Nintendo President Says Competitors Must Respond to Wii U

[Darmy647]

Dude. Its the escapist. Nintendo is shit talked in every way possible. They are RIGHT up there with EA in shit talk. Poor guys.

It's just sort of sad in this case, really.

It's like they really expected him to say anything other than blatantly positive PR stuff, like they expected him to admit the console's potential faults and just gush about how they want their gamers to stop abandoning them and yadda yadda.

It's just weaksauce. At least be honest and quote the guy right. Reggie's at least a decent guy and deserves that much, even if you don't like the company.

I dont particularly like it myself, as they at least deserve respect for what they have done for the industry. Im not saying held on pillars of gold. Just respected. But no. Im gunna play mario with a grin on my face for years to come because they are still and will always be what i grew up on, and admired for years to come.

 

[Beautiful End]

Nintendo President Says Competitors Must Respond to Wii U

Uhh...okay.

PS3 and Xbox360. Done
You gotta admire Sony's and MS' ability to travel back in time and respond.

Seriously, the WIiU is innovative in the same way that the Wii was. It sorta introduced a new (and useless) feature to gaming, it was pretty for a while and that's it.
Sony and MS still have the advantage over online gaming and interactivity, game variety (I'm talking about the Wii on that instance only), and maybe even graphics. Not like I care about the latter.

It's not about being innovative, it's about being effective. If they're talking about Nintendo being eager to see what Sony and Ms come up with, it's kinda predictable. But I'm sure it will work. There's a reason why Sony and MS kinda dominated this generation overall (Yeah, the big N had a good start but that's about it).

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

And yet we've been waiting for a proper response for quite some time while MS and Sony still sit over only a table away from the gamers.

What I expect to see when it happens though is this:

Microsoft hype up Glass and it's connectivity with phones and tablets as if it's the greatest innovation ever while continuing with the failure Kinect.

Sony will continue to push it's hardware while trying to come up with a new Wii styled mote of it's own and possibly a return of the eye toy only years later to the party again.

Nintendo as usual will try something new and everyone will just point and laugh while thinking highly of themselves.

PC will still be there still claiming they are the master race while they scoff another packet of ignorance.

Bottom line, I don't care what the next gen brings because I already know it's going to start with more fanned flames and we'll have more tech geeks trying to one up another on which console or hardware is more "superior" when you could just sit the hell down and play the damn console and shut the hell up.

That being said I look forward to grabbing myself a Wii U in the future because I want to not because it's "better" or superior in graphics" it's because I desire to try "change".

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Are Microsoft and Sony supposed to respond by laughing at Nintendo? Because I think that would be my response to this statement.

 

[Baresark]

So with all of those sold out pre-order the new Wii U sold 200,000 less than the Wii in week one?

Yeah, this basically confirms that Nintendo is limiting the supply to create demand once again. There's no other reason for the sales to be one third less than its predecessor when they were touting sold out pre-orders so hard.

The mere limit of a product does not increase demand. The supply/demand interaction only affects prices. A shortage of consoles does not increase the price for Nintendo. They have no reason to purposely shortfall supply as there being less of them does no increase the price, so they are therefore hurting themselves by not having adequate supply. I'm just saying as it makes no sense for them purposely have a shortage. Oil companies claim peak oil because it allows them to raise prices. Antiques are expensive because there is not a large supply of a given item and it's rarity increases the value. There is no value increase for Nintendo to have less than an adequate supply.

 

[Absolutionis]

I thought the WiiU was meant to be a "response" to the Playstation 3 and XBox.

 

[bafrali]

Wow I wonder how he said that with a straight face. Then again he is a businessman.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

My guess is that most core gamers want a traditional machine that can run games on the High/Ultra PC equivalent, not an extra tiny screen that makes the controller heavy. And I just know that most developers aren't going to use that extra screen to good effect, but rather as a stupid gimmick.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

So with all of those sold out pre-order the new Wii U sold 200,000 less than the Wii in week one?

Yeah, this basically confirms that Nintendo is limiting the supply to create demand once again. There's no other reason for the sales to be one third less than its predecessor when they were touting sold out pre-orders so hard.

The mere limit of a product does not increase demand. The supply/demand interaction only affects prices. A shortage of consoles does not increase the price for Nintendo. They have no reason to purposely shortfall supply as there being less of them does no increase the price, so they are therefore hurting themselves by not having adequate supply. I'm just saying as it makes no sense for them purposely have a shortage. Oil companies claim peak oil because it allows them to raise prices. Antiques are expensive because there is not a large supply of a given item and it's rarity increases the value. There is no value increase for Nintendo to have less than an adequate supply.

I'm sorry but the limit of supply method was clearly used with the Wii's release. There was no reason back then for Wii's to constantly be sold out like they were for months after launch. Also, the supply/demand cycle doesn't just affect prices. It does have a significant effect on sales provided the product in question has enough hype generated around it, and it also gives the manufacturer (in this case Nintendo) something nice to report to investors so that stock becomes more valuable.

Hell, Microsoft was just caught limiting supply runs when their Surface Tablet "sold out" after tiny amounts were shipped to stores.

I'm just saying that its odd to see the Wii U selling a whole 33% less than the Wii upon launch considering that pre orders "sold out" really quick. I'm also pointing this out because there have been a bunch of Nintendo fans using the "but pre orders sold out so it'll be as successful as the Wii" argument to (very poorly in my opinion) shut down Wii U skeptics.

Less product with the right hype usually does create demand, the Wii's shortages whether purposeful or not are an example of that. People were hunting Wiis down like rabid dogs for months after it was released. I was one of them, and I have/have seen saw many others who would call their local Gamestop, department store, or Wal-Mart to see if Wiis were in stock, only to be told for the 5th week in a row, "no sorry, just sold out the 3-5 that we got in today".

I can't agree that limited supply doesn't raise demand, there are just too many events where that has been proven otherwise.

Now the Wii U doesn't have the same level of hype that the Wii had, which may explain the fact that it sold a decent chunk less than the Wii on opening week.

 

[ThePuzzldPirate]

The Wii U is barely even a next-gen console. Eurogamer analyzed the performance of games like BLOPS2, Mass Effect 3, and Arkham City and found that more often than not the Wii U performed WORSE than the 360. Once Sony and Microsoft bring out their next-gen consoles, the Wii U will occupy the same space the Wii did -- an underpowered console with a gimmicky control system that's fun for casual gamers but useless to hardcore gamers, except for maybe some Nintendo first-party games.

I won't be surprised if third party developers refrain from putting true next-gen games on the Wii U. If not, I expect the Wii U to hold back third party game development. POS can barely play current gen games as is.

Yes, cause quick ports is the best way to decide how strong a system is. If that is the case, PC gamers would actually be the master race with games strong enough to punch out Cthulhu. Instead, we just get games that look better, worse case, we get Dark Souls or Resident Evil 4.
Strong hardware is useless if the software doesn't know how to utilize it and it's probably going to take a year for that to happen. Some small developers making downloadable games might get there faster so we will have to wait and see.

 

[Redhawkmillenium]

The Wii U is barely even a next-gen console. Eurogamer analyzed the performance of games like BLOPS2, Mass Effect 3, and Arkham City and found that more often than not the Wii U performed WORSE than the 360. Once Sony and Microsoft bring out their next-gen consoles, the Wii U will occupy the same space the Wii did -- an underpowered console with a gimmicky control system that's fun for casual gamers but useless to hardcore gamers, except for maybe some Nintendo first-party games.

I won't be surprised if third party developers refrain from putting true next-gen games on the Wii U. If not, I expect the Wii U to hold back third party game development. POS can barely play current gen games as is.

Yes, cause quick ports is the best way to decide how strong a system is. If that is the case, PC gamers would actually be the master race with games strong enough to punch out Cthulhu. Instead, we just get games that look better, worse case, we get Dark Souls or Resident Evil 4.
Strong hardware is useless if the software doesn't know how to utilize it and it's probably going to take a year for that to happen. Some small developers making downloadable games might get there faster so we will have to wait and see.

With time for developers to get used to the system, the Wii U might edge out the 360 in performance. But it shouldn't be like that. With each console generation jump, we saw the benefits immediately. The first Gears of War, for example, looked far better on a technical level than any Xbox, PS2, or Gamecube game, and it was running in HD to boot. With the Wii U, games are running at the same resolution as current generation consoles, with the same level of detail (or worse -- several games have observably lower quality shadows on the Wii U), and actually tend to run worse. The Wii U, just like the Wii, will be stuck just being an enhancement of the last generation's graphics quality while Sony and Microsoft push truly next-gen graphics.

 

[Baresark]

snip

I'm sorry but the limit of supply method was clearly used with the Wii's release. There was no reason back then for Wii's to constantly be sold out like they were for months after launch. Also, the supply/demand cycle doesn't just affect prices. It does have a significant effect on sales provided the product in question has enough hype generated around it, and it also gives the manufacturer (in this case Nintendo) something nice to report to investors so that stock becomes more valuable.

Hell, Microsoft was just caught limiting supply runs when their Surface Tablet "sold out" after tiny amounts were shipped to stores.

I'm just saying that its odd to see the Wii U selling a whole 33% less than the Wii upon launch considering that pre orders "sold out" really quick. I'm also pointing this out because there have been a bunch of Nintendo fans using the "but pre orders sold out so it'll be as successful as the Wii" argument to (very poorly in my opinion) shut down Wii U skeptics.

Less product with the right hype usually does create demand, the Wii's shortages whether purposeful or not are an example of that. People were hunting Wiis down like rabid dogs for months after it was released. I was one of them, and I have/have seen saw many others who would call their local Gamestop, department store, or Wal-Mart to see if Wiis were in stock, only to be told for the 5th week in a row, "no sorry, just sold out the 3-5 that we got in today".

I can't agree that limited supply doesn't raise demand, there are just too many events where that has been proven otherwise.

Now the Wii U doesn't have the same level of hype that the Wii had, which may explain the fact that it sold a decent chunk less than the Wii on opening week.

You make some good points, but I stick by what I said. To purposely shortfall the supply with high demand to without there being an actual purpose doesn't make sense. It is rather funny though that good old Reggie said supply chains were solid in September, haha. The demand is there because it's new and offers new things. The shortage doesn't make me want it more than I do (which really means that I'm waiting for at least 6 games I want, 3-4 of which need to be exclusives). I can't find a single instance of supply shortages for the purpose of raising demand. That is almost opposite of the idea that Keynes had which was supply can create it's own demand (which is ridiculous of course). But I digress. I would love to hear examples of low supply increasing demand though.

I agree though, it is odd that they would act like this is so great when the numbers represent it as worse than Wii sales. The only thing about that is they seem to have been playing it safe, that is my only explanation. They thought they had good supply chains but then they thought it wouldn't take off like it did.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

With time for developers to get used to the system, the Wii U might edge out the 360 in performance. But it shouldn't be like that. With each console generation jump, we saw the benefits immediately. The first Gears of War, for example, looked far better on a technical level than any Xbox, PS2, or Gamecube game, and it was running in HD to boot. With the Wii U, games are running at the same resolution as current generation consoles, with the same level of detail (or worse -- several games have observably lower quality shadows on the Wii U), and actually tend to run worse. The Wii U, just like the Wii, will be stuck just being an enhancement of the last generation's graphics quality while Sony and Microsoft push truly next-gen graphics.

Ha [Z1mHwoP3Qk0] ha [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuMej3fNa80] ha [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN9RVzdfPUU] Nope. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvpqtTsuvKA] Your wrong dude. I have had to make this argument so many times before now. I'm sorry if I am being a little mean here, but it seems like people keep forgetting: Launch Games are never better then what is already out.

And Gears of War? Gears of War 1 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FdNnbYvBAQ] looks terrible compared to Gears of War 2 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyHBQBjXMLM], and both look worse then Gears of War 3.

The WiiU already looks slightly better then Xbox 360 games. So imagine further down the road. The WiiU will look phenomenal!

 

[ThePuzzldPirate]

The Wii U is barely even a next-gen console. Eurogamer analyzed the performance of games like BLOPS2, Mass Effect 3, and Arkham City and found that more often than not the Wii U performed WORSE than the 360. Once Sony and Microsoft bring out their next-gen consoles, the Wii U will occupy the same space the Wii did -- an underpowered console with a gimmicky control system that's fun for casual gamers but useless to hardcore gamers, except for maybe some Nintendo first-party games.

I won't be surprised if third party developers refrain from putting true next-gen games on the Wii U. If not, I expect the Wii U to hold back third party game development. POS can barely play current gen games as is.

Yes, cause quick ports is the best way to decide how strong a system is. If that is the case, PC gamers would actually be the master race with games strong enough to punch out Cthulhu. Instead, we just get games that look better, worse case, we get Dark Souls or Resident Evil 4.
Strong hardware is useless if the software doesn't know how to utilize it and it's probably going to take a year for that to happen. Some small developers making downloadable games might get there faster so we will have to wait and see.

With time for developers to get used to the system, the Wii U might edge out the 360 in performance. But it shouldn't be like that. With each console generation jump, we saw the benefits immediately. The first Gears of War, for example, looked far better on a technical level than any Xbox, PS2, or Gamecube game, and it was running in HD to boot. With the Wii U, games are running at the same resolution as current generation consoles, with the same level of detail (or worse -- several games have observably lower quality shadows on the Wii U), and actually tend to run worse. The Wii U, just like the Wii, will be stuck just being an enhancement of the last generation's graphics quality while Sony and Microsoft push truly next-gen graphics.

You say that it shouldn't be like that but it is, Gears of War wasn't a launch title, it had a full year(imagine that) after the console was released. There is a list here(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_launch) and your going to be hard pressed to find a port game that looked better than there x-box counter part.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Am I the only one who thinks they are going to lose a huge demographic with the Wii U? I mean, they lost the "I just bought this for Wii sports and Mario Cart" People without motion control.

I believe you should rethink that checkmate you just blurted out, mr.readybody.

 

[Sean951]

The Wii U is barely even a next-gen console. Eurogamer analyzed the performance of games like BLOPS2, Mass Effect 3, and Arkham City and found that more often than not the Wii U performed WORSE than the 360. Once Sony and Microsoft bring out their next-gen consoles, the Wii U will occupy the same space the Wii did -- an underpowered console with a gimmicky control system that's fun for casual gamers but useless to hardcore gamers, except for maybe some Nintendo first-party games.

I won't be surprised if third party developers refrain from putting true next-gen games on the Wii U. If not, I expect the Wii U to hold back third party game development. POS can barely play current gen games as is.

Yes, cause quick ports is the best way to decide how strong a system is. If that is the case, PC gamers would actually be the master race with games strong enough to punch out Cthulhu. Instead, we just get games that look better, worse case, we get Dark Souls or Resident Evil 4.
Strong hardware is useless if the software doesn't know how to utilize it and it's probably going to take a year for that to happen. Some small developers making downloadable games might get there faster so we will have to wait and see.

With time for developers to get used to the system, the Wii U might edge out the 360 in performance. But it shouldn't be like that. With each console generation jump, we saw the benefits immediately. The first Gears of War, for example, looked far better on a technical level than any Xbox, PS2, or Gamecube game, and it was running in HD to boot. With the Wii U, games are running at the same resolution as current generation consoles, with the same level of detail (or worse -- several games have observably lower quality shadows on the Wii U), and actually tend to run worse. The Wii U, just like the Wii, will be stuck just being an enhancement of the last generation's graphics quality while Sony and Microsoft push truly next-gen graphics.

You mean like Gun [http://www.dignews.com/legacy/screenshots/gun_360_08.jpg] looked so much better than Call of Duty 2: Big Red One [http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/article/638/638097/call-of-duty-2-big-red-one-20050801023518234.jpg]? Those are 2 games released on the same day. Gears of War didn't come out for another year.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

I've mentioned this somewhere else, but it seems it bears repeating. The Wii U dev-kit is very much a work in progress and is basically the framework with a lot of room left in it for developers to use. The games being used as benchmarks (Darksiders 2, Blops 2, ME 3) have the 360 code essentially jammed onto the Wii U due to the triple-core processor and AMD GPU setup. The code is not fully optimized for the Wii U's strengths, and won't be for a while now. This is more than likely why Epic waited a year after the 360 launch to show their cards and truly introduce their engine's show-off game the right way.

Basically, these ports aren't telling us all that much at all, but note this: Even if they look slightly worse now, or run slightly worse, the 360 and PS3 versions can't mirror the freaking game inside of the controller or send UI elements to it. This is the hand they're dealing. They're not building a missile in the arms race, they have their own agenda. Reggie is asking what they're planning to offer besides the obvious higher IQ and AA and such. Personally, for me, I'd rather they use higher processing for the AI and animations and such, which I'm sure we'll end up seeing. Please judge Nintendo based on what they're actually offering, not what they've decided to ignore altogether.

 

[geizr]

Pride goeth before a fall. Be careful of issuing ultimatums, Reggie; you'll definitely get a response, however, it may not be one you'll like or expect. The Wii started strong but lost a lot of momentum in later years of its life. You'll have to be a lot less passive in this generation to stay ahead (I am skeptical of the possibility that the Wii U will attain the same "It prints money!" capability of the Wii).

 

[Xan Krieger]

I think Sony and Microsoft already responded by laughing their collective asses off and prepare the victory parties when the PS4 and new xbox get launched. With the Wii U Nintendo is catching up the xbox and PS3, what will their response be to the PS4 and new xbox?