label a system seller is Metal Gear 4, which won't be out in time for this Christmas (and probably not in time to coincide with the temporary price drop).

 

[Vigilance]

So... EA now says they bet on the wrong horses (360 and PS3)

When the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 launched in November 2005 and November 2006, respectively, Electronic Arts was there with a full slate of games. Each system received the latest iterations from the publisher's Need for Speed, Madden NFL, NBA Live, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour franchises. The Xbox 360 also welcomed FIFA 06: Road to FIFA World Cup, while Fight Night Round 3 arrived on the PS3 just weeks after the console's launch.

By contrast, only two EA games made it to the Wii's launch: Need for Speed Carbon and Madden NFL 07. Though he wasn't yet appointed to his current post as EA's CEO, that's something John Riccitiello regrets, as he explained at the company's annual meeting of stockholders yesterday.

Taking questions from the audience, Riccitiello was asked about several years of less-than-stellar performance on the stock market. He responded first by saying that the company is aligned behind the goal of driving shareholder value, but acknowledged that the company could have better handled the recent transition between console generations.

"[This transition has been] harder because of the complexity," Riccitiello said, "and harder because unfortunately, we bet a little bit on the wrong horse in focusing so much on the PS3 and Xbox 360, and to a lesser degree on the Wii. And let me assure you that almost all of us in the industry made the same judgment. So after so many transitions of guessing exactly right, we got this one a little bit wrong and we're dealing with that now with strong investments on the Wii."

One of those investments--a studio dedicated to developing specifically for the Wii--was announced roughly a week after Nintendo's system launched.

Later in the session, Riccitiello touched on the Wii launch again when asked about which of the company's competitors keep it up at night.

"We're all fairly paranoid, so a lot of them keep us up at night for different things," Riccitiello replied. "There aren't companies that are really directly comparable in all areas. But if you're looking for companies that we admire and might well keep us up at night, I think about companies like Ubisoft, that made a quicker and more forceful move against the Wii and Nintendo DS, and that's showing in their results. [They're] insightful, and they create an awfully large number of great titles. No question, there's a lot to admire there."

More here:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6175764.html