What Won't Be Coming To Video Gaming In 2010

2010 will bring us many, many things. Some good, some bad, but all of them, things. We'll be dealing with a lot of that this week, but for now, I'd rather talk about things we won't be seeing.

As we've seen this holiday season, a year can be as notable for what didn't show up as for what did. And 2010 will be no different.

Here are some things that you may hope will be coming over the next 12 months, but really, probably won't.

New Nintendo Hardware - The Wii is faltering at retail, and with each passing year looks worse and worse stacked next to a HD console. Sony and Microsoft are going to steal some of Nintendo's motion-sensing thunder in 2010. The DS is still selling well, but it's getting a little long in the tooth. All signs that new Nintendo hardware may be on the way, right?

No. Just because the Wii doesn't have quite the same buzz it did 12 months ago doesn't mean it's dead. It's still selling millions, and will probably do so for another year or two at least. And Nintendo couldn't care less how old the DS is, because all they need to do is keep re-releasing the thing with different casings and a new accessory or two and people will snap it up.

An R18+ Rating For Australia - Sure, changes to Australia's archaic video gaming classification guidelines may be on the table, but we're still a long way from reaching a decision, let alone enacting change. These are constitutional changes we're talking about after all, which at the best of times move at a snail's pace. And that's assuming South Australia's attorney-general, Michael Atkinson, has a change of heart. Which he won't.

One day, in the future, Australia will join the rest of the developed world in having an adults-only video game rating. But that day won't be in 2010.

This Won't Be The Year Of The PS3 - It's been a rallying cry since 2007 rolled around. "This will be the year of the PS3!" And what a call it is. After all, everyone loves an under-dog. But just what does that mean?

I'm 99% sure it means "this will be the year the PS3 outsells the 360".

Every year, the PS3 has got cheaper, and every year, AAA exclusive software is released for the console. Uncharted, LittleBigPlanet, Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted 2, the list goes on. Yet every year - and almost every month - it's outsold by the Xbox 360.

Things have been looking better of late, with a price cut, snappy advertising campaign and Uncharted 2 helping generate the most sustained period of positive "buzz" for the console since its launch. Yet despite all of that, in November, the year's biggest shopping month in the US, it was still outsold by the Xbox 360.

Now, this isn't to say the PlayStation 3 will forever remain lagging behind the 360. It may not! But we're not talking forever here. We're talking 2010. And if Home, Blu-Ray, a movie store, Killzone 2, an all-new piece of PS3 hardware and a hefty price-cut couldn't put the PS3 ahead of the 360 in sales in 2009, I can't see games like MAG, God of War III and GT5 (all games I think will appeal primarily to those already owning a PS3) doing the trick in 2010.

This Won't Be The Year For Motion-Sensing Gaming - The Wii ushered in the era of motion-sensing in video games, but really, it wasn't until Wii MotionPlus earlier this year that it could do so with any real accuracy. And how many games do we have that use it properly? Wii Sports Resort.

Now, however, with both Microsoft and Sony launching motion-sensing controllers in 2010, you're probably going to see news reports proclaiming this will finally be the year it stops being an idle curiosity and impetus for a Wii party, and gets real, becoming the standard across video gaming.

Uh, no. The Wii launched in 2006, and a treasured few games aside, has done little to promote the merits of motion-controlled gaming. Most games either don't use the motion controls properly, or accurately, or they don't use them at all. And the Wii launched three years ago. Natal and Sony's controller may not take quite as long to get things "right", but they won't get it right straight out of the box, either.

There will be busted games, ill-advised ports and titles which simply don't work with motion controls. It's a learning process, and learning takes time. We'll eventually see most, if not all games controlled via some kind of motion-sensing device, but that certainly won't be in 2010. Or 2011, for that matter.

The End Of The Tiger Woods Franchise - Despite early claims of support, there's no way EA Sports will continue their association with disgraced golfer Tiger Woods, especially now he's walked away from the sport for an indefinite period. It won't be the end of EA Sports' golf games, of course, just the end of ones called "Tiger Woods".

Expect something a little more mundane, yet which also emphasises EA's favour for all things officially licensed. "PGA Golf Tour", or something.

A New Zelda Game - Come on. It hasn't even been officially announced yet. No screenshots, no movies, no information, Nintendo haven't even settled on an art style for the game. Wish all you want, Zelda fanboys, and as one I'll wish right along with you, but deep down, you know there's no way in hell a new Zelda game for Wii will be out in 2010.


    What, no honorable mention of 'No you wont smeggin get your DUKE NUKEM FOREVER!!!!'

    No, the R18+ issue isn't a Constitutional issue. The founding fathers in 1901 did not put a clause into the Constitution regulating video game classification.


      But the constitution does define who gets to change these things, and that is a bunch of people including Michael Atkinson.

      Also, the Australian constitution isn't like the US one - it wasn't written by any founding fathers, it's just a document which can be changed by referendum.

      As I undersstand it, you're both a bit wrong...

      As it stands now, changes to the censorship laws require the unanimous consent of all attorneys-general - so Michael Atkinson can singlehandedly block any changes if he wants to. And he does want to.

      However, a constitutional amendment at the federal level could change the process of approval of these law changes, allowing non-unanimous consent - then Atkinson alone couldn't do anything. Of course, the process of making that happen would be so complicated and extremely time consuming that no-one's seriously talking about trying.

      So you're right, we won't see it in 2010, but it's crotchety old man OR constitutional law, not both. (Unless Gamers 4 Croydon pull off a miracle...fingers crossed!)

        Doesn't need to be a constitutional change. Sure, there are some amendments that would take away Atkinson's vote (an extreme example being doing away with the states), but there are other alternatives before constitutional change. The thing that legally requires unanimity is a federal law. That's based on an agreement between commonwealth, states and territories. The need for the agreement comes from the fact that the constitution *doesn't* define who gets to change 'these things'. It's a hodge-podge of overlapping 'referred', 'residual' and 'specific' powers. The states control what is sold within each respective state, and thus the enforcement of ratings at point of sale. The commonwealth controls international trade and communications, and thus what games are allowed in.

        To my knowledge, that agreement is non-binding, and only exists because it was the most practical way to deal with the division of powers. (An example of the non-binding nature is the fact that the discussion paper was able to be released unilaterally). The federal government could, conceivably, change the relevant act to require only majority vote. There's nothing the states could really do except complain and... not use the classification system. Or ban the sale of particular ratings - as most do with the X18+ for film. Sure, it'd be chaos, and it'd be hilarious watching people snipe about state's rights and power grabs etc.

        But it's more likely than a constitutional amendment. The 'simplest' method would be an amendment to transfer some of the states' residual powers - specifically over retail - to the commonwealth. That would be a massive shift of power and would bring even greater howls of 'power grab' because not only would it affect games, but potentially every retailer in the country.

        As for the US constitution, it is still just a document that can be changed. In fact, they've changed theirs more than we have ours. And ours was written by 'founding fathers', we just don't call them that, or tend to engage in as much hero-worship of them.

          Uh, Chris, You Might Want to check the R18+ Survey page, It specifically states "Due to the cooperative nature of the Scheme, any major changes to classification policy, such as the introduction of an R 18+ classification for computer games, must be unanimously agreed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers." And because Michael Atkinson is a Current Censorship Minister, We are royally F****d, since if he wants it stopped it is. That being said, I think that there is a petition for the constitution to be changed to allow it to be a majority vote, and If there is isn't, then I'm starting one.

            Oh, also, Chris, goo luck on your effort with G4C

          The states are more than capable of going it alone on classification and permitting the sale of unclassified material. The problems are that (1) it remains unclassified material and a large majority of people who support an R18+ classification would still want to draw the line at X rated material and beyond, which we would have no way of distinguishing, and (2) customs law is Federal and it mandates the seizure of unclassified material whether or not the states like it.

          It's a matter of practicality. A functional classification scheme needs to be national, so we consent to the national scheme because we're not effectively able to go it alone.

          A long-term solution would be for states to relinquish all powers in this regard to the Federal government via a constitutional settlement, the Federal government to then unilaterally cover the field, and for us to then express our approval or disapproval of their action on this issue in one electoral system rather than eight.

        Oh, disclosure:

        Chris Prior
        Councillor, Gamers4Croydon
        I game, I vote.

    Apart from the vicarious e-peen, I don't know why anyone gives two shits about which console sells more. As long as they sell *enough*, then developers will create games for it. Everyone wins. Nintendo more than anyone else, but still.

    zelda sucks, motion sensing gaming has sucked since eye play 3, which works better than natal, constitutional change? are you serious yank wanker? who cares about R18 rating while ps3 is region free, xbox? what? its been year of ps3 every year since 2007, underdog? are you serious? who said that, didnt the price cut come in september? and didnt it out sell everything? its the only thing worth playing apart from my dick, are you serious? like, dude. are you serious?

      tiger woods? are you serious? seriously. are you serious?

        Main Entry: se·ri·ous
        Pronunciation: \ˈsir-ē-əs\
        Function: adjective
        Etymology: Middle English seryows, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French serious, from Late Latin seriosus, alteration of Latin serius weighty, serious; probably akin to Old English swǣr heavy, sad
        Date: 15th century
        1 : thoughtful or subdued in appearance or manner : sober
        2 a : requiring much thought or work b : of or relating to a matter of importance
        3 a : not joking or trifling : being in earnest b archaic : pious c : deeply interested : devoted
        4 a : not easily answered or solved b : having important or dangerous possible consequences
        5 : excessive or impressive in quality, quantity, extent, or degree

    The point on "This Won’t Be The Year Of The PS3" is debatable. Sure, the PS3 didn't outsell the 360 in the US, but it did in every other country on the planet, and therefore overall sales worldwide has been beating the 360 quite consistently for a while now.

    It has A LOT of ground to cover to get back in the game, but you can't deny that it isn't already on it's way back up.

    This article looks more like it was written to provoke arguements then to report anyone's actual opinion.

    Its always the year of the PS3 for me, new great games and new great features.

    Ignoring it would be a big disfavor to yourself.

      I will tell u something about that & nobody ever has said it when it comes to Xbox vs. PS3.

      The point is that Xbox is "crackable" all ppl I know have their xboxes cracked they can buy copies or download via the internet with no more than 2 $ :)hence I know very few ppl have PS3's

      So, the day the PS3 (Bluray) becomes crackable, the day it outsells xbox. thats it

    Pffft, Who cares how the PS3 is going Comparatively, I have not once been in a situation where there were NO PS3 games i wanted to play. Therefore PS3 is good. End of story.

    KOTAKU! I'm shocked and appalled that you didn't mention this:

    Half Life 2 Episode 3.

    That wont be coming until 2012, when civilization collapses because some idiot mis-read a calander and made a movie about it.

    I think you're mostly right but I think Zelda has an outside chance for christmas 2010. :)

    A world where all games are motion-sensing? That would be a shit world.

    You know what else won't be coming? Friggin' Half-Life 2: episode 3. Curse you for teasing us Valve. Just like you teased Moses in the desert.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now