Day 22: Nextnext Gen in 18 months?

What the shit?

This is totally and completely accurate.  No lie.

I know it's been a couple of years since the 360 and PS3 came out and they've been excellent thus far, but why the fuck do we need to see the next next generation Sony console in under a year and half?  Of course this is just a rumor, and the information isn't substantiated in any way, but this is how Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo tend to work with releasing new consoles or developing something super exciting.  Soon we'll be "leaked" information about Project Moonbound and we'll see infamous pictures of things like the controller on the right that have little or no resemblance to what they'll eventually become.  Or if they do resemble in image, they'll be piles of glamorized, over-hyped shit like the Virtual Boy.

So clearly this "announcement" is linked to the development and release of the Wii U.  I'm sure that on a corporate level, Sony and Microsoft are both petrified that the Wii U is going to blow them out of the water in terms of sales when it first hits the market, but I don't think that they're seeing clearly long term.  If they are going to grunt out whatever pieces of shit they can in 18 months, or even two years for that matter, it's going to be a waste of good toilet water.  The 360 and PS3 have consistently outsold the Wii except for maybe in the early stages of Nintendo's baby when it was an extreme novelty.  After that, third party support dropped due in part to the companies love of using it's mascots as well as the newer, yet awkward technology used in the WiiMote.  My analysis brings me to one conclusion then, start development of a new console, but take the longer, more considered approach rather than shitting something out in 18 months or so.  The Wii U will outsell the next next generation consoles until it's novelty wears off and people realize that it's just a redesigned Wii with little or nothing new to offer. 

The clown child is sad for the Wii U.

To that end, Sony and Microsoft can wait a bit.  Not all three consoles need to be released at the same time.  In fact, it might just be better for all involved if each has it's own launch window.  Let's think this through, why release your console on the same day as its competitor?  Say that there are 100 people who want to buy a new console gaming system but there are two being released on the same day.  On that day potentially 50 would buy one and 50 would buy the other for a variety of reasons including game library, appearance, cost, etc.  I made those factors all even because let's face it, how different are the PS3 and 360 really?  Besides, it's not like much goes into the thought of buying a new console for most people, it's usually just personal preference or purchase history.

None of this please.  This is all bad.

The bottom line here is that Sony and Microsoft shouldn't jump the gun with their next consoles.  I think that they can take a measured approach and wait more time before releasing their next big console without pressuring their sales versus the Wii U and it's launch.  My own psyche just doesn't want to see another decent console that completely bites the dust like the Dreamcast.  I do like to think that as a community, gamers have evolved beyond the necessity of novelty, but I doubt that will ever actually be true.  The Wii U will most likely satisfy that annual need and it will suck more sales than it probably should from consoles that have a more thoughtful design, but once that time passes things will be right in my tiny little gaming mind and a new console will be all that I need to console any lingering fears about another Virtual Boy.  It literally haunts my dreams; the goggles burn red in the darkness, staring, watching, waiting.

Day 11: Mobile Gaming

Simple, yet addictive.

Nintendo's success in the mobile market began with the Game and Watch games, like the one above.  These games are 100% classic, but as game graphics improved on consoles, so too did they improve for gaming on the go.  Never did we think that we could play console quality games while flying, but we've hit that point and much, much more.  With a goal in mind of dominating the mobile gaming market, as neither Sega nor Atari had a piece of the pie at the time, Nintendo continued to develop and experiment until they hit it big with the Game Boy.

Good 'ol Mean Green.

Of course this beast was the next logical step up from the Game and Watch series.  It's not exactly a giant leap for the graphics, but the ability to use interchangeable games was a huge improvement.  When I got my first Game Boy one of my thoughts was, "What the hell just threw up in my game?"  The games are clear enough, but whose idea was it to have the games be in black and greenish-yellow?  I mean, just take a look at the Atari Lynx the visuals alone make the Game Boy look like shit.  Not that the Lynx is perfect either.  The piece of crap drained batteries like nothing else and you need to angle the screen perfectly to see without any type of glare or blurriness.  Some of the same issues plagued the Game Gear and both machines would see a similar failing against the Game Boy's battery life and third party support as many peripherals would make up for it's lack of a backlit screen and other shortcomings.  Nintendo's success should also be partially attributed to their prior mobile device experience from Game and Watch games.

Nintendo keeps the config simple.

After the release of the SNES, Nintendo came out with a unique concept: Super Game Boy.  Essentially the idea was to play your old Game Boy games on a giant TV screen using the Super Nintendo and a special cartridge that you plugged smaller cartridges into.  At the same time, Sega came out with an actual mobile gaming unit known as the Nomad.  The Sega Nomad was essentially your Genesis on the go.  So while Sega tried to redefine the mobile market with a handheld system that played console games, Nintendo seemed to be going in the opposite direction.  That is, of course, until the company once again released a Game Boy.  This time it was in color.  The Game Boy Color had it's own library of games, along with being backwards compatible with your old green and black games.  Even with the Nomad's powerful capabilities, Sega lost out again when the newest Nintendo mobile hit the scene.

Steaming pile.

During this period, all of the remaining gaming companies, Nintendo, Sony, and Sega, were all gearing up for the next generation systems to hit the scene.  To fill the time, Nintendo attempted to release a system that would take advantage of the newer technologies that they were going to implement on their later Nintendo 64 system.  A pseudo-3d effect was added to a pair of goggles thrown together with a batch of shitty games and you got the piece of shit Virtual Boy.  I'm not even going to add a link here it's so bad.  I just want to forget about it.  When I was a kid, this thing looked like the shit, but it turned out to be just shit.  Ugh, let's just skip a few years.


The next gen consoles were released and so was Nintendo's next accomplishment in the handheld world.  The Game Boy Advance took the Game Boy Color and kicked it up a few notches, as it were.  The games got better, the graphics were sharper, and the system was still backwards compatible.  Several adaptations of the Advance would come out, most notably the fold-able SP.  Nintendo was still dominating the handheld market, especially since Sega's bust with their Dreamcast gamble.  Not until the DS and it's successors were released did Sony finally enter the market with the PSP and give Nintendo some competition.  That struggle for market share continues today with no other game companies wanting to step into the ring with the heavyweight champion and the up and comer.

Ugh, just... What the hell?

Now I'm sure you're wondering, "What the hell?  This isn't funny and everything's out of chronological order dumbass."  While that may be true, it all brings me to the shorter topic of the tablet or phone gaming craze.  Yes, the iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, and other mobile devices that aren't handheld systems may be cool and come with a seemingly limitless supply of "really awesome games," they suck ass as gaming platforms and do not make someone a gamer if used prolifically.  That's right, no matter how many shitty clones of Tetris you have, you still do not equal someone who experienced the original on that black and green screen while using an attached light to see in the dark at 4 AM.  I do have to admit some of the ports, Sim City in particular, do well on the iPad and iPhone, but they are side dishes to my actual gaming activities and systems, not the main course.  You can't have a three course meal with only soup and salad, you'd be perpetually stuck on the first course. 

The reason for all of this?  While driving the other day I passed a car full of teenage/early college-aged kids that had an Angry Birds pillow sitting in the back window for everyone to see.  It's as if the kid that owned the car was explaining that he's the shit because he's a hardcore Angry Birds fan.  The game can be addicting and certainly fun to waste time with, but memorabilia and attitudes like that demean what it means to be a real "gamer."  A gamer dedicates time and effort to a game, not for the satisfaction of being a dick or showing off, but for the rich experience that a good game can bring, the completion of a story, the rewarding ending you worked for, or the defeat of that impossible endgame boss.  Real gamers don't waste their time.