Molyneux: Xbox Live 'far more impactful' than Wii waggle

by James Ransom-Wiley { Sep 6th 2007 at 11:58AM }

During an otherwise pedestrian interview, Peter Molyneux opened that big mouth again, this time putting the burden of another potential overstatement squarely on Microsoft's shoulders. The Fable man has predicted that Xbox Live "will ultimately be far more impactful on video games in the long term than something like the Wii controller."

Molyneux isn't alone, but his view goes against the current (but possibly transitory) trend, which sees Wii demand reaching nothing short of phenomenon. Though, in practice, Wii is still an inconsistent technology; whereas Xbox Live is a stable and consistently growing platform that has changed the way publishers and developers create and deliver game content, and is inspiring competitors, namely Sony, to launch their own grand social networks for the console market. Is Molyneux dead on?

[Via NeoGAF]

Tags: Molyneux, PeterMolyneux, XboxLive

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)

Grey Fox @ Sep 6th 2007 12:02PM

I agree but I don't think I could really dive into my own opinions on the matter without the Nintendo fan boys just ruining it in here.

kyle @ Sep 6th 2007 12:18PM

Yeah it's pretty flamebait.

I think the best way to say it is that microsoft set the standard for what will forever be a console feature yet nintendo created a unique and revolutionary controller. Props to both companies for putting the money into a chance but i think they are far to different to compare.

Captain Jody Anthony XVIII @ Sep 6th 2007 12:28PM

"Props to both companies for putting the money into a chance but i think they are far to different to compare."

agreed

Brad Lee @ Sep 6th 2007 1:03PM

Well I agree with Grey Fox and here's why.

As much as I love Wii, there has yet to be a game that has convinced me that this is the "next generation of gaming." There are a lot of fun titles, but nothing convinces me that Sony and MS will HAVE to include motion sensing/pointer control in their next console.

XBox Live, on the other hand, has proved that online gaming is the future. I'm sure in response to Live's success, Nintendo launched some online titles on the DS, and is attempting to expand that with Wii (failing, but attempting). Sony, too, is trying to expand their online in response to Live.

I think we'll really see the long term potential impact of Live come Halo 3. I mean, I hate to toot the hype train or anything, but the online features of Halo 3 just sound incredible, something totally beyond any waggle controls I've seen thus far.

ukickmydog @ Sep 6th 2007 1:30PM

no mention of ps3...i'll leave the rest for flamers...

LessThanMrt @ Sep 6th 2007 1:50PM

I think these are both features that will be included in future systems. Although I believe that Nintendo took a greater risk by incorporating the waggle into a console.

And I kind of think that the simple interaction with video games that is found on the Wii will have a greater impact on the industry via expansion of it's audience...I don't have many grandmothers that know how to download Pacman Tournament edition off of Live, but I sure as hell know a few that will bowl your face off on the Wii.....

waves @ Sep 6th 2007 2:51PM

He sounds like my grandfather when he discovered the internet in 2003.

"Hey, this is going to change everything."

Yeah, it already did grandpa.

Questworld @ Sep 7th 2007 12:12AM

I think they're both two different things as far as advancing videogaming goes, but both do offer something to advance or add to the way we play games.

Personally, I think “online” gaming is important and Live is basically just another brand of that. To say that "XBox Live... has proved that online gaming is the future" is too presumptuous on how much impact Live has had on online gaming in general, even from a console only point of view. It’s more advanced to be sure than most online services but more "proves online gaming is the future?" Well, I wouldn’t say it’s making more headway than the benchmark established in the PC world, but it does have improvements of its own, whether it be seen in terms of consoles or PCs.

That said, the Wiimote and its push with actual utilization of the age old technology of motion sensing (and pointer) is certainly a welcome advancement (especially considering the lack of push in areas of motion controls and touch screens in gaming). We all know that certain games like RTS and FPS on consoles could use some improvements with regards to more intuitive means on control and short of marrying PC peripherals with consoles, the Wiimote certainly provides another avenue. Does it compare with advancement in long distance social gaming, probably not, but to dismiss it would be a terrible waste.

nuckles87 @ Sep 7th 2007 12:53AM

While I'm sure this has already been brought up, Sony's also made a half arsed attempt at copying the Wii motion control in the Wii. Much like their "Xbox Live killer" of course, it was a half arsed attempt.

Keep in mind that Xbox Live has been around a lot longer then the Wiimote. The service has had a long time to grow into what it is today, where as the Wiimote is a new control concept that came right out of left field. Developers are still getting a handle on how to utilize it.

I personally have no doubt that the Wiimote will, eventually, have just as much impact, if not more so, then Xbox Live. Give it five years. Thats how much time Live came. As revolutionary as it is now, when it first came out Live was little more then a PC online service on a console.

Fernando Rocker @ Sep 6th 2007 12:02PM

Well... mark my words. The next Xbox will have motion and pointer capabilities.

mike @ Sep 6th 2007 12:11PM

lets hope not, cause then im not buying the next xbox. I even like some of the games on the wii, but I find the stupid motion controls to ruin them. I would rather push a button to preform action x then flick my wrist. Untill wii controll map 1:1 in something like a sword/golf game or something, the controles are a waste of time.

Vegnagun @ Sep 6th 2007 1:19PM

The next Xbox and Sony consoles will definitely have controllers similar to Wii. They see how well the Wii is doing and the reason is the controller.

mr nimblewick @ Sep 6th 2007 1:24PM

I don't think it'll be motion controlled in the same way the Wii is. Microsoft is more into using cameras to track movement, a la eyetoy. Expect the next xbox to use this method.

Odoyle @ Sep 6th 2007 1:27PM

The reason the Wii is doing so well is because it's Nintendo, not the controller.

The controller has yet to be used in any meaningful manner. Once developers get a better handle on how to use it, then maybe, maybe, there will be something worthwhile.

But until then you are just waving your arms around pretending like you are boxing.

mr nimblewick @ Sep 6th 2007 1:36PM

"But until then you are just waving your arms around pretending like you are boxing."

As opposed to sitting on the couch, pressing buttons, pretending you are boxing.

Odoyle @ Sep 6th 2007 1:41PM

Yes, you are. Why?

Well, when you use buttons, you have precise input. I press the buttons to throw a left hook, I throw a left hook. I press the buttons to jab, I jab.

Using the wiimote to box is a good idea, and when it works, it will be fun. But for now, what you do with the controller rarely corresponds to what you do in the game.

Vegnagun @ Sep 6th 2007 2:15PM

Yeah your totally right Odoyle, it's Nintendo not thr control.

So that explains all the casual gamers flocking to pick it up, because it's Nintendo? Do you think before you write jackass?

Vegnagun @ Sep 6th 2007 2:16PM

the*

mr nimblewick @ Sep 6th 2007 2:30PM

"But for now, what you do with the controller rarely corresponds to what you do in the game."

Sounds like you are having trouble with the controls. This is not true for everyone.

The controls are set up to discourage flailing around. The faster you move your arms, the less likely it is to pick up your swing. To be successful in Wii boxing you have to be methodical in your movement, picking your opportunities. Imagine real boxers. They do not flail around. They wait for a chance and put their energy behind it.

vidGuy @ Sep 6th 2007 4:19PM

I can't wait until the day MS has to bite the bullet and put in motion after saying people didn't want it.

Sean Benton @ Sep 6th 2007 4:38PM

mr nimblewick, you've missed the point. What I do on the controller should happen on the screen, regardless if it is the right strategy. If I flail, my character should flail.

Kye @ Sep 6th 2007 5:13PM

Motion controls should be optional.
But amen to that.

I just hope the next Nintendo system has an online service similar to LIVE...

...but free..

... and a wireless nunchuck.

mr nimblewick @ Sep 6th 2007 5:21PM

"If I flail, my character should flail."

I would like 1-to-1 motion as well. I keep wonder why no companies try, since it would be the holy grail of the wii.

But as far as Wiisports is concerned, it wasn't designed to be 1-to-1, so failing it for not doing so when it works perfectly fine the way I said it does is unfair.

Crono @ Sep 6th 2007 5:45PM

Because doing 1 to 1 positional and rotational mapping is damn near impossible when the only sensor you have is for acceleration. To get from acceleration to position, you have to integrate TWICE, introducing 2 unknowns, and thats assuming you know the starting position of the object. Plus you have to do this on 3 axis, and there is no sensor in the wiimote for rotation in the XY plane (the one thats parallel to the earth).

If wiimote had a gyroscopic motor, the problems would be less, but still near impossible without the console knowing a starting reference point and orientation.

If the wiimote was longer (by a foot or 2) and had 2 independent transmitters at either end, it could be possible to triangulate position and orientation in 3D space if the sensor bar actually sensed anything. In this case, the sensor bar would become the point of reference, and the wii would calculate distances and trajectories in 3d space based on the timing of a radio pulse sent out simultaneously by the two transmitters in the wiimote.

At least, thats how I imagined the Wii working before I actually knew anything about it. Long story short, its damn near impossible to get accurate 1 to 1 without making a ton of assumptions that may not be correct.

samfish @ Sep 6th 2007 12:03PM

I predict 171 comments.
It would be less, but the sarcastic "Wii waggle" in the headline will put it over the top.

samfish @ Sep 6th 2007 12:04PM

I predict 171 comments.
It would be less, but the sarcastic "Wii waggle" in the headline will put it over the top.

Chris @ Sep 6th 2007 12:07PM

So are most of those 171 posts going to be from you Double Posting?

zing! just kidding. I hate when people make a big deal about hitting the "Add Your Comments" button twice.

samfish @ Sep 6th 2007 12:08PM

Fine, fine. 170 comments!

hvnlysoldr @ Sep 6th 2007 2:50PM

Looks like you're going to win.

hvnlysoldr @ Sep 6th 2007 2:50PM

Coincidentally my last comment was 171

waves @ Sep 6th 2007 2:57PM

173 and rising.

It's like he just realized you can play games online.

I can't really hand this one to Live until they surpass what PC gaming has been doing for years. I understand that the Live experience is unified and polished, but until they can pull of something of WOW proportions as far as simultaneous players, (not popularity, they don't have to work miracles) I can't really say they're doing anything too cutting edge.

Kye @ Sep 6th 2007 5:17PM

Samfish put me down for a fiver on 242 comments.

hvnlysoldr @ Sep 7th 2007 8:48AM

Kye is so close yet so far away.

hvnlysoldr @ Sep 8th 2007 2:02AM

Dang. This is 241 Kye wins right?

NATO_Duke @ Sep 6th 2007 12:04PM

I think the method MS has improved online gaming does have more impact than the novelty control scheme of the Wii. Both are great features, but how can anyone (even a fanboy) think that a controller has more impact than a stable online community? I just don't see it.

Mr Khan @ Sep 6th 2007 4:10PM

Well, while they're on 2 seperate consoles, its hard to tell which one has more impact without delving into the realm of opinion

However, my guess is that social networking on consoles will have the stronger long-term impact, although the Wii remote is definitely doing more to change the industry now, in the end it will be just another control scheme (albiet a better scheme) just like the d-pad and analogue innovations ahead of it

Captain Jody Anthony XVIII @ Sep 6th 2007 12:10PM

its hard to tell. even as a nintendo fanboy i can see where he's coming from. xbox live is a big deal.

Duscrom @ Sep 6th 2007 4:40PM

It's ironic, the more you prove that Sony/Nintendo can and will replicate Live on their own consoles, the more you prove the point. Will Microsoft ever really get lauded for live, or credit for it's innovation? No.. Much like Sega's Accomplishments were ignored. (Good or Bad, but Sega STARTED the whole CD based console gameing thing).

I think the Wii will have amore blatant impact on pop culture, sure. But I set that more on the shoulders of Wii Sports, and Nintendo's marketing. But the whole... streamlined network, connected game console thing... is already made it's impact. From, the PS3's PSN, to Wii's online infrastructure... (Online gaming, news and content delivery)

HaleysComet @ Sep 6th 2007 12:12PM

Like Sumthing from Flavor of Love 2 said..."WOAH! WOAH!"

HOLD UP! This kid is absolutely wrong. As Wii and 360 owner I love both systems to death and beyond but Live while being the awesomeness that it is right now could easily be done by Nintendo or even *gulps and swallows a hard lump* sony....

It just takes setting up A LOT of servers and getting the logistics down.

However the Wiimote is truly revolutionary IMO and something like that which has changed the way I play games is definitely more impactful than just Online gaming...

NATO_Duke @ Sep 6th 2007 12:15PM

If it would be so easy, why have they not done it? Nintendo's online system is a real mess - and even a fanboy has to admit that.

I don't think revolutionary is the issue - its what has more impact. Live's impact on how console users play online is much larger I would bet. Live made what was largely a solitary method of gaming one where people could socialize like when they play on pc.

HaleysComet @ Sep 6th 2007 12:21PM

In response to your question I think Nintendo AND sony haven't done it because frankly they have more important to worry about...

sony is still trying to stay afloat.

Nintendo is having problems just making enough Wiis.

And especially for Nintendo you know how slow they are on the uptake. I'm sure some idiot there has said that Online isn't that crucial and that they should invest too much money into that aspect...dumb I know. And I think whoever said that (assuming they did) should be shot.

But the bottom line here is that Nintendo and sony will probably have something akin to Live...maybe not within the next few years but EVENTUALLY one would hope right?

All I'm saying that while Live is great (and trust me I marvel at it everytime I'm playing Gears) I still think that the Wiimote is a bigger deal just cuz in terms of history I think it will have a far more reaching effect/impact.

Shagittarius @ Sep 6th 2007 12:56PM

I'm gonna take that chick from logistics, if everything goes well I'm gonna be showing her my 'oh' face.

Odoyle @ Sep 6th 2007 1:34PM

Look at it this way.

If you had to imagine a future of console gaming, would you rather have it without motion tracking, or without online connectivity (no DC, no communication, no demos, zip)?

The argument isn't that M$ is doing something the others can't, or that they are doing it better, it's that they are doing it, and it will become a standard.

megaStryke @ Sep 6th 2007 2:19PM

Online content was already widespread well before Live ever came around. Motion controls, not so much.

Penguin Warlord @ Sep 6th 2007 7:42PM

Frankly the Wii is doing so well because casual gamers can play easily. Name one real gamer who only has a wii to play games on, they all have computers to so that they can play fps or rts.
The controller is awesome for playing brain age or Wii sports however Xbox Live is clearly the revolutionary for online content. It's not just about gameplay you can also download music and movies not to mentio there new IPTV network that's coming.

Until Nintendo can figure out how to get 1:1 controls I'll stick with my controller. Because a boxing game should not punish you for punching too fast. I want a real simulator because even if I am patient and pick my moment I tend to punch to fast and it doesn't make an impact. I'm not flailing. A huge part of boxing is speed which is apprently lost in Wii sports.

samfish @ Sep 6th 2007 10:20PM

"Name one real gamer who only has a wii to play games on, they all have computers to so that they can play fps or rts. "

We do?

Huh. I'll be sure to tell myself that.

Hey samfish!

Yeah?

Did you know you have a computer to play FPS and RTS games on?

I do?

Yeah!

But I don't like those kind of games, samfish! I didn't even like Bioshock all that much!

Well that's what it's for, samfish!

Oh.
...and all this time, I've been using it for porn! Thanks for telling me that, samfish!

Oh, don't thank me, samfish. Thank Penguin Warlord!

Thanks, Penguin Warlord!

samfish @ Sep 6th 2007 12:12PM

This is really a stupid discussion.

Live will have a more stable long term impact, as online will now be standard across every console in the future.

The Wiimote will have a much more dramatic impact in the shorter term, possibly in the long term, as using pointers and motion controls will also become standard.
But those standards are more likely to undergo more radical changes than the way a company operates it's online community services.

Really, it's comparing apples and oranges and whoever asked Molyneux that question is a dumbass for even making the comparison.