Eh, I'm not saying it's priced more than what it's worth; just that it's not what most would call 'affordable'.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
E3 2011 Conferences Thread
- Thread starter Firestorm
- Start date
Eh, I'm not saying it's priced more than what it's worth; just that it's not what most would call 'affordable'.
At the moment? Of course it's relatively innovative, but I'm simply being realistic. The PS3 and Vita will have a similar, though limited, function. The Wii U will be out many months after the Vita, which gives Sony plenty of time to build an at least noticeable library of games that can be "transfarred." They've got the time, and will have a similar Wii U technology out well ahead of time. I don't know what business wouldn't at least bother to jump on a big bandwagon before it has even started.
Obviously I don't see the Vita and PS3 combo becoming more popular than the Wii U, but by the time the Wii U is available the "console to handheld" feature isn't going to be seen as "new and innovative." Yes, the Wii U's controller is dedicated to the console and will probably be more functional, but what's to stop Sony from capitalizing on the same idea, especially when they already have a well capable base? Back in 2007 "motion gaming" was never really done or taken seriously, which is why the Wii was free to raid that market. The Wii U isn't free to raid the "Console - Handheld" market. Not when others are already moving into that territory.
That's why I don't think it's innovative. Innovation was the Wii's biggest advantage this generation, and the new console won't have that same perk. That's my main worry.
Obviously I don't see the Vita and PS3 combo becoming more popular than the Wii U, but by the time the Wii U is available the "console to handheld" feature isn't going to be seen as "new and innovative." Yes, the Wii U's controller is dedicated to the console and will probably be more functional, but what's to stop Sony from capitalizing on the same idea, especially when they already have a well capable base? Back in 2007 "motion gaming" was never really done or taken seriously, which is why the Wii was free to raid that market. The Wii U isn't free to raid the "Console - Handheld" market. Not when others are already moving into that territory.
That's why I don't think it's innovative. Innovation was the Wii's biggest advantage this generation, and the new console won't have that same perk. That's my main worry.
Arch, I'm not really getting your argument. It seems that you're saying that the Wii U isn't innovative because sometime in the future, a company will copy it. I am not sure how that has any bearing on if and how the Wii U itself is innovative. In fact, it seems like you're arguing the opposite: the Wii U's innovation is forcing companies to copy or compete with that innovation, creating a new standard of innovation that started with the Wii U. Isn't that exactly what that situation is saying? I don't see how you can call this "not innovative" if the problem surrounding it is the competition competing with it.
This same exact thing happened with the PlayStation 3. Once motion control was announced, PlayStation immediately came with the Axis tilt control (like two days after), and not three years later, came out with the Move. Same with the XBox and Kinect. When the Axis came out (a motion controlled controller that "wasn't exactly the Wii remote", similar to how the PSVita and PlayStation 3 might interact as comparison), did people say that the Wii remotes weren't innovative? No, because Nintendo was the first to unveil it, and the ones who actually made the innovation successful.
I just can't see how you can't call this an innovation when obviously signs point that it will dictate gaming standards. In order to copy, you have to follow the leader, after all.
This same exact thing happened with the PlayStation 3. Once motion control was announced, PlayStation immediately came with the Axis tilt control (like two days after), and not three years later, came out with the Move. Same with the XBox and Kinect. When the Axis came out (a motion controlled controller that "wasn't exactly the Wii remote", similar to how the PSVita and PlayStation 3 might interact as comparison), did people say that the Wii remotes weren't innovative? No, because Nintendo was the first to unveil it, and the ones who actually made the innovation successful.
I just can't see how you can't call this an innovation when obviously signs point that it will dictate gaming standards. In order to copy, you have to follow the leader, after all.
The simple point is that the PSV and PS3 already have this feature, and will be well prepared for the Wii U when it launches. When the Wii U launches, it won't be heralded as "innovative." That, and the PSV was said to have had this type of feature before people knew about the Wii U.
I understand why you'd refer to the Sony/Microsoft tailing of the Wii, but this situation isn't like the motion control event where the Wii was far ahead of everyone. Sony doesn't have to start from scratch and catch up this time, they're already prepared. The PSV + PS3 will already have this type of function well before the Wii U hits the market. This is why it isn't anything new now, and definitely won't be seen as "new" when it's in stores.
I only say "at the moment" because the console to handheld feature isn't available to everyone yet. The Wii U is going to enter a market Sony will be ahead in. They don't have the element of surprise their motion controls did, and it will definitely hurt Nintendo. It's nice to say it's innovative now, but that's not important at all. It's important if it's innovative at launch, and it won't be.
I understand why you'd refer to the Sony/Microsoft tailing of the Wii, but this situation isn't like the motion control event where the Wii was far ahead of everyone. Sony doesn't have to start from scratch and catch up this time, they're already prepared. The PSV + PS3 will already have this type of function well before the Wii U hits the market. This is why it isn't anything new now, and definitely won't be seen as "new" when it's in stores.
I only say "at the moment" because the console to handheld feature isn't available to everyone yet. The Wii U is going to enter a market Sony will be ahead in. They don't have the element of surprise their motion controls did, and it will definitely hurt Nintendo. It's nice to say it's innovative now, but that's not important at all. It's important if it's innovative at launch, and it won't be.
Wii U is gonna be shit and only 12 year olds are gonna play it nuff said.
People say that about Pokemon.
Nintendo Developer Roundtable conference
No, there isn't a stream for it. Just mostly a Q/A session with possibly some new trailers, but this is also where they showed the first Brawl video and Skyward Sword image among other things so it might be worth paying attention to.
No, there isn't a stream for it. Just mostly a Q/A session with possibly some new trailers, but this is also where they showed the first Brawl video and Skyward Sword image among other things so it might be worth paying attention to.
Fuck you, Mass Effect anything is good.
For a 3D TV, I'm pretty sure it is.
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/44700/UBISOFT-Beyond-Good-Evil-2-skips-360-PS3
AH MY GOD!!!!!! IT IS STILL ALIVE. FIRESTORM SO HAPPY RIGHT NOW
I love 14 year olds who look down on 12 year olds. Please children. Think before you post.
CM has played it; I think he was hoping for it to be localised.
jumpluff nailed it. FFS it was actually good.
yes, but mass effect is not unique to the 360 anymore--hence showcasing it during microsoft's press conference is kind of a wtf move and nothing to get excited about
Affordable =/= value or cheap.
Affordability implies some kind of objective measure, extrinsic to what the object is.
$500 USD is a lot of discretionary spend for a nonessential item, hence not affordable, even if it's good value.
Eh. Let's start with Microsoft. These are just my initial thoughts; some of them may be wrong.
I'm gushing about Microsoft a little bit because it's nice to see integration. Microsoft is realizing a goal that Google, Apple, and Sony have never gotten with their consoles/set-top things, which is to create a device-dependent ecosystem with a massive subscribing base that has multiple revenue streams*. The streaming TV thing could** be a game-changer.
*and hasn't been hacked to bits.
**if American cable providers capitulate.
I found Sony's spiel interesting in the same way a passing tern might have viewed the wreck of the Titanic. I don't need to tell anyone that Sony's reputation has taken a huge hit lately, and outside of hardcore gamers, not many are interested in the PS3. The non-tech media has taken to reminding everyone of Sony's hacking problems when mentioning their E3 announcements, which cannot be a good thing. The Vita looks interesting but has a terrible name. Ick. Why can't hardware manufacturers (bar Apple) pin down a consistent naming scheme? Another problem I have is that Sony just started producing a portable entertainment device, the Xperia Play (another example of name ick), better known as the PSPhone. I fail to understand why Sony didn't make the phone more graphically capable and just phase out the PSP entirely. Mobile gaming belongs to cell phones and iDevices, and I'm afraid Sony's jumping onto a sinking ship. Hey, another Titanic reference!
On the games front, things look good for Sony. Gold star.
Nintendo. Hardware looks interesting and the rumored game list for the Wii U looks promising. I still think that Nintendo needs to build a more fluid online/multiplayer experience, though. Without that, it doesn't matter how good the console is because they're missing a revenue stream. The 3DS titles look really good, though. Then again, I'd be impressed with Ocarina of Time on a refrigerator touchscreen...
I'm gushing about Microsoft a little bit because it's nice to see integration. Microsoft is realizing a goal that Google, Apple, and Sony have never gotten with their consoles/set-top things, which is to create a device-dependent ecosystem with a massive subscribing base that has multiple revenue streams*. The streaming TV thing could** be a game-changer.
*and hasn't been hacked to bits.
**if American cable providers capitulate.
I found Sony's spiel interesting in the same way a passing tern might have viewed the wreck of the Titanic. I don't need to tell anyone that Sony's reputation has taken a huge hit lately, and outside of hardcore gamers, not many are interested in the PS3. The non-tech media has taken to reminding everyone of Sony's hacking problems when mentioning their E3 announcements, which cannot be a good thing. The Vita looks interesting but has a terrible name. Ick. Why can't hardware manufacturers (bar Apple) pin down a consistent naming scheme? Another problem I have is that Sony just started producing a portable entertainment device, the Xperia Play (another example of name ick), better known as the PSPhone. I fail to understand why Sony didn't make the phone more graphically capable and just phase out the PSP entirely. Mobile gaming belongs to cell phones and iDevices, and I'm afraid Sony's jumping onto a sinking ship. Hey, another Titanic reference!
On the games front, things look good for Sony. Gold star.
Nintendo. Hardware looks interesting and the rumored game list for the Wii U looks promising. I still think that Nintendo needs to build a more fluid online/multiplayer experience, though. Without that, it doesn't matter how good the console is because they're missing a revenue stream. The 3DS titles look really good, though. Then again, I'd be impressed with Ocarina of Time on a refrigerator touchscreen...