Jimquisition: Why the Wii U May Have Already "Won" Next-gen

[GrimHeaper]

snip

Tablets, like any PC, aren't gaming specific devices; it just so happens you can play games on them, like phones. You can keep contributing the success of Nintendo to waggle/3D/tablets, but in all honesty gimmicks don't create a loyal gaming fan base, the games do. It is also hilarious how many times we keep have this "History won't repeat itself" topic whenever a Nintendo console comes out, even though it keeps totally repeating itself.

Speaking of which, I hope everyone is enjoying their Vitas, lol.

Yes, because fucking once is a pattern.

The Wii never "repeated itself". In case you hadn't noticed, the Gamecube was a dismal failure, and blind luck made them bounce back from it.

And you wanna know the big difference between tablets and PC's? A tablet isn't complex - you see a game, you can buy it in 3 minutes, have it installed in half a minute, and learn how to play it in 10 seconds. Unlike the PC, where you need a masters degree to work the fucking thing if you want to game on it.

The WiiU is more complicated than its chief rival, not less. That means it will not attract the casuals. And with its main strength lost, it will be right smack back in the position it was with the Gamecube - relying solely on its loyal fans.

The Gamecube didn't sell a lot, but it still made profits unlike the ps3.

So it was a dismal failure that managed to sell a third of what the Ps3 has, but they didn't even try to make a good machine, so they wouldn't sell at a good deal for the consumer.

Profits aren't determined by sales and the gamecube was more powerful than the ps2 THAT ERA and was sold at a good deal.
You're just being flatout ignorant of what actually happened.
The ps3 is a massive failure even with the huge amount they sold and so is the vita with the small amount they are selling it because they are SELLING AT A LOSS. A huge one at that.
Sony is literally circling the drain because of their tactics regarding their products and it's video game branch is the most profitable, that's sad.

 

[Vault101]

Are those excuses I hear?
I could say the same for many consoles.
You know what the core market goes towards? Value.

what?

yes theres a degree of subjectiviy...but I still maintain that the "crap factor" is much higher in the Wii's 3rd party line-up....but that doesnt matter

I'm not using the Wii as some kind of gauge as to how the Wi-U will do (as for that I'm a little cynical)

Im talking about the Wii on its own and, I still maintain my point, for your "Core" gamer it does not come up to scratch.....

 

[Vigormortis]

Meh, hardcore gamers are dickheads so what ya gonna do?

BTW, my impression of the Bayonetta WiiU whiners would go a little something more like "Waah waah, I'm a whiny little *****! Waah waah!"

You know, it's funny.

I love my complex, single-player experiences. I play in the online arena often. I recently got back into competitive gaming. I miss the old games. I miss the old consoles. And I don't like where a good portion of the industry is heading.

YET, as far as gamer monikers go, I would never even consider calling myself "hardcore". Given that the "hardcore" gamers often act like whiny, arrogant, self-entitled, elitist pricks. Ones who will look for anything to ***** about.

So..yeah. You're right. Hardcore gamers are dickheads.

 

[GrimHeaper]

Are those excuses I hear?
I could say the same for many consoles.
You know what the core market goes towards? Value.

what?

yes theres a degree of subjectiviy...but I still maintain that the "crap factor" is much higher in the Wii's 3rd party line-up....but that doesnt matter

I'm not using the Wii as some kind of gauge as to how the Wi-U will do (as for that I'm a little cynical)

Im talking about the Wii on its own and, I still maintain my point, for your "Core" gamer it does not come up to scratch.....

The playstation 3 has 760 games.
360 929.
I'm sure if you actually went thorough them all it isn't as big as a gap as you would think Considering the Wii has the most games out of that gen.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

The hilarity of listing a small handful of "indie games" being on the PS3, and comparing those to the innumerable wealth of indie titles available on PC as a sign of the PS3 being "friendly" to indie devs, aside, I have to point out something:

The moment an "indie" game is funded and published by a major company, like in your example (Sony), it is no longer an "indie" game.

Unless you were under the impression that a game with, at times, "gimmicky" game-play, exaggerated artistic design, and/or unique styling is "indie".

If so, I really think you need to look up the definition of "independent".

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Meh, hardcore gamers are dickheads so what ya gonna do?

BTW, my impression of the Bayonetta WiiU whiners would go a little something more like "Waah waah, I'm a whiny little *****! Waah waah!"

You know, it's funny.

I love my complex, single-player experiences. I play in the online arena often. I recently got back into competitive gaming. I miss the old games. I miss the old consoles. And I don't like where a good portion of the industry is heading.

YET, as far as gamer monikers go, I would never even consider calling myself "hardcore". Given that the "hardcore" gamers often act like whiny, arrogant, self-entitled, elitist pricks. Ones who will look for anything to ***** about.

So..yeah. You're right. Hardcore gamers are dickheads.

Well usually I don't like to generalize like that, but until someone shows me a hardcore gamer that isn't a complete dickhead I'm going to stand by that one.

 

[Darmani]

Capcom and several other major publishers are either porting Japanese only or rare portable software (gimmicks prior) to tablets and app stores and the like. Tablet and cell gaming is ALSO kinda here to stay. Remember this time last year and we were predicting the death of the handheld to the smartphone as a whole. Aside from android model confusion and data plan cutoffs what's changed, hmm? So at the least we can't ignore the PC gaming scene and the market is ready for digital and the indies are mostly there so between Steam, Kickstarter, and XBLA a lot of sweetness is coming down the pike.

Many start ups or steam darlings want the distribution and cash that comes with going console. Hence my metaphor getting into bed with Nintendo is percieved as doomed to failure and misreable. Steam is godsent but not quite as much profitable place its more the AA. Console even just digital on Xbox is a step to the majors. Its costly step so you have to be ready to really pay up but the gains the money and the independence/prestige as a serious producer who comades the market are enticing to the indie developer or startup group.

Sony does court some major talent or could when they pretty much invented a 200 dollar DVD player that played exclusive games like KH, FFX, and other franchises that were godly with other developments. It tried to make lightning strike twice with Blu Ray and PS3 and it technically worked... just not as much as needed to make it a major profit.

 

[Vault101]

The playstation 3 has 760 games.
360 929.
I'm sure if you actually went thorough them all it isn't as big as a gap as you would think Considering the Wii has the most games out of that gen.

so were on numbers now?....that doesnt mean jack

the Wii may have had alot of games [b/]but how many of them were actually worth one's time?[/b] because you can't deny there was mountaints and mountains of shovelware

and ok, taking out the shovel ware what decent 3rd party games were there?

the point I am trying to stress here is that the majority of games I've played have all been 3rd party titles...the Wii had jack shit in terms of 3rd party because [i/]hardly anyone was there to develop for it[/i]

heres another qustion...did you have a systm aside from the Wii?

 

[Souplex]

Jim looked delicious with ketchup on him.
Captcha: bacon and eggs

 

[tkioz]

While I'm not angry about the Bayonetta exclusive, only slightly disappointed (what? I liked the first game), I detest exclusives on pure principle. They are bad for gamers, they are bad for developers, and they are in the end bad for the consoles themselves.

1) Bad for gamers, they force you to choose a side, and you better hope you pick the right side, or you're shit out of luck unless you want to drop another months rent on another console just to play the exclusives.

2) I get why some developers do it, the console makers trump up a bunch of cash to them in advance to purchase the exclusive rights to a game, which makes getting the game actually made easier, but it's bad for them in the end because it limits their audience to just those people who actually own that console. The people who will drop $500 on a new console just to get one or two games that are exclusive to it are few and far between, in the end they'd get far more sales supporting all the major platforms.

3) It limits competition. Rather then letting the consoles stand on their merits, such as hardware, price, services offered, etc. they use these exclusives to force people into things they might otherwise not buy. Just look at the early releases of the current generation. You want Mario / Zelda? You need to buy Nintendo, never might you might actually never play anything else on that console. If you wanted to play RPGs like Mass Effect you needed to buy a 360. If you wanted Uncharted and God of War you needed to buy a PS3. It wasn't about which console suited your needs, which best supported your style of gaming, it was about which games you could play. And that's bad.

The only exclusives I think are okay are the time-limited ones, like the Skyrim DLC, let console makers pay off developers for a few weeks or a month of lead time, that gives the developers a chunk of change they might need, it gives the console marketers something to crow about, but it lets everyone play it eventually.

Which is odd because that's how the magazine industry has been doing it for decades. If you subscribed you got your issue a few days before the news agencies, a valid incentive, but it didn't lock anyone else out.

TL;DR Exclusives suck and need to go away and die.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

I still think the WiiU will lose, namely do to it's weak graphics, I'm not a graphics snug but looking at the Wii I believe that what hurt it the most the fact that it didn't even have the option to support multiplatform titles which directly led to it's tiny library that so crippled it in the long run. The WiiU may be able to offer a unique experience but if Nintendo doesn't have a plan to up it's capability when Sony and Microsoft come around, every developer is gonna jump the Wii ship again and move to a console that has the power to make what they want instead of a console with a novel gimmick. Not to mention releasing new console without Sony or Microsoft not even releasing rumors of is also gonna hurt it for two reasons that I can see, one it gives Sony and Microsoft a great chance to improve the WiiU idea and have it in the console right off the bat, which the Move and Kinetic proves both companies are willing to and capable of doing. The second reason is I think most people would rather campare consoles to make sure they have the best value I can imagine a lot of people not buying a WiiU simply becuase they want to see it stack up against the PS4 or Xbox720 first.

That's odd. Because people said the same thing when the Wii was being prepared.

I recall at the end of it all Nintendo ended up laughing all the way to the bank while Microsoft has become obsessed with casual market.

I don't know much about Sony's predicament so me got no other thoughts to share.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Yeah, not convinced at all, the WiiU looks like another shitbox kiddie gaming console. I'll be right where I belong...playing PC games, where you can still find all the "hardcore" you want to find!

I feel highly offended by your surprisingly predictable phrase.

I mean, there's no irony to it at all!

 

[GrimHeaper]

snip

Tablets, like any PC, aren't gaming specific devices; it just so happens you can play games on them, like phones. You can keep contributing the success of Nintendo to waggle/3D/tablets, but in all honesty gimmicks don't create a loyal gaming fan base, the games do. It is also hilarious how many times we keep have this "History won't repeat itself" topic whenever a Nintendo console comes out, even though it keeps totally repeating itself.

Speaking of which, I hope everyone is enjoying their Vitas, lol.

Yes, because fucking once is a pattern.

The Wii never "repeated itself". In case you hadn't noticed, the Gamecube was a dismal failure, and blind luck made them bounce back from it.

And you wanna know the big difference between tablets and PC's? A tablet isn't complex - you see a game, you can buy it in 3 minutes, have it installed in half a minute, and learn how to play it in 10 seconds. Unlike the PC, where you need a masters degree to work the fucking thing if you want to game on it.

The WiiU is more complicated than its chief rival, not less. That means it will not attract the casuals. And with its main strength lost, it will be right smack back in the position it was with the Gamecube - relying solely on its loyal fans.

The Gamecube didn't sell a lot, but it still made profits unlike the ps3.

So it was a dismal failure that managed to sell a third of what the Ps3 has, but they didn't even try to make a good machine, so they wouldn't sell at a good deal for the consumer.

Profits aren't determined by sales and the gamecube was more powerful than the ps2 THAT ERA and was sold at a good deal.
You're just being flatout ignorant of what actually happened.
The ps3 is a massive failure even with the huge amount they sold and so is the vita with the small amount they are selling it because they are SELLING AT A LOSS. A huge one at that.
Sony is literally circling the drain because of their tactics regarding their products and it's video game branch is the most profitable, that's sad.

Given it was sold for more than it cost to make, it wasn't a good deal for the consumer by default. Also, no, the Gamecube wasn't more powerful than the Ps2, the Gamecube had a higher CPU clock speed than the PS2 but there is more to a CPU?s power than just clock speed, Use AMD vs Intel as an example. AMD?s CPU?s are almost always far higher clocked than Intel?s yet the Intel?s completely destroy AMD in every bench test.

Besides that, The PS2 had 32mb of main ram while the Gamecube only had 24mb. Not to mention the fact that it didn't use those stupid fucking smaller discs.

Also, given you're 6 years old, this may come as a suprise to you, but selling consoles at a loss is how you're supposed to do it - you make the profits back through software sales.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/11/04/gamecube-versus-playstation-2
Nope avi. You don't know jack.
@bolded http://www.drvl.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/heston.jpg

The playstation 3 has 760 games.
360 929.
I'm sure if you actually went thorough them all it isn't as big as a gap as you would think Considering the Wii has the most games out of that gen.

so were on numbers now?....that doesnt mean jack

the Wii may have had alot of games [b/]but how many of them were actually worth one's time?[/b] because you can't deny there was mountaints and mountains of shovelware

and ok, taking out the shovel ware what decent 3rd party games were there?

the point I am trying to stress here is that the majority of games I've played have all been 3rd party titles...the Wii had jack shit in terms of 3rd party because [i/]hardly anyone was there to develop for it[/i]

heres another qustion...did you have a systm aside from the Wii?

Yes I do, a 360.
The Wii has enough good 3rd party games I don't want to spend my time listing them.
Several hundred good 3rd party games backed by a strong 2nd and first party is honestly enough.
There were plenty of good games they just weren't advertised.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

The hilarity of listing a small handful of "indie games" being on the PS3, and comparing those to the innumerable wealth of indie titles available on PC as a sign of the PS3 being "friendly" to indie devs, aside, I have to point out something:

The moment an "indie" game is funded and published by a major company, like in your example (Sony), it is no longer an "indie" game.

Oh, so you're a hipster who doesn't like indie games based on them being smaller and more creative, but on the fact that they pointlessly eschew corporate help that comes with no strings attached. That makes this argument a lot simpler.

And no, the Pub Fund is why Sony are more indie friendly, given its literally them giving free money to indie developers.

Wait...

I'm a hipster because I don't like creative games?

Spoiler: I'm sorry, but:

Seriously, when did the word "independent developer" come to mean cheap, low-budget, arcade-y games? Did everyone collectively forget what the word "independent" means?

If a developer, no matter the size, develops, funds, and produces it's own game that developer can be considered "indie".

Mojang? Indie. Chucklefish? Indie. TheIndieStone? Coincidentally, indie.

But, the makers of Journey? Thatgamecompany? Not indie. Giant Sparrow? No longer indie.

Why? Because the definition of "independent", when used in regards to a game developer, means that developer handles virtually all aspects of a games creation and publication. If they have funding and/or handle publication through another company, they are not independent.

It has nothing to do with being a "hipster". It's logical truth. If a company is not independently creating game on their own, they aren't "indie". To consider a developer to be "indie" by any other reasoning is ludicrous.

And before you say something even more hilarious like, "But Giant Sparrow is comprised of a small team! That makes them indie!" No. It doesn't. Would you say Portal or Portal 2 were indie games?

No? But, Portal had a design team of eight people while Portal 2 had a team of twenty eight. Teams smaller than some true indie developers. Doesn't that, by your definition, make them "indie"?

In fact, when one really considers what actually makes a developer "indie", you end up seeing many studios in a different light. For example, in many ways, Valve can be considered "indie". Being that they handle all development and publishing for most of their games internally.

So maybe, before passive-aggressively insulting people, you should do a little back-ground research before you start spewing "facts" about.

 

[Disthron]

About the screen on the controller, I figured out a few years ago that one of the big reasons I gravitated more toward the computer than the console when I was a kid is that the computer had it's own dedicated monitor. Where as if I wanted to play the Mega Drive or the Playstation 1 I often had to fight with my family over the TV.

I like the idea of the "smart TVs". Even a mid range android phone should be able to handle things like Netflix and the like, and given that since TV's are always plugged into power and much larger than handheld devises they wouldn't need as much expensive miniaturized/power saving hardware. Thus being able to offer similar features with a lower cost. I think that's an awesome idea. The real trap I can see with that is the same as DVD when it first came out, with PR people claiming "value" for the inflated price point.

 

[hybrid_ck21]

So basically in business sense, Nintendo is sticking to their core competency, while Sony and Microsoft are expanding out of it (in terms of games)to focus on markets they ultimately cannont get a competitive edge in? Here I was thinking that Microsoft made a name for themselves for cutting edge business strategies and Sony helped pioneer this exact strategy. Oh the irony.

 

[Piecewise]

Or you could, you know, get a ps3 that offers all those services for free as well as having good graphics and not just making constant remakes of games for babies and old ladies.