Home
Editor's note: I've heard a lot of debate about what the implications of Microsoft's and Sony's motion control initiatives might be. What I haven't heard is a pragmatic pull down of the present situation. Tyler's thoughtful article asks a question about motion controls that doesn't concern the future -- it's all about the here and now. And I agree with him. With Wii being the runaway success it is, why are its two combatants so deadly focused on peripherals that play "catch up"? Why not cede this generation and wait for new interface improvements until the next go around? -James
"It's not about reinventing the wheel, it's about no wheel at all," explained legendary director and producer Steven Spielberg at last year's E3. Those were the words he used to describe Project Natal. Natal, of course, is Microsoft's bid to capture a piece of the market Nintendo originally sought out (and succeeded in taking) back in 2006. And with Sony's "anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better" mentality, Microsoft isn't embarking on this endeavor alone. At the same Expo last year, Sony introduced its own motion-control interface, codenamed Gem. Is this the next step in the industry? One thing is certain: the future of gaming is in motion controls -- at least for the time being.
Nintendo's Wii has been a massive success -- no way around it. The little white engine-that-could currently adorns 50 million living rooms. Its uncanny appeal to the "casual" gamer attributes its success. But I'm not here to lecture you on things you're already aware of. The point of this article is not to question whether the near future of video games lies in motion controls -- that's already certain -- but rather, can Microsoft and Sony find a balance in this generation?
Perhaps, but certainly not all games are able to freely traverse this boundary. This is the balance I'm driving at.
Nintendo recognized this early. Instead of catering exclusively to the gamer, the company's decision makers broadened their focus by employing nearly every resource toward creating experiences that are both palpable and unprecedented. Nintendo has unlocked a whole new demographic. Now grandparents, soccer moms, and many baby boomers play video games.
And of course, this is where the issues begin. Many long-time gamers feel that the folks at Nintendo have turned their backs on them. Whether or not this is really true is a debate in and of itself. Regardless, the accusation poses a question: Is it possible to cater to both the dilettante and the lifer successfully? Can "casual" and "hardcore" gamers coexist on the same platform while maximizing that platform's successes right now?
Clearly Microsoft and Sony believe an equilibrium can be found. They have been hastily working to grab a piece of the pie. But that's strange; isn't the Wii's huge success directly related to its exclusive use of motion controls? And isn't the success of Sony and Microsoft -- in each company's respective markets -- predicated on near-photo-realistic graphics and awesome gameplay? Can one have the best of both worlds and expect to be more successful or, at least, as successful as it was before? Arguably no -- at least not in this generation. This is why I expect Natal and Gem to be flashes in the pan.
That's not to say console manufacturers can't achieve such a marriage. But Sony and Microsoft need to face the facts. They're too late to the party. In fact, the people at Nintendo have already left the party and taken all the hot chicks with them. No one's going to go out any buy an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 solely on a count of Natal or Gem because the people who care about that type of thing already own a Wii. But if these new technologies won't ship units, which is almost certainly what they're designed to do economically, then what's the point?
Realistically, Microsoft and Sony need to continue developing these new technologies until they can be implemented in a way that's both appealing to seasoned gamers and familiar to newer consumers. My greatest fear is that Natal will seem like a cheap gimmick at worst and a tech demo at best. If they implement it improperly, they risk losing credibility. Right now, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are too inscrutable for neophytes, but if they dumb their consoles down, they will lose the veterans. The latter is a hard reality to face...these two companies are fighting over the core user base -- and holding on for dear life.
As a last thought, some argue that the Wii will be in trouble when Nintendo decides to launch a new console. It stands to reason that Wii buyers aren't the type to go out and get the latest and greatest games. This is a valid point, but one that's partially incorrect. Yes, the core users of the Wii aren't going to buy the newest games, but that doesn't mean they won't want the hottest item on the market. Just like people purchase a new TV every so often, they will purchase a new system. The Wii's user base is probably more likely to accept incremental change -- or more accurately, an "upgrade." Look at how successful Apple has been with its iPhone improvements. Sure, it won't be as substantial as a new console is for the hardcore gamer, but I think Nintendo is smart enough to realize that. They are at the table, and they know how to play poker.
What will happen next generation? It's hard to say, but it will certainly be interesting -- and important. How the efforts of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony play out will define our gaming experiences for at least five years thereafter. Will any of them find a balance between the hardcore and casual gamers, or will they fall flat on their faces?
In the end, it all comes down the catalyst -- the Wii. What has it really done to gaming? The answer to this question depends on the lifecycle of this console generation, and where developers take it from here.
