Shake, Rattle, Roll Article

Pretty much agree (shock horror! But settle down you wretches, this is merely an article, not a bollocks review) that it'll certainly be the software that counts, not the novelty of new motion control functions.

I think we're all kinda expecting Microsoft and Sony to bring out their copy-cat versions of the Wii-mote along with a barrage of shit games similar to Wii Sports and expect a killing sales-wise. Obviously won't work, so let's hope they can push further the motion controls in areas where the Wii is lacking; namely "hardcore" titles.

Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy and Okami are all well and good, but we need a more rapid income of games that make use of motion controls. Sony and Microsoft have an opportunity, of sorts.

"It's a constant feature of that games industry that it obsesses over hardware and technology - a bizarre affliction for an industry whose creativity and, ultimately, profitability is grounded in software, design and artistry."

I think that it's a bit of a conflicting point really. The former is needed to make the latter possible. The wii imo underlines this. I have never seen a console that preformed so well under preform so much on the quality front. Just look at last Christmas.

I agree with the rest though. MS/sony would be utter fools if they thought that they can break into the market by merely releasing another bad motion control system. They are better off concentrating on their strengths and be happy with the profits that they make there.

The Wii fitness software was a clever idea. We all know the market for such software... the millions of people that feel guilty about being unfit or overweight, and will try anything easy to reach their goal. When normally fit and healthy people know decent food and exercise (gym, sports, walking, whatever) are the answer there will always be millions to make from fat-fighting classes, so-called diet food, 'fitness' videos and now console software. I'm sure Sony and Microsoft are kicking themselves for their lack of understanding of this market. The question is how many other markets can be tapped into to make a little more profit for the software/hardware makers? Recently I read that 'experts' believe the brain-training software to be as effective as doing a crossword a day. Self improvement is clearly big business.

Personally I have no interest in motion control gadgets as I'm an out-and-out hardcore, conventional gamer. My console entertains me. I don't need it to improve my body or brain, as books, specialist classes, sport and exercise provide those services more effectively. But if more people end up buying consoles and ultimately invest more cash into the market I guess it's a good thing. I just wish it were easy to plug a console into a monitor and keyboard (effectively taking the place of my computer) so I had a cheap gaming PC-alike without the expense of a gaming PC I would be happy.

Looks like something i found hidden in my girlfriends draw upstairs......the ladies will lap this up

This article is spot-on. E3 will be very interesting.

just shown it the girlfriend she wants to know if they will have a choice of colour she would prefer a black one.

JensonJet

"I just wish it were easy to plug a console into a monitor and keyboard (effectively taking the place of my computer) so I had a cheap gaming PC-alike without the expense of a gaming PC I would be happy."

Erm...can't the PS3 3 do just that? Just make sure you buy a PC monitor with a HDMI port, Unreal Tournament 3 USB keyboard and mouse and away you go.

That said, you can now buy a gaming PC for less than the price of a PS3.

£26 - Case with 500W power supply
£57 - e5200 dual core CPU 2.5ghz - easy overclock to 3.5ghz
£40 - Semi decent motherboard
£32 - 4 Gig of ddr2 800mhz
£41 - 500 Gig SATA drive
£14 - Dual layer DVD burner
£77 ATi 4770 512mb - easy overclock to 900 mhz gpu 1000 mhz GDR5 ram with small bios tweak (RivaTuner)

Comes to £287, wipe's the floor with the PS3 and the Software is normally 25 - 40% cheaper too.

If a new console is not launched in the next 18 months I can see the PC increasing in popularity once again as the consoles prowess diminishes over time.

BBB, assuming we're keeping this legal, you will also need to factor in the not inconsiderable cost of an operating system. That's why you never see PCs approaching that spec for that kind of price pre-built.

Might want to chuck a monitor in as well, which is a direct cost relating to a PC, unlike a TV for a console which has other core uses (obviously)

Sony could be really smart by bundling a motion controller, the specific game and a PS2 and selling it for less than the Wii.

>"If a new console is not launched in the next 18 months I can see the PC increasing in popularity once again as the consoles prowess diminishes over time. "

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, are you for real? Did you even read the article? Or has your head been in sand for the last few years?
The console wars is being won by a console with last-gen technology. And you think people want EVEN MORE POWER?

"BBB, assuming we're keeping this legal, you will also need to factor in the not inconsiderable cost of an operating system. That's why you never see PCs approaching that spec for that kind of price pre-built. "

There are various ways to keep using a free os or at least save a shitload of money on it while keeping it legal. I.e. participating in the windows 7 rc1 (near final os) build gives you a year free. I'm using it and it's awesome.

Other than that, there are other legal channels to go through.

Anyway, let's say that the average gamer buys about 10 to 20 games a year. A console lasts about 5 years. That's 50 to a 100 games. On average the pc games are about 10 to 20 euro cheaper than their console counterparts on release (let's not mention the fact that pc games drop to a sub 20 price within weeks and then go through the various budget cycles). That means that over the course of the cycle you will save roughly 500 to 2000 euro on games. Even if you buy new pc components every year and pay top money for everything, you will still end up cheaper. That's not even mentioning the fact that console accessories are far more overpriced to buy.

This "pc is very expensive" image that certain groups keep hammering on about is of course utter bollocks. The PC is by far the cheapest. Always has been. Always will be. All for the simple fact that it's and open (competitive) market and lacks any form of propriety materials.

"The console wars is being won by a console with last-gen technology. And you think people want EVEN MORE POWER? "

Two different markets. The casuals that buy the wii won't care for tech. But then they are equally happy playing their next sims on the pc. The hardcore (I hate that name but can't think of something better) on the other hand are always looking for the next best thing.

I'm sorry but I find it incredibly unlikely that people who are in the market to buy a console, don't have a PC of some sort already.

And PC newbies sure as hell wouldn't want to be messing about with beta versions of operating systems, they'd want something that works straight out of the box. Never mind having to build the "box" from the ground up...

Many people who purchased a Wii (me included), loved the idea that you could "play" out the game, e.g a tennis game requiring you to swing, a golf game etc etc. But it failed for me and many others when the added realism of the gameplay was brought backwards by the poor tech (graphics wise). But also a general realisation that actually i dont want to be standing for 2 hours swinging my arms around.

The wii gained success due to its simplictity, it is extremely unlikely that a Wii2 would gain anywhere near the same success as the wii, just because those that have already moved on will not be convinced that standing waving your arms around will work.

So this leads me onto the Xbox and PS3, if they try to exactly copy the Wii, then it will be an epic fail. Sony has the cost point, which if people can afford a PS3, they probably already have a wii and have already found out why the wiimote was lacking. Xbox has a good price point, but maybe its too late to gain any real benefit from people who want a wii who havent already got it. All it will do to these consoles is waste time and effort and resources chasing something that wont have a big sales impact at this point.

So this means that the controller needs to be different, and not just an exact copy, I suspect MS will be similar to the wiimote, hopefully Sony see this possible fault and dont try to rush one out for the current generation.

Is the software actually good on the Wii? All I've heard is that it's (largely) full of those 'anaemic mini-games' that the article mentions (apart from the core games like Metroid and Mario of course). For me the Wii is about marketing and only marketing, in terms of how it has captured the casual market. Despite this I still know plenty of people who won't go near one until the price comes way down. Of course we can imagine Microsoft releasing a single XBLA game that makes use of the motion sensing, but if they aim their marketing at being cheaper than the Wii and a console that can be grown into, they could take at least some of their market.

"And PC newbies sure as hell wouldn't want to be messing about with beta versions of operating systems, they'd want something that works straight out of the box. Never mind having to build the "box" from the ground up... "

Like I said, even then my point stands. The PC ends up the most cost effective over time, even in the most unfavourable and expensive scenario. Even more so when they already have a PC as you imply. If they weren't going to invest into a highend machine, then they most likely weren't going to buy hardcore games either, in which case the low requirements of the casual games even out the need for investment.

I'm not saying that people will or should run out to start playing pc games. I couldn't give a rats flying arse. I'm just saying that the age old argument that pc gaming is expensive is utter and absolute rubbish.

This article is so much the chicken comes before the egg.
It really misses the point on the Wii, did people buy it because of the whole package yes, did people buy it because of the games yes, Would you have Wii fit without the balance board NO, would you have Wii sports without the periphals NO.
This is a really unnecessary attack on hardware, I think most people who bought a Wii, did so because of the cheesy adds showing people wave there arms around.
Another anology I could make is that the games that come at the end of a generation are amazing compared to those at the beginning this article is suggesting that if were still using the SNES the games would be superior, this is a wrong correlation of cause and effect.
I think the Software always lags the hardware and this is a necessary evil based on cost. The peripherals for other systems are not as integral as those for Nintendo which is why the development has faltered, not the other way around.
Then again I might be biased, but the joypad has not changed for years, and I do not think it has improved the games.

Only one game I've purchased for the PS3 is available for the PC. Perhaps I might have saved a few Pounds but I'll only have one sodding game to play.

One problem here:

"it's important to realise that Nintendo's market is still less than half the size of the PS2's installed base"

The problem here is that most people's first PS2 broke several years ago. Many people bought several due to breakages, the slim model and new colours.

This does mean that there's plenty of scope for new console purchases, however. MS and Sony just need to sort out their bundles, image, price and marketing where required.

They both have serious issues with bundles and marketing as things stand currently.

It really misses the point on the Wii, did people buy it because of the whole package yes, did people buy it because of the games yes, Would you have Wii fit without the balance board NO, would you have Wii sports without the periphals NO.

Do you think Nintendo came up with the idea of motion control / balance board and then invented games to go with it?

Or do you think they came up with the idea of fitness software, Wii Sports style games etc., and then invented hardware that made that possible?

Everything I've seen about Nintendo's way of working suggests to me that it was the latter. They've always had a software-first approach - design the software, and then figure out what hardware will be needed to make it possible. The Wii was designed, essentially, for Wii Sports and a handful of other titles, just like the N64 was basically a box to run Mario 64 on. That's almost a total contrast to how Sony and Microsoft work, which is the whole point of the article, really.

microsoft - make a console that works first

"let's say that the average gamer buys about 10 to 20 games a year"

Very unlikely estimate. I'd guess around 3-5.

Shinji: Great article. Now let's see if MS/Sony gets the point this time around.

"Erm...can't the PS3 3 do just that? Just make sure you buy a PC monitor with a HDMI port, Unreal Tournament 3 USB keyboard and mouse and away you go. That said, you can now buy a gaming PC for less than the price of a PS3. £26 - Case with 500W power supply £57 - e5200 dual core CPU 2.5ghz - easy overclock to 3.5ghz £40 - Semi decent motherboard £32 - 4 Gig of ddr2 800mhz £41 - 500 Gig SATA drive £14 - Dual layer DVD burner £77 ATi 4770 512mb - easy overclock to 900 mhz gpu 1000 mhz GDR5 ram with small bios tweak (RivaTuner) Comes to £287, wipe's the floor with the PS3 and the Software is normally 25 - 40% cheaper too"

In order to get a PC with at least some future-proofing a DDR3 mainboard is a must, and at the moment that route isn't especially cheap. I'd certainly not recommend a DDR2 mobo to anyone looking to upgrade.

The components you've listed can certainly make a decent PC (apart from the PSU), but for how long? Not very long at all tbh.

Absolutely spot on article, sums it up perfectly. It won't go down well with the guardians of 'hardcore' gaming on this site, or with Sony/MS who probably just don't even understand it, but it's true. Big credit to the writer.

The articles not quite right in the fact that it seems to suggest that games like mario galaxy were important. At 8 million sales with over 50 million consoles sold its relatively unimportant to most of the userbase. Other classic games like metroid prime again at 1.5 million have no significance at all to most wii console owners. Mariokart is the most successful of the classic nintendo franchises but even that sells to less than a third of wii console owners. However I don't know how to factor in the piracy situation if its rampant then perhaps a lot more of these games are actively used even if they aren't paid for.

Aren't nintendo known for withered technology, this is the literal translation of their hardware ethos, this would suggest they only use technology that is proven.
There has been talk for a long time about the limitations of console controls, it is impossible to divide the software from the hardware, the concept may be the package but the specifications are derived from the hardware.
My earlier argument is somewhat reactive,
but the software whilst being integral really does not push the boundries it only describes them.
If you are suggesting that everything is necessary, this is more like chaos theory than hindsight.

What was the timeline between the DS and the Wii, the DS was really the first step in a lateral change in perspective.
I mean it really opened the door that there was a much bigger window of opportunity that previously been expected.

Maybe the peripheral only survives if the applications are slick enough for them to enter the public conciousness.

Look at the eye toy Sony thought it was shit but it blew away its competition.
Funnily enough the applications have shown how limited the initial hardware for the Wii is, I myself cannot wait for the Wii Motion plus."This shows how limited I am"
The best counter to my argument is Guitar Hero, the concept is brilliant, hardware minimally capable.

N@

"The components you've listed can certainly make a decent PC (apart from the PSU), but for how long? Not very long at all tbh."

Well the thing is, it is already cheaper than the PS3, and substantially more powerful and flexible. In 12 months time the situation will be markedly worse while the PC marches on against the static consoles.

"In order to get a PC with at least some future-proofing a DDR3 mainboard is a must"

Erm can't agree with that statement at all. Many boards support DDR3 that will not be "future proof" at all, so it carries no relevance of the future. DDR3 really doesn't offer a huge margin over DDR2 - the amount of memory with either standard is nearly always king (dual-channel 4GB being a minimum for 64bit PC gaming).

Core i7 (socket 1366) uses a completely different seating to Socket 775 (i.e. 1366 pins/contact pads versus 775). There is no such thing as a future proof PC but if you are trying to ensure "some future proofing" DDR3 is not a determinant factor, CPU family is as this will dictate the memory you use.

Secombe

Your concerns are valid - however I would add that any HD set able to display a PS3 image will certainly be able to display the PC image so that becomes a moot point.

As for the operating system, Xerx3s has made the valid point regarding Windows 7 - available free until March 2010 by which time the money saved on games purchases would no doubt ensure that most (if not all) of the cost has been offset; obviously being heavily dependant on your level of games consumption.

The point I was making overall is that the static nature of the consoles, is once again making those who left the PC to play games like PGR3 and Fight Night 3 in 2005 start to think that the pain of making games run on the PC maybe worth the effort once again in 2009.

More so when you look at games like Dragon Rising which will no doubt run significantly better on the PC I specified as opposed to either the 360 or PS3.

Add in an interest in 3D displays and the PC will start to become the only option to keep pushing graphical developments whilst simultaneously able to meet the requirement of twice the "horsepower" for the two images to be calculated. While the current consoles can clearly manage it to a degree (last months EDGE article & 3D PS3 GT5 demo's etc) it would be ridiculous to expect games that look better than they do now rendered at twice the framerate (or more on those below 60fps).

Who knows, maybe the quality will plateau and the developers will begin to move to 3D? This would have the additional benefit of not increasing development costs exponentially while offering a significantly different experience - so the studios could be keen? Obviously no longer being able to use crappy tricks like sky boxes etc would add a little to the cost, it would not be much.

I look forward to the new consoles, supporting something along the lines of head tracking, and 3d images at 1080p 60fps - plus being backwards compatible with those specs on old games - probably (though hopefully not) with MS charging a per game 100 MS points or something to make it 3D.

Much seems to depend on consumers uptake of 3D sets - but the industry is fully aware that gaming was a bigger driving force in acceptance of HD displays than the TV/DVD media market i.e. Sky HD and Blu-Ray.

Meanwhile I'll probably end up bringing the future to myself sooner than most, all with the aid of the trusty PC, a 120hz DLP projector and some Nvidia 3D Specs.

As for motion control, I'll never forget that launch Xmas day playing Wii Sports, it felt truly Next Gen and highly enjoyable for all; even whilst looking positively old-school. Must have been like being in a info-mercial for most of the other family members - they all ended up buying one - and only play it when anyone visits ! lol

If Rare didn't have Banjo N&B working on a motion controller I'll eat my hat - all that balancing on ropes and flying model where it's impossible to fly upside down all seem to indicate the fact that they did; along with Ken Lobb's twisting comments.

Will motion control add dramatically to the PS3 and 360? IMO no, but not having it will certainly ensure there are some lost sales.

So it's defiantly worth a shot, as in the infamous words of Wayne Gretsky "100% of the Shot's You Don't Take Don't Go In".

EDIT: - any more typos and I will change my name to Rob Fahey!!

the Wiis success rest solely on the motion controls and the simplicity of Wii sport and Wii fit

if i could own a wii solely and be happy this gen i would respect the wii as a console and not consider it a leech on the much greater efforts of microsoft and sony to move gaming forward.

Motion control for HD FPS games will sell systems. I played a good bit of Red Steel, and while the game itself wasn't great, largely due to the Wii's lack of processing power, the control method was very intuitive and enjoyable. If MS (or sony, but I think most people see the 360 as the home of shooty console games) can produce a gun-shaped motion controller and package it with, for example, Modern Combat 2, that will almost certainly be a great success. Once I have some spare cash, I plan to get a Wiimote and a bluetooth dongle and hook the Wiimote up to my PC, for exactly this reason.

For those decrying the cheap PC: maybe the machine Bad Boy Bonner specified isn't necessarily going to run cutting edge games of the near future, but backwards compatibility is not an issue - it will run most games made in the last 10-15 years, unlike any of the current consoles. Gaming on a PC opens a huge back catalogue of games, many of which are dirt cheap or even free, and will run very nicely. Then there's mods.

Then, there's the point that PC hardware prices stay approximately static relative to the newness and oomph of the component - once your £75 ATI 4770 gets too old, the chances are that whatever was new and cost £300+ when you bought the 4770 is now only about £100, with the top spot filled by the latest hot card. Get whatever you can afford and it's almost certain to be an upgrade on what you have.

if i could own a wii solely and be happy this gen i would respect the wii as a console and not consider it a leech on the much greater efforts of microsoft and sony to move gaming forward.

............

Sony and Microsoft have done next to nothing to move gaming forward this generation. Gloss is all they have given. Which I personally have enjoyed, I've loved MGS4, Bioshock, Gears of War, but it is just glossier versions of what's gone before, so they don't deserve the credit of "moving gaming forward". At least Wii Sports was a genuinely new concept.

"I played a good bit of Red Steel, and while the game itself wasn't great, largely due to the Wii's lack of processing power"
Bullshit. Red Steel was mediocre because the game itself was mediocre. The processing power of the Wii was a minor problem.

I hope Sony give the Sixaxis a bit more time to get used as an option when appropriate. Games like flower have shown that when propper thought is applied it works really well, but obviously is not suitable for all games, and at that point is unobtrusively switched off, and not a problem.

I dont want to be mucking about with multiple controllers depending upon the game i am playing and cluttering up the house. Its bad enough having "special" controllers for GH and RB that a re useless for everything else.

"Sony and Microsoft have done next to nothing to move gaming forward this generation. Gloss is all they have given. Which I personally have enjoyed, I've loved MGS4, Bioshock, Gears of War, but it is just glossier versions of what's gone before, so they don't deserve the credit of "moving gaming forward". At least Wii Sports was a genuinely new concept."


Stealth "I was born yesterday" post?

I partially agree with the article however, the real question is would wii sports have sold the console without motion control. I don't think it would. The two exist in symbiosis, one wouldn't work without the other.

Besides that the wii controller isn't as accessible as all that trying to get people over 40 to realise they need to hold trigger in bowling is hard enough in my experience. It's just that based on image people are willing to try the wii wheras they have an irrational reaction to consoles.

Case in point my over 40 year old uncle who doesn't play video games was able to pick up and play a racing game on my old xbox, probably because he likes cars so much. Complexity of controllers has never been the problem willingness to try them out is. (the difference between someone who will pick any controller plugged into and console with any game in and start pressing buttons to those who sit/stand there with a slightly bemused smile on their faces.

Finally graphics can increase gameplay, they can be used to help immersion. increased power has also enabled massive open games ie Fallout 3 to look decent and run ok compared to their contemporary shooters.

Went into a store randomly just a few days ago, old people looking into wii fitness. Amazing that Nintendo is able to do that now days, they probably didn't buy it of course, unless they had some grandchildren they could entertain in the future with it. But you can see the general idea.

But the main question that has to be asked...

Where else does ms/sony have to go apart from motion control? Whether hardcore or not, pure graphical and processor power is stupid considering the economy and where graphics is already at.

Do you guys seriously think the future is in the standard control systems of PS3/360? PC has WAY more options then that, lets face it, sony/ms have no other way APART from motion control to improve gaming. Heh, only nature that conpanies like MS/Sony copy Nintendo... Just think of N64, the only reason why PS3 and 360 controls exist is because Nintendo put stuff like the analog stick, rumble AND wireless into the main stream... Sony and MS are only doing what they have always done, copying Nintendo.

True "hardcore" gaming lies solely in PC, and will stay that way. I hate how fanboys always spam that 360/ps3 is all about hardcore. They don't know what hardcore is. I have one PC and one Wii, one is for true hardcore FPS games, RTS and MMOs while the other is for a totally different experience in a game of games that aren't online or 'hardcore'.

When was the last time you saw any console at an eSports event?

That's right, never. "Hardcore gaming" on consoles is just another word for, "easy to setup gaming" which can be played on PC anyway.

I laugh when 360/PS3 fanboys say they are hardcore when games are purposely made more simple because they are also made for consoles (bioshock anyone? heh, and the fallout3 menu on PC is shocking considering it was a port from consoles and wasn't fixed on the way to PC for gamers that actually have more then half a brain... so they can handle more then one menu).

You can cry "we are hardcore" all you want console-tards, but it won't fix the simple fact that you don't have a keyboard in front of you.