Nintendo Shares Tumble Following Wii U Reveal

[The.Bard]

If you think this is ONLY poor poor Nintendo getting a fist to the face from the internet, you need to venture online more. The internet is a hateful place, my friend. Blacker than my shower drain after I roll around in pig vomit and petroleum all day long.

You are quite right, and usually I do spread out my comments on this and don't direct them at Nintendo alone. Seeing as the topic was Nintendo though, I got a bit of tunnel vision in my remark.

Though I will say certain companies, for whatever arbitrary reasons, get it way worse than others.

Some of my own comments might've been a bit passive-aggressive in themselves. My fault, and I apologize for letting the negativity of the internet get to me. There's only so long one can wade into the acid-pool without becoming a little tart I suppose, but no excuse.

Apologize? You don't need to apologize. Certainly not to me, anyway. I get frustrated reading things on the internet all the time. I stopped reading most articles about Bioware because of the insane amounts of bile that come with it. I just pick and choose what I read. I don't read Shamus Young anymore, and outside of the Escapist, I don't touch comments.

It's made me a much less jaded person on the internet. See how happy I am?? DO YOU SEE?!?!! XD

 

[Dastardly]

Nintendo Shares Tumble Following Wii U Reveal

Permalink

In fairness, this reveal seemed pretty obviously underwhelming, so I doubt the folks at Nintendo were expecting it to shake the Earth. I think that, perhaps, E3 was just oddly timed, but Nintendo didn't want to have no showing. This seemed more intended to provide a "here's what we're working on" peek, whereas people were expecting a "Here's what you're getting for Christmas!"

Also, this could just be meant as a wave to developers to give them some ideas and information on what is going on, so they can start making decisions about beginning projects for this platform to potentially improve the launch line-up.

The numbers don't lie--stocks are down. But the numbers also don't tell the whole truth, I'd bet.

 

[walrusaurus]

an interesting new controller that adds a touchscreen display to a traditional controller layout (as opposed to another waggy-stick)

And who under god's hot sun wanted this? It may have some interesting functionality but ultimately it just screams gimmick. They want to have "traditional controls" how about they throw a few analog sticks, a D-Pad and some buttons on a controller and leave well enough alone.

and a slew of highly anticipated third-party titles available at launch

These will likely have already been out for the other systems for months already why would anyone who already owns a PS3 or Xbox give two shits that some old games are coming out for Nintendo's new system. Also, as I've said a few other times what kind of third part support is it going to be? Is it going to be like the PS3/Xbox has or will it be the kind like the Wii has (I urge to you check out Madden or Call of Duty on Wii to see what I mean) where it's technically the same game but it's been changed all to hell to make use of all the extraneous gimmicks.

Nintendo are releasing a new, high-powered console with a traditional controller, which also has the potential to do lots of interesting new things if the developers choose to take advantage of it.

I've seen a lot of traditional controllers and NONE of them have a 6 inch touch screen in them. The "potential to do lots of interesting things" is a nice way of saying "Shit load of gimmicks". Honestly, how hard is it to release a system that gets by on being a good system not on extraneous bullshit that people don't want.

Sigh.

Gimmick, is a dirty epithet that people throw around every time someone does anything new to the 'traditional' controller. I destinctly remember being told that having 2 analog sticks was a pointless gimmick, and that 'serious' console makers needed to just stick with the d-pad.

I'm not saying that the touchscreen is going to be a dual analog stick level of evolution, we can't know that until we see what third party devs do with it. But if you can't see the possibilities that having a second screen opens up, particularly for multiplayer, well then your obviously not that bright.

Of course the games that they announced for launch are titles that will already have been released. Can you think of a single game with an actual release date in Q4 2012? The point of announcing those titles was to show that the major 3rd party dev's (Ubisoft, EA, Acti-blizz, etc.)
are on board with this system, unlike the Wii.

Their core market pitch was: our new console will be able to play all your favorite mainstream games and our entire library of exclusive IP, at the highest level of graphical fidelity, with a cool new functionality that can potentially extend and expand your play.

Obviously there are a lot of questions still regarding how the controller physically feels, and what nintendo's x-box live system will look like. But discounting this as a non-serious offering is ridiculous.

 

[bomblord]

This uses a processor that alone is almost more powerful than the 360 as a whole so don't go saying its "just as powerful as current gen" Nintendo's also confirmed native 1080p output which will be a huge leap over sub 720p most games run in (like call of duty). This is the NEXT generation your "investments" are going to waste on everything except your PC because this blows it all away and is the game system to invest in next it will get the "superior" versions of the multiplat games all of you fanboys are always clammering over it has a unique new control system that has millions of potential VIABLE gaming applications or none a tall since it has a traditional controller layout it will also have all the Nintendo exclusives and im sure several 3rd party exclusives the online is being done by EA and well if you don't see anything there or think the other consoles are superior your just being a stubborn fanboy

 

[lostlambda]

i think because the console seams like a really big DS for your TV

 

[Clockwork Scarecrow.]

So it's an iPad made by Nintendo? Damn you Jobs!!

 

[karamazovnew]

In this day of dual processor mobile phones with accelerators, touch screens and 3d graphics, I simply can't understand why anybody would spend money on a gameboy type device. For ages now, the only games I've played on mobile phones were Chess and Sudoku, otherwise I'd simply feel stupid playing arcades in the subway. So yeah, PSP, Ngage and DS seem idiotic ideas to me, I'd never buy such a platform when I can happily play 10000 super nintendo games on my mobile emulator. But when you look at the figures, these devices have sold wonderfully. While we have grown accustomed to having a fixed console linked to the TV (I actually don't have a console but my friends have so there's no need) and are barely getting used to the IPad, Nintendo seem to go in the completely wrong way. I mean... an Ipad just for games? WTF? I'm too embarased to take out my 4 inch mobile phone out and now I'm going to carry WeW around, going bang bang slash, ANIKI!!! and have people look at me? And where's the motion sensor thing?!

But then again, we're not japanese. Or 10 year olds... Guys, Nintendo are BRILLIANT. Think for a second. 10 year olds get themselves Ipads, and the PSP and DS have sold wonderfully in Asia. After both Sony and Microsoft have come up with better motion sensing games, what was Nintendo to do? Imagine a Wii2... If that thing didn't have a virtual helmet, what would've been the point? Remember that in this world Shakira makes more money than Bach, Vivaldi and Mozart ever produced in the economy of the world. In this world that Beiber guy is a success. Idiotic things sell great. So, if you have some money on the side, make sure you buy some Nintendo shares. The lower they drop now, the better will be for you. Because when that thing hits the stores, everybody will forget that a Samsung Galaxy S2 can do the same things and more

 

[daxterx2005]

great review as always.
Cheers Yahtzee

 

[ninja51]

Personally I think it looks just silly. It continues to stink of trying to cater to casual gamers. The controller looks unwieldy and gimmicky, the actual ammount of power behind the system wasnt really discussed, and people already have a wii. The casuals dont need and probably wont want to buy a new system with pretty much the same features. Compromise alienates both audiances. The hardcores already have PCs Xboxs and PS3s and the casuals dont wont to bother with actual controls and mature games.

 

[ThatFanBoyGuy]

All I'm going to say is this...

In 2006, Nintendo showed off the Wii with motion controls
All the XBox and PS fanboys pointed and laughed in ridicule
In 2009 & 2010, Microsoft introduced Kinect for the XBox360 and Sony introduced Move for the PlayStation 3

In 2011, Nintendo showed off the Wii U with a touch screen controller.
All the XBox and PS fanboys pointed and laughed in ridicule
So I predict in 1-2 years that Sony will announce the PS Vita can be used as a controller on the PS3 and Microsoft will produce a touch screen attachment for the XBox360 controller

(interesting enough, in Game Informer October 2010, an article was published called "Building the Perfect Controller." In it, the article writer argues that the perfect controller of the future would have a touch screen. Well, we're going to see how that plays out)

 

[Pingieking]

But I can see why a lot are so mad. This new console has disrupted the hegemony. Soon there will be THREE HD consoles in the game, but at the same time everyone is very worried this will be a dreamcast and get left behind. Even though Microsoft announced in 2010 the 360 was only half way through its life cycle (so 2015 next gen) and Sony has always said PS3 was a 10 year commitment.

The PS2 also had a ten year life cycle, it's just that it spent the second half of that life cycle alongside next gen systems. A ten year life cycle means that it will be supported for 10 years, with a new console on market about 2~4 years before the company stops supporting it.
We basically already know that MS and Sony have started development of next gen systems. My money is on MS and/or Sony showing off their new system at E3 of 2012 or 2013, with market release 10~17 months later. Based off the fact that Sony is releasing the Vita this November, I'd say that they're aiming for a PS4 announcement at E3 2013. MS is the one that I think will show off X720 (tentatively named) at E3 2012.

Back to topic:

I don't know what these investors are thinking. The time to jump ship (if there ever was one for Nintendo) is probably a few months after the release of the Wii U. The Wii U will sell so well at launch you'd think the system gives its owners (or the owner's significant other) bigger erections. When the initial wave of fanboys (and fangirls) finish their buying spree, the system will have to sell based on software, which is much harder to predict at this point.

 

[newwiseman]

I just can't wait till I can sync the controller to my PC, profile it, and us it to play Skyrim.

 

[YunikoYokai5]

Well, I can understand. Shareholders don't like risk (most of the time). Just wait until more info comes out and they might see if it has potential or not, also on the price of the console. Personally I'm skipping this console. My PS3 and (soon to be upgraded) PC will do me fine.

About touchscreen 'gimmicks'. Its not a gimmick, although the touchscreen can be annoying (coughokamidencough). Touchscreens seem to expect everything to be absolutely perfect, where as analogue controllers tend to have a wider forgiveness span....(tries to draw a constellation on Okamiden with the handle tip of a fine paintbrush...game says I didn't do it to their standard and fails it like so many times before...heaven explodes with my rage). This is why I see Okami as being far superior to Okamiden... As someone who uses a graphics tablet in place of a mouse, the DS touchscreen is not really amazingly accurate. I wonder if this controller will be any better

 

[Elyxard]

Not understanding the hate in this thread.

Everything about the Wii U is perfectly logical. It's practically a direct extension of the DS; a system we know works well. This is much more realistic than the Wii, where motion controls being the focus turned out to be a "meh" idea.

Everything that you could play on the PS3 or 360 would work on this new system, plus you still have some motion controls and the second screen as an option for games that could use it well. I don't see any missteps here.

The only issue is what the Sony and Microsoft do for their next consoles and if they will trump the Wii U in what it does. They can't really go much further in graphical power I think we can admit. They'll probably focus on something even more gimmicky to compete with (Kinect 2 perhaps).

 

[Raeil]

Personally I think it looks just silly. It continues to stink of trying to cater to casual gamers. The controller looks unwieldy and gimmicky, the actual ammount of power behind the system wasnt really discussed, and people already have a wii. The casuals dont need and probably wont want to buy a new system with pretty much the same features. Compromise alienates both audiances. The hardcores already have PCs Xboxs and PS3s and the casuals dont wont to bother with actual controls and mature games.

Since this is a personal opinion, I'd like to give some evidence/opinions which might change that opinion to an extent.

First, "it continues to stink of trying to cater to casual gamers." That was kind of the point. It's supposed to cater to both casual and hardcore by providing the latest in graphical capabilities, non-traditional and traditional controls, and quality (to one group or the other) first and third party games.

Second, "The controller looks unwieldy and gimmicky." Gimmicky is not exactly a good word to use here. As someone earlier in this thread (or one of the other 4 or 5 WiiU related threads I've read), "Dual analog was a gimmick and people said that true controllers would just stick to a D-Pad." So does the controller have new things? Yes. Does that make it bad? Not really. Also, as far as the unwieldy thing, may I direct you to IGN's article and Kotaku's article on the controller. The two major quotes from them? "The tablet itself appears large, but is actually quite comfortable to grip" and "The ergonomics are nigh perfect," respectively.

(IGN: http://wii.ign.com/articles/117/1173582p1.html and Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/5809651/nintendo-wii-u-hands-on-an-entirely-different-way-to-see-things)

Third, "the actual amount of power in the system wasn't discussed." This is true, mostly because Nintendo hasn't focused on announcing the power of their systems for a long time. However, the GPU and CPU for the system have been talked about by the companies that made them. I apologize for not having direct links, but the GPU is the most recent available GPU which can work in a console without needing a direct cooling solution, and the same goes for the CPU. The links to this are in the 4 or 5 other threads I mentioned above.

Fourth, "people already have a Wii. The casuals don't need and probably won't want to buy a new system with pretty much the same features." If it was only a small update to the Wii, I'd agree with you. However, it's a major upgrade from the Wii with several new controls and new ways to play (what you might call a "gimmick"). The casuals who won't buy this because it has pretty much the same features are people who aren't paying attention, because it does not have pretty much the same features, it has a ton of brand new ones and upgraded ones. Also, the fact that it already works with their current Wii remotes, balance boards, etc. is enough to help a lot of them make the investment worthwhile (somewhat like getting a Kinect or Move if one already owns a 360 or PS3, but on a larger scale).

Finally, "Compromise alienates both audiences." (the following is not based on systemic logic or evidence, but on my personal view) I will say this could be true, but I think Nintendo has hit a good balance here. Having hardcore gaming capabilities does not necessarily mean that the casual has to be alienated, which is the main reason for the backwards compatibility and the touchscreen/controller-screen, motion control, speaker, camera, etc. The casuals who are afraid of buttons don't ever have to really use them. On the other hand, having casual capabilities means nothing to the hardcore gamer if the controller can still be used like a standard controller.

Perhaps you aren't convinced, and that's perfectly fine. With that said though, I do hope that the majority of customers don't take your outlook, as I'd really like to have a console where I can play both Nintendo franchises and hardcore 3rd party titles.

 

[Phoenix_XIII]

Earlier in my time on the forums, I said that Nintendo's quality is dropping and people started defending it. I will now explain my reasoning.

The Wii: Motion Controls aren't that good. I own pretty much all the big systems right now. The Wii, PS3, and 360. I don't like any of the motion controls. Sure, they work well. Sure, they're perfect for party games or family games. And sure, they're good for work out games. But if you try to constantly play while moving around you're going to get worn out pretty quickly. I played the Wii Sports games and the PlayStation 3 Sports games and the wii ones weren't challenging and the sword game on the PS3 (Which was the only one that challenged me) caused arm aches and wore me out. I'm a skinny 16 year old who's in shape and has unlimited supplies of energy and a game is wearing me out too much. Motion controls are not that good.

The 3DS: 3D isn't that impressive. Remember when Yahtzee reviewed Killzone 3 and he said it was much better when he turned off the 3D? Or remember when he reviewed the 3DS and said it was better without the 3D? It also has a horrible battery, especially with the 3D on. You shouldn't have a mobile gaming device that has a gimmick that only works when you're looking at it in the EXACT right way. Nintendo made a stand for the 3DS so it was in the right position for the 3D to work right. Plus they should've waited to launch it when more games were actually READY to come out.

Then again, these are opinions. I personally think their old consoles were better. The 64 was and still is one of my favorite consoles of my life. The GameCube is another favorite of mine. And then they made the Wii. My GameCube was broken due to some wiring issue with the power adapter so I mainly played the 64. I preferred a far outdated console compared to motion control. And my step-siblings at the time kind of preferred it too.

Again. This is personal opinion. Don't attack me or anything.

 

[Gizen]

People complaining about gimmicks, for the love of God, shut the hell up. EVERYTHING in the world started off as a gimmick. Every new feature ever invented was a goddamned gimmick. When a new feature is added, it becomes a gimmick, until it becomes a common feature in all similar products. You wanna know what was a gimmick? Online play. But that sure turned out pretty well. You want a 'traditional' controller? Go grab an NES controller, and be satisfied with your 4 buttons and a d-pad. Doesn't get any more traditional than that.

Everyone console generation changed the controllers in some way. The transition from NES System to SNES added more buttons. The transition from SNES to N64/Playstation added Analog Sticks and even more buttons. The transition from N64/Playstation to Gamecube/PS2/XBox added rumble, and firmly solidified the two-analog stick method that hadn't yet been fully accepted as a result of the N64 only having one. Then the shift to PS3/360/Wii fully integrated wireless, motion controls, and online.

We are very very quickly approaching the limits of what can be achieved from simply making the systems beefier and more powerful. Hell, that's one of the reasons why this console cycle has gone on so much longer than usual. Graphics quality can only improve so much before the improvements become undetectable to the human eye. Each system has, and will continue to need to add something new to the table when the next incarnation of it launches in order to justify purchasing it. When the system's power no longer serves that purpose, what will they do to make you buy the system? What will be the purpose to upgrading if everything stagnates and nothing ever changes.

New innovations and 'gimmicks' NEED to happen, because without them, nothing will ever actually get better. You can't keep adding buttons forever, otherwise you might as well be playing with a keyboard (which PC gamers obviously do already). And sure, not every 'gimmick' is going to turn out right. History is filled with failed attempts, but without those attempts, we'd never get the gimmicks that succeeded. The very existence of the analog stick was one such gimmick originally, and it was obviously successful. Would you go back to the days when the D-pad was all we had for movement? No? Okay, then shut the hell up about how you don't want gimmicks. You do want them, you're just too stubborn to realize it. Maybe this particular gimmick isn't one that you want, and you know what, that's fine. Comment on how you don't want this particular gimmick, how you feel a touch screen won't be appropriate or helpful (even though both handheld systems and iPhones and iPads have proven you wrong), but say one word about how 'gimmicks' are bad, and you will brand yourself as an idiot with no foresight and no understanding of how the world actually works.

A lot of other things being stated are pretty stupid too. Like the argument that the WiiU's game line up isn't relevant, because all the games announced will have already been out for other systems for months prior to it's launch. This is true, they will be, but that's not the information you're supposed to be taking away. What you're missing is what this line-up of games means, and what it means, is that Nintendo finally has proper 3rd party support. They have real 3rd party games, that people will actually want, that aren't just shovelware like the Wii currently has. Furthermore, the games announced for it, pretty much consist of all the big name AAA titles that are announced for other systems. How many big, triple-A, non-exclusive games can you list off that now haven't been announced as coming out for the WiiU? What this means is that future AAA titles that haven't been announced yet will also end up coming out for the WiiU. Yes, the WiiU will launch with months old games, but this means that it will also launch with brand new games that will just be coming out for the PS3 and the 360 at the same time, and they just haven't been announced yet due to how far away the date is.

Also stupid is this argument that no one would ever buy a WiiU because they're too invested in their PS3/360 is also retarded. Hardcore Nintendo fans will buy the WiiU. The very idea of new Mario and Zelda games with fantastic graphics in 1080P and a more classic control scheme will prove an effective lure to even casual Nintendo fans (by casual Nintendo fans, I'm referring to PS3/360 owners who have a casual interest in Nintendo and their games, not people who are actually so-called 'casual' gamers). The so-called 'casual' gamers who were enticed to buy a Wii, will quite likely buy a WiiU based on a combination of brand recognition, and the controller's similarity to a recognizable, easy to understand device (iPad). Tech obsessed people will buy it based ont he fact that it will be the most powerful system, and they always buy whatever the shiny new piece of tech is. Brand new players who don't have any system yet (yes, these exist, I work at an EBGames, I see these people everyday), will consider it since it'll have the same games the PS3 and 360 have, and then some. And people who own multiple consoles will probably pick it up too, and these people make up a surprisingly large amount of the gaming population. Not as many people have only one system as the fanboys for each system would like you to believe. And lastly, who are these people who are 'too invested in their PS3/360'? What does that even mean? If you're somehow 'too invested' in a console to get a new one, then what'll you do when the PS4/XBox 720 come out? Not gonna get them either? The whole idea is stupid. I have a PS3, but I'm sure as hell not particularly invested in it. It has games that I want, and like any self-respecting gamer, that's all that matters. The WiiU already has games that I want, and the extra desireable first party titles haven't even been announced yet, so I'll be getting that too. Hell, I might even wait until the WiiU comes out to pick up some of those games that will have already been out on other consoles for months, like Arkham City, since knowing how the game industry works, those versions will probably come with all the same stuff plus some extra features.

In summary, if you don't like the way the WiiU works, that's fine, but don't express your hate in a way that makes you come off looking like a blindly-Nintendo-hating idiot.





As an aside, my own opinion of the system = cautious enthusiasm. I'm really excited for it, but oh God, that controller looks awkward as all hell. I've read 3 different hands-on reports, one saying that it felt as awkward as it looks, and 2 saying that it felt surprisingly good in their hands. One went so far as to say it kinda felt like using a Gamecube controller somehow. As the Gamecube was my favourite controller of any console generation, this gives me hope.

 

[NoeL]

To the people that think the WEEUUEEUUEE doesn't have a market, I think you're flat out wrong. First and foremost, Nintendo has an IMMENSE fan base that will buy the console for the simple fact it's a Nintendo console. First party Nintendo games are like heroin for a HUGE number of people (myself included). Even if it fails in other markets, the fan base alone will see the console through.

Secondly, it's INNOVATIVE (I won't use the word "gimmicky") enough to retain the attention of the casual market, and while I don't see the console being as successful as the Wii in that market (mostly because most casual Wii owners will be content with their Wii and see no reason to buy another console) I still think it will sell reasonably well in that area. I predict the no-tv-required aspect will be incredibly well received among the female audience (they like to curl up on the couch with something in their hands... while their boyfriend plays Halo or CoD or some crap on the widescreen), and the tablet still has great utility for party games, like that ninja star thing, or something like Pictionary. Also, getting a photo of your friend, drawing a cock on his face, then splashing it up on the tv when no one is expecting it is hilarious.

Thirdly, there are people in my position. I own a Wii, I'm perfectly happy with the quality of games on the system, but I feel like I'm missing out of a ton of OTHER great games because the Wii's hardware limitations prevent cross-platform developers from bringing their stuff to the platform (when they do it's often done poorly because they've put their main focus on developing the high-end version and have little reason to devote the same manpower on an inferior port). I'm a poor uni student and can't afford to buy a second console to fill this void.

This is why the WEEUUEEUUEE is very appealing to me, and others in similar situations. I want first party Nintendo games as well as the games the best third party developers are putting their main focus on, but I don't want to/can't afford to shell out for two separate consoles. I'd buy it for the first party content regardless, but the power boost DEFINITELY gives me added incentive.

 

[MovieBob]

From "The Gamer's Dictionary:"

GIMMICK - noun
1. Any feature of a game and/or game console that I personally do not care about using.

Anyhoo...

Stock Market 101: "Low-risk investors" - the day-to-day lifeblood of most markets and, thus, "The Market" itself abhors two things above all else: Uncertainty and periods of stagnation, and the announcement of a Wii successor signals both. It's new hardware yet to be fully revealed, hence uncertainty, and it signals that the "prior line" (re: the original Wii) is entering it's winding-down phase (in terms of profit-generation) as developers and consumers start preparing to transition to the new one.

If you are yourself a low-risk investor - i.e. you take minimal risks for steady long-term stability - this is EXACTLY the time you sell: When the price is still decent JUST before an obvious downswing. "X Company Announces Platform Upgrade For Main Product Line, Will Street A Full Year From Now" means SELL, regardless of what the upgrade actually is or does. Conversely, for "high-risk" investors, a few more tumbles from now will be the time to BUY - i.e. in anticipation of a sudden value-spike when the bigger rollout arrives (TGS, presumably?)

In other words, gamers who still have those shares of Nintendo they bought as a Finance Class project in school because it was the "coolest" stock they recognized should probably still hold onto it; assuming they didn't sell it high back during the first year of Wii-mania