Ex-Sony Dev: Wii U Won't Last Another Christmas

[Hunter Grant]

Its a bummer, but he's probably right. I have the system and enjoy it a lot. I use the Gamepad to get more play time than I used to so I get to play more games like Batman and Deus Ex which are big long games that would take me forever to finish on a system exclusive to the TV. Also I do really like first party Nintendo stuff. I guess it could be said its just another Mario game, but quality is quality. Mario will always be a platform game and so the design of the levels is what matters and its brilliant. Thing is its not just that Mario game and WWHD that people could take a look at.

ZombiU is actually great if you like survival horror
Pikmin 3 is great and given that, that series never really reached a big audience it can't be at saturation like Mario seems to be. (although the fact that it hasn't could dispel the myth that Nintendo introducing new IP would be the secret to new success)
Wonderful 101 was a fun filled romp for me
Rayman Legends asymmetrical multiplayer is superior in my opinion
Nintendo Land and Wii U party are great party games (though the visitors of most game sites I find tend to look down their nose at party games)
Monster Hunter 3 U is great co-op multiplayer fun
Lego City is good.

But I guess I'm the exception I still enjoy that same Mario experience more than something like CoD, or Knack. I still get people together to play party games, and I like quirky genre bending stuff like Wonderful 101 and Pikmin. Maybe games are my no country for old men moment. Drag.

If they do drop it early, and I can understand why. I personally feel a system identical to the other two would be a huge flop. It would be met with, why get that when its the same type shrugs.

I think they should make the follow up to the 3DS leverage the Wii U local streaming tech, but in reverse. Make a portable that can stream out to the TV when its available, and when it's doing that it can sych up Wii Remotes or pro controllers for couch multiplayer games. One piece of hardware, console and portable. This would also allow them to have all their first party dev on one platform. The 3DS already had a great year imagine if its year was:

Fire Emblem
Luigi's Mansion
Lego City
Game and Wario
Mario and Luigi Dream Team
Animal Crossing
Wonderful 101
Wind Waker Remake
A Link Between Worlds
Mario 3D World
Pokemon
Wii Party U
Steam World Dig
Pikmin 3

Plus a smattering of quirky 3rd party stuff like the Atlus RPGs, Virtual Console, Some ports like Deus EX directors cut.

That would be hard to compete with. Still bummed and like I say maybe if they make the follow up to the 3DS like I said above they could port over the good Wii U games for launch and have its super strong. Then take the Wii U games currently in dev and roll them out across its first year to keep momentum.

 

[tehroc]

Nintendo should just give up and go the Sega route. No more consoles just games. Imagine how much money Nintendo would make if Zelda was released on all systems.

 

[Hunter Grant]

Nintendo should just give up and go the Sega route. No more consoles just games. Imagine how much money Nintendo would make if Zelda was released on all systems.

Yeah it probably would work out for them at least at first. I wonder though if not having control over something like the interface could hurt I can't go back to playing Pikmin without a Wii Remote. Ultimately though I think if that happened other pubs would shit their pants because they couldn't avoid competing with Nintendo games by staying off the system.

 

[xaszatm]

Nintendo should just give up and go the Sega route. No more consoles just games. Imagine how much money Nintendo would make if Zelda was released on all systems.

And to answer this armchair businessman's decision for the hundredth time: THAT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE IDEA! Seriously, who thinks that this would be a good idea? It always pops up like every Nintendo thread.

1. You want to know why Nintendo games are usually such high quality? Because the consoles the make are designed around the games. Taking away the system and moving onto the PS4/X1 would make Nintendo lose that advantage.

2. Everyone always says "Nintendo should not have exclusives and share them..." well, I hope you can say that about Halo and Uncharted and any other exclusive game. And if that's the case, why have more than one console to begin with?

3. Nintendo would now have to compete with other third party companies for attention. This is bad for both Nintendo AND third party companies. Not to mention what such a saturation of games would do for a console.

4. It would result in Nintendo losing MORE money in the long term, because their only sales would be from their games. Add to the fact that their would be additional fees for making the game on another console and I simply don't see how they are going to make any money.

I'm sick of this idea popping up AND I'm sick of people who treat this like a brilliant idea. It's poor business all around.

 

[Colt47]

Nintendo should just give up and go the Sega route. No more consoles just games. Imagine how much money Nintendo would make if Zelda was released on all systems.

And to answer this armchair businessman's decision for the hundredth time: THAT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE IDEA! Seriously, who thinks that this would be a good idea? It always pops up like every Nintendo thread.

1. You want to know why Nintendo games are usually such high quality? Because the consoles the make are designed around the games. Taking away the system and moving onto the PS4/X1 would make Nintendo lose that advantage.

2. Everyone always says "Nintendo should not have exclusives and share them..." well, I hope you can say that about Halo and Uncharted and any other exclusive game. And if that's the case, why have more than one console to begin with?

3. Nintendo would now have to compete with other third party companies for attention. This is bad for both Nintendo AND third party companies. Not to mention what such a saturation of games would do for a console.

4. It would result in Nintendo losing MORE money in the long term, because their only sales would be from their games. Add to the fact that their would be additional fees for making the game on another console and I simply don't see how they are going to make any money.

I'm sick of this idea popping up AND I'm sick of people who treat this like a brilliant idea. It's poor business all around.

Yeah I tend to agree with you on this. Sega's "route" hasn't exactly led them to having stellar releases. If anything I'd imagine releasing on all consoles would reduce Link, Mario, Samus, and other iconics to the same dreary level Sonic is now at. Those characters are part of the identity of Nintendo and by extension their consoles. Ironically, they also owe part of their own identity to the Nintendo consoles as well.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Nintendo should just give up and go the Sega route. No more consoles just games. Imagine how much money Nintendo would make if Zelda was released on all systems.

Right, because Sega is now the richest company in the universe, with the most Creative and Original IP's out of all companies, and they never had any problems going from 1 Console to 3 or 4 of them at one ti- Oh wait...

Seriously, this idea is terrible if you actually care about Nintendo (And if you Don't, it's the best idea). This kind of thinking that "Nintendo should make games for every console" will Hurt Nintendo, kill off several franchises (Do you like Fire Emblem? Pikmin? Metroid? Star Fox? F-Zero? Yoshi? Even Donkey Kong? Well, say good bye to those then), make them milk their bigger names even more (People are already complaining about how much Mario there is, so imagine a 3rd Party Nintendo that's nothing but Mario!), and make their games terrifically terrible (Does Sonic Heroes to Sonic Generations Ring any bells to anyone?) due to pressure from the outside and inside.

I will admit, the WiiU is selling terribly, and in the UK it doesn't exist. But for them to simply leave the console market because of one failure is ridiculous! Should Sony have left the market when the PS3 had a terrible first year? How about Microsoft when the original XBox sold just as bad as the Gamecube (Only 24 Million XBox's were sold)? I have faith in Nintendo to turn the WiiU around, and even if it doesn't come in first or second place (Definitely will come in 3rd at worst) in terms of sales, it will still be an excellent console. And anyone who thinks Nintendo would do better as a 3rd party needs to think before they say so, because it certainly hasn't done Sega any favors.

 

[xaszatm]

Nintendo should just give up and go the Sega route. No more consoles just games. Imagine how much money Nintendo would make if Zelda was released on all systems.

And to answer this armchair businessman's decision for the hundredth time: THAT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE IDEA! Seriously, who thinks that this would be a good idea? It always pops up like every Nintendo thread.

1. You want to know why Nintendo games are usually such high quality? Because the consoles the make are designed around the games. Taking away the system and moving onto the PS4/X1 would make Nintendo lose that advantage.

2. Everyone always says "Nintendo should not have exclusives and share them..." well, I hope you can say that about Halo and Uncharted and any other exclusive game. And if that's the case, why have more than one console to begin with?

3. Nintendo would now have to compete with other third party companies for attention. This is bad for both Nintendo AND third party companies. Not to mention what such a saturation of games would do for a console.

4. It would result in Nintendo losing MORE money in the long term, because their only sales would be from their games. Add to the fact that their would be additional fees for making the game on another console and I simply don't see how they are going to make any money.

I'm sick of this idea popping up AND I'm sick of people who treat this like a brilliant idea. It's poor business all around.

Yeah I tend to agree with you on this. Sega's "route" hasn't exactly led them to having stellar releases. If anything I'd imagine releasing on all consoles would reduce Link, Mario, Samus, and other iconics to the same dreary level Sonic is now at. Those characters are part of the identity of Nintendo and by extension their consoles. Ironically, they also owe part of their own identity to the Nintendo consoles as well.

Heck, forget mediocre Nintendo games, many Nintendo franchises would vanish altogether. People complain about Mario and Zelda, but how many Nintendo franchises survive on those games? Would the Wonderful 101, Fire Emblem, Advanced Wars, Metroid (let's face it, that series is not a seller), Star Fox, or the many, many smaller titles even take off the ground without support from bigger shoulders? Hell, Sega shows us what happens: What happened to Space Channel 5? Nights into Dreams? Shenmue? Such a decision would be disastrous.

 

[MetalDooley]

His rant was focused on Nintendo's decision to release Super Mario 3D World at the same time as the PS4's UK release, claiming that "nobody gives a s***" about Mario

Actually Kenny combined sales of around 220 million games featuring Mario on Wii,Wii U,3DS and DS would suggest that yes there is quite a lot of people that "give a shit" about Mario

Nintendo should just give up and go the Sega route. No more consoles just games. Imagine how much money Nintendo would make if Zelda was released on all systems.

Yeah that worked out well for Sega didn't it.They're rolling in cash since going software only

 

[Winterfel]

Well if it turns out to be another Gamecube I won't be fussed about it, I mean the games already announced for it is more than enough for me to complement my PC. I don't really care if it drops off, the Gamecube also dropped off and it's still to this day my absolute favorite console.

 

[LeenaV]

The problem is, you guys are all looking at it from the gamer's standpoint. While most of this will be conjecture, I think you'll find that it's plausible and becoming increasingly likely.

What Nintendo is doing makes sense from a business standpoint, and this is why:

1. Sony and Microsoft are discovering that there is something of a soft cap to the amount of available market at present, and thus a cap to the amount of money there is to be gotten. It's not like there are huge swaths of people who don't know what video gaming is and are inclined to buy a new system to find out; Video Gaming is ubiquitous enough that the market is pretty well mined, the amount of gamers out there now are pretty much all their is to get.
2. Sony and Microsoft are huge corporations, each of which has their console division as a smaller part of a large multi-faceted whole.
3. The game divisions of both companies do not have free reign and autonomy; each of them must justify their existence with ROI (Return On Investment) from the top tiers of management, or else they are history.
4. Nintendo, on the other hand, is a comparatively small company, successful, but simply not in the same league. They don't have sales of TV's and operating systems to boost their bottom line; gaming is pretty much their bread and butter, and they live on a simple diet.

What all of this adds up to, is that there are three fish in the fish tank, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft have gotten larger shares of the food than Nintendo, so they've grown bigger, but are getting hungry because there's not enough food available for all of them to continue to grow and thrive, and what's worse is that they've grown so big that they can hardly turn around inside the fish tank.

Neither of the two big fish are capable of eating the other, and the smaller fish is simply too nimble to be caught, staying small and living off of the scraps the other two can't or won't eat. Eventually, the two big fish will starve, and the smaller fish will have the tank and the food all to itself.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the constant disappointment of AAA game sales, despite doing better than most any others; it's not enough to make a profit, they have to make a big enough profit to justify their budget and the risk involved. Tomb Raider only selling what was it, two million copies(?), which most smaller game companies consider a great success is an example. Also look at the constant drive to squeeze more and more money from each sale with DLC, fee-to-pay games, and constant sequels rehashing the same old game with the bare minimum added to each. Or heck, look at the desperate attempt to make the XBONE and PS4 all-in-one living room machines in order to pry open new markets for those not interested in video games.

What I believe has happened is that after the last generation, the heads at each of the two biggest companies have laid down the writing on the wall: they will not have another generation of constant losses on consoles, constant hardware failures driving up service and replacement costs, and failed graspings of gimmicks like motion control or "whole-body gaming" that Nintendo has already milked dry. Either the gaming divisions pull their own weight and justify their existences, or their existences will be cut back and/or terminated. Therefore the Big Two are doing everything, anything to pull in more cash, no matter how short-sighted it may be: if they don't, it won't matter when they're shut down tomorrow.

Nintendo, on the other hand, is quietly conserving cash, doing the bare minimum, and saving it's strength for the approaching time it thinks it sees when the two bigger fish in the tank starve to death. It even strives to keep a separate market, shunning competition and the big kinds of titles that the Big Two are fighting for, and letting it's first-party sales and 3DS sales carry it through. It knows it's pointless and self-defeating to try to fight the Big Two, so it's not even going to try. Oddly enough, it may just work.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

That'd be a shame. The WiiU is the only console right now that I'm even remotely interested in. I'd buy one if I could afford it. The other 2 can burn for all I care, in fact I'd prefer if they did.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

As Pachter said once,the guys in Nintendo are either delusional or lying. Perhaps the first.
Nintendo is quite incompetent,and they don't even seem to care.

#1 First of all the last new franchise they made that targets the 'core' gamer and not casuals who play things like Wii Fit or Music or whatever and had a full retail release,is Pikmin from over 10 years ago. For 10 whole years Nintendo didn't made any new series.

#2 Regarding hardware,they have already said that they don't want to compete with the other guys,so this is just a shot io the foot by their own self. They just boldly say to themselves and everyone else they can't do it.Yet they still trying to since they keep making consoles,but they say to everyone they are not doing it.I have trouble realising the logic behind this.

#3 Their software became stale and lost part of its charm. The hot thing about Mario was that he was like the "Mercedes S Class" of gaming. If there was some new technology coming up Mario would be the first game to have it. Super Mario Bros was the first game with a higher pixel count than Atari,and also the first game ever where the player's character could actually jump. Super Mario World was the first 16bit game using so many thousands of colors for the first time. Mario 64 was the first ever 3d platformer.Mario Galaxy was the first ever Motion Controls game. But what is New Super Mario U or Super Mario 3d World has that its new ? Because it surely isn't the second screen. Nintendo DS is being doing that for 10 years.
This time around Mario has absolutely nothing new. And that makes the new game to be more "samey" than any other Mario ever. Of course not all games have to innovate,but Nintendo already made a back step with story writing,they did it with graphics,they did it with online... The game has to be up to standards to at least a single aspect of it for it to sell.
If you make a game and its graphics are not up to standards,its story is not up to standards,its music is not up to standards,its gameplay is not changed,it just becomes so much like another game that came before that people who bought the game before won't buy the new one.

#4 Have anyone noticed that if you search "Mario Games" on Google you will find thousands of Mario games that are not made by Nintendo but you can play them for free ? That's not piracy I'm talking about here,neither emulation. I'm not talking about people making console games to run on PC,but people developing up their own selves Mario games and releasing them for free to the public. Nintendo is the only console publisher that allows that. In fact they don't officially allow that,they just don't care enough to do anything. They care so little about their franchises that you can make a Mario game yourself and host it on your advertisment filled website and make money out of it,without ever contacting Nintendo or have them tell you something.

#5 At the same time they are officially quite unfriendly to 3rd party developers and indies. The things they require from a developer to allow them to release a game for their console are responsible to a great part for the bad support of 3rd parties for WiiU,but Nintendo DOESN'T CARE.
For a developer to release a WiiU game he has to

a) Pay 10.000$ to Nintendo for the development kit and Developer License.
b) Already be in the business for at least a year,and have that last year at least 50.000$ per month profits.
c) Have the studio geared up with closed circuit cameras,keycards,and bulletproof windows because Nintendo is afraid someone will break into the studio and steal the development kit to find out its top secret hardware.
d) Have a publisher as a different legal entity.
e) Even after all of the above are done,there is still no gurranty that your game will be released on the system because it might not pass Nintendo's qualifications,and at least until now they don't have on their developer website a set of guidelines / rules of what element could make them cut a game.

For comparison reasons,I post the requirements Steam (PC) has for allowing a developer to release the game on that platform.

a) The game should not be porn.
b) The game should be a stable,playable product.
c) You pay once a 100$ fee.
d) The allowance of your game getting released on Steam is based on the community. Each Steam user can vote if he wants a game to be released on the platform or not,so its a democratic process that puts the probability of a game seeing the light of day to gamers.

Nintendo are still too many years back in their 3rd party support once again. They have missed the indie booming,and they still live in a world were consoles were made by completely custom hardware,and nobody with a screwdriver who knows how electronic products would just open the box to post pictures on the internet. DSL connections have become affordable for so many years,and in the developed world at least each family has a machine connected to the internet. It's not the 80s any more were only a few mega-corporations had internet. The requirement for a different publishing entity and not allowing people sell games they make on their own apartments,is not allowing indie devs to join the platform. Nintendo openly says to these guys "I DONT WANT YOU" with their 3rd party policy.







So to sum it up,WiiU's bad sales aren't because of bad luck. Neither there are "dark forces" fighting Nintendo. Nintendo is doing their own selves harm,by not caring and not conforming up to modern standards. Not only hardware standards,but also policy standards,market standards,price standards,whatever. They are stuck in doing things the way they were done 20 years ago,but the world has moved,and they haven't progressed,in fact they have gone backwards. Nintendo CAN become succesful,and it CAN become competitive,and it also CAN change the tide. They are the richest video game publisher company for God's shake,they have billions and they could bail out a small country.Its all a matter of decisions. They are overpricing their software so much that they think it will sell even if its a game with 360.000$ budget,made in 6 months by a team of 30 guys while at the same time there are games like GTA5 and The Last of Us which cost about 100.000.000$ to be made. Since they are so STINGY,being the RICHEST of them all and at the same time producing the CHEAPEST to make games that are called by journalist "AAA" titles,the only one to blame is Nintendo itself.
I've played games made by teams sized of about 16 people who worked on them on their free time WITHOUT ANY BUDGET AT ALL having higher quality graphics,sound,whatever,than the games Nintendo makes. How comes the biggest and richest publisher of them all comes up with products that are surpassed by even games made by bunches of highschool friends with zero budgets ?

In fact it's a miracle even survives all these years following this way of doing things. I'm amazed what happens with the WiiU didn't happened earlier.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

It's how funny how a guy who's studio was axed before their game, Little Deviants, even released anywhere. I'm sure he knows about relevancy, right? Especially when the company he's knocking turned profit this year, right? Right?

The Wii U is going to get more and more games and an install base that's slowly growing at too rapid a pace to kill a company (albeit slow by comparison to the other consoles this gen, but that's why Nintendo's gone cheap for the last two iterations), get a Zelda or Metroid (or maybe even X) and then double the install base while selling through their own stock and increasing user activity dramatically.

Nifty little console, at the very least.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

#1 First of all the last new franchise they made that targets the 'core' gamer and not casuals who play things like Wii Fit or Music or whatever and had a full retail release,is Pikmin from over 10 years ago. For 10 whole years Nintendo didn't made any new series.

Xenoblade, Last Story, Pandora's Tower, Disaster Day of Crisis, and Wonderful 101 are all more recent Nintendo IP's aimed at the core gamer. Good fact checking though. You must be an aspiring journalist.

a) Pay 10.000$ to Nintendo for the development kit and Developer License.
b) Already be in the business for at least a year,and have that last year at least 50.000$ per month profits.
c) Have the studio geared up with closed circuit cameras,keycards,and bulletproof windows because Nintendo is afraid someone will break into the studio and steal the development kit to find out its top secret hardware.
d) Have a publisher as a different legal entity.
e) Even after all of the above are done,there is still no gurranty that your game will be released on the system because it might not pass Nintendo's qualifications,and at least until now they don't have on their developer website a set of guidelines / rules of what element could make them cut a game.

For comparison reasons,I post the requirements Steam (PC) has for allowing a developer to release the game on that platform.

a) The game should not be porn.
b) The game should be a stable,playable product.
c) You pay once a 100$ fee.
d) The allowance of your game getting released on Steam is based on the community. Each Steam user can vore if he wants a game to be released on the platform or not,so its a democratic process that puts the probability of a game seeing the light of day to gamers.

Boy, it's such a bad thing that Nintendo ensures brand quality so no one accidentally buys things like Bad Rats or Farming Simulator. It's also a shame they give dev kits to talented, less than endowed, indie devs like the entirety of the things they showed off at IndieCade.

 

[Kinitawowi]

The Wii U had a year's head start over the other this-gen consoles; the problem is that they completely squandered it. They didn't market the device, they didn't make sure it had a solid and worthwhile library, they barely supported it for the next year, and now the new Microsoft and Sony devices are out and Nintendo are forgotten.

If you've got a head start like that, you've got to keep your console in the public eye to make sure it can still compete a year later. Now all the news is about the XBO and the PS4, and all Nintendo have to offer the news cycle is yet another Mario game. If they'd held their horses and released the Wii U somewhere around now, alongside the rest of the consoles and with a new Mario to back it up, it'd be going great guns; but they had to rush it out early because the Wii fell off a cliff after the gimmicks wore off.

All Nintendo are left with is a console that's essentially yesterday's news.

 

[LeenaV]

A friend of mine manages a Friendly Local Gaming Store that is gradually expanding out into new things, but there is a Wal-Mart in town, so there are a few truths that need to be recognized:

The FLGS can co-exist with Wal-Mart, but it cannot compete. If it tries to actually take sales away from Wal-Mart, it will get crushed.

The FLGS can carry a few things that Wal-Mart does, but not many, because it simply cannot compete on price. The fact that gamers can play Magic The Gathering at the store and not Wal-Mart is pretty much the only reason the FLGS carries Magic at all. If Wal-Mart cared enough to have tournaments, FLGS would get crushed.

The FLGS's current and future offerings is highly dependent on what the giants around it do. If Wal-Mart decides to carry one of the new Board Games to compete with the FLGS, Wal-Mart will do so at cost, completely squeezing the other out. This has happened in the past, and with a Meijer coming into town it goes doubly so.

The FLGS is in a prime position to capitalize on things that Wal-Mart cannot get. For instance, FLGS carries The Walking Dead comics and graphic novels, Wal-Mart (at least locally) does not. The FLGS does big business with that.

----

What all of this means is that in some cases, a smaller company simply cannot compete with the big boys - it will get crushed if it does, so it focuses on smaller areas and things the others are not doing. This seems to fit Nintendo's strategy, because it is doing everything it can to not compete with Sony and Microsoft.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Okay, before I even get into his comment I have this to say: who? Seriously, what is with all these washed-up, burnout Western devs bashing Nintendo constantly? I can somewhat understand people WANTING to listen to guys like Rubin and Jaffe (though again, they're both over-the-hill) but this guy doesn't even have a proper rep to fall back on. All in all, it just sounds like the bitter rantings of some idiot who's getting a few jabs in at Nintendo before the inevitable reminder of them being downright immortal pops up and he's forced to sulk in a corner for the rest of the generation. The Wii U will be fine. Despite a lot of bitter assholes saying otherwise, Nintendo will continue to make the system and make games for it. It's about time people get over their Nintendo cooties because this has long since gone right into pathological behavior

"Nobody gives a s***" about Mario", eh... that sounds very professional mate.

Yeah, can't exactly respect a guy who sounds like a dumb high school kid trying to sound cool.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Xenoblade, Last Story, Pandora's Tower, Disaster Day of Crisis, and Wonderful 101 are all more recent Nintendo IP's aimed at the core gamer. Good fact checking though. You must be an aspiring journalist.

Read the post I wrote carefully before trying to act like the smart guy.
I wrote about games that were sold on RETAIL,had a WORLDWIDE RELEASE,and were made by Nintendo THEMSELVES.
Xenoblade = made by Monolith Software
Last Story = made by AQ Interactive
Disaster Day of Crisis: another game by Monolith Soft
Wonderful 101 = made by Platinum Games.

NONE of the games you wrote where developed by Nintendo,which makes it really hard to decide if you are trolling or are serious. Nintendo themselves haven't developed a 'core' game belonging to a new franchise since the first Pikmin that came on Gamecube.

Boy, it's such a bad thing that Nintendo ensures brand quality so no one accidentally buys things like Bad Rats or Farming Simulator. It's also a shame they give dev kits to talented, less than endowed, indie devs like the entirety of the things they showed off at IndieCade.

OK then since only NINTENDO makes good games and everyone else's games are so bad they don't even deserve to be published,leave Nintendo consoles only have games made by Nintendo themselves.
Or is it even that too much for those poor quality games like GTA5 and Halo that cost like 100 million dollars to be made ? Yeah,these games have very bad quality,absolutely.
And that inde game Minecraft that was made by one man who developed it in his house ? It's very bad too,it doesn't matter that it outsold Mario,it shouldn't have the privelege to join a Nintendo platform.
All other companies should be closed with force by the world's governments because the games they make are so bad they don't deserve to exist. You are absolutely right.

On a serious note,the quality of most Ninendo games for the WiiU is not up to the standards of indie development teams like Croteam, Lukewarm Media,etc.

 

[medv4380]

We shall see. The 3DS doom and gloom was about as high a year ago, and now the 3DS is as beyond what anyone could have expected. I couldn't tell you what single game pulled the 3DS out because it looks like a ramp up of successive hits throughout 2013 is what pulled it out.

Nintendo has been though these things before. The N64 had very poor 3rd party support, and sold poorly overall. That didn't stop them from making the GC. The lack of total victory with the GC didn't stop them from making the Wii ether.

I don't think the next console will be exactly what we're expecting, but I do think it's about time that the Handheld and Console merged. The tech is no longer racing away shown by the piddly jump from PS3 to PS4. Since Nintendo has been keeping their tech small they should just merge them.

 

[Darmani]

Nintendo should just give up and go the Sega route. No more consoles just games. Imagine how much money Nintendo would make if Zelda was released on all systems.

And to answer this armchair businessman's decision for the hundredth time: THAT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE IDEA! Seriously, who thinks that this would be a good idea? It always pops up like every Nintendo thread.

1. You want to know why Nintendo games are usually such high quality? Because the consoles the make are designed around the games. Taking away the system and moving onto the PS4/X1 would make Nintendo lose that advantage.

2. Everyone always says "Nintendo should not have exclusives and share them..." well, I hope you can say that about Halo and Uncharted and any other exclusive game. And if that's the case, why have more than one console to begin with?

3. Nintendo would now have to compete with other third party companies for attention. This is bad for both Nintendo AND third party companies. Not to mention what such a saturation of games would do for a console.

4. It would result in Nintendo losing MORE money in the long term, because their only sales would be from their games. Add to the fact that their would be additional fees for making the game on another console and I simply don't see how they are going to make any money.

I'm sick of this idea popping up AND I'm sick of people who treat this like a brilliant idea. It's poor business all around.

Its good for the consumer to have access to Nintendo games and franchises without paying for a Nintendo console (or just pirating/emulating it) They also view them as "dragging" the industry (too kiddie, bringing in your mom, creating the casual minigame craze). also its not like people haven't left old school nintendo restrictions to blossom greater.