Poll: Wii U - Nintendo's Dreamcast?

[Smooth Operator]

It can't be, Nintendo are too much of a juggernaut right now, even if they smack face first into a brick wall they will still push through it and have enough momentum for another generation.

The comparison certainly is valid but they aren't coming out on a shoe string "make or break" budget.

 

[Tanis]

You CAN'T be serious.
With ALL the money they've made via the DS, 3DS, Wii, and Mario/Zelda...

They'll probably have a system when the PS8 and iXbox have been released...
Maybe beyond that!

 

[snave]

I think the wildcard for Nintendo more than anything is the PC market and piracy. Think about it: Nintendo has a tonne of (and relies upon) exclusive titles. Meanwhile, many of the big name games on the rival machines are neither exclusive to a given console, nor to consoles in general. But, with more and more developers pulling out of PC development, the economical solution to playing most AAA titles -- owning a Nintendo console and ensuring the PC rig you probably already require can handle mid range gaming -- is fading away. I suspect most casual gamers think like me and are hesitant to having two consoles in the house.

Regardless, I'm kinda shocked anyone would be curious to see, let alone hope for, a company to fail. A hypothetical gaming platform monopoly likely won't mean you'll get to play the current quantity of AAA titles on one machine; it'd just mean fewer unique AAA titles in general due to fewer options available to developers.

 

[Jazoni89]

So... there was once a company is a particular situation that made a console that promptly flopped and from that day forth they never made another console.

Now we have a different company in a completely different situation about to release a console. Will they suffer the same fat as the other company?

Not quite following your reasoning there matey.

It didn't flop, it shared one of the greatest launches of any console at that time, shifting half a million units in the first two weeks in Japan alone.

It also sold a rather modest ten million units worldwide, not bad for a console that you say "flopped".

The word flopped should only be reserved for consoles such as the Atari Jaguar (which sold a terrible 250,000 or fewer), The Virtual Boy (which only sold 770,000) or the 3DO (which sold a rather poor two million).

Sega itself was already in hot water way before the Dreamcast was even made, the Dreamcast was seen as Sega's last ditched attempt to redeem themselves. Unfortunately they pumped so much money into making it, it didn't give enough back. So Sega stopped making consoles, and the rest is history.

hmmm I can sort of see the comparison since in my limited knowelge the dreamcast was almost a generation of its own

and the wii u seems to be coming in early..then again the other players are bringing theirs out as well..

You could say that, or you could say it was ahead of it's time.

The same with the Amiga, which was released in 1985. Keep in mind that the Amiga was a 16-bit machine, being a whole generation newer than all of the consoles that came out at that time. It would take another four years until one of the first consoles came out that had 16 bit architecture with the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis.

(The Atari Jaguar is another example of a high end machine in a lower graphical console generation.)

The Dreamcast is a 128-bit machine, the same as the Gamecube, Xbox, and Ps2. It was considered to have much lower graphical fidelity that that of a Ps2, but did trump the ps2 in a few number of ways, mostly in texture detail, and colour depth. This was especially comparable in the early days of the ps2, with worser looking Dreamcast ports of Dead or Alive 2, and Headhunter. In fact it wasn't really until 2004, that most developers took advantage of the ps2's high polygon count, and made games such as God of War, that went above and beyond anything that the Dreamcast could do.

It Makes you wonder what Dreamcast titles would of looked like if the Dreamcast was around for a lot longer, and developers took advantage of the hardware like the ps2.

 

[Indigo11]

I'd vote for an, "I hope" option.

I really wish Nintendo would stop making home consoles and just make games.

Nintendo systems are really only good Nintendo games. Can anybody seriously tell me a game that would not have been better on the PS3/360?

I agree.

It would be awesome to see classics like Zelda and Mario on playstation, xbox, or pc. I think there's a good segment of gamers out there who would also like to see this happen, but then again, there are a lot Nintendo fans that seem to be doing fine - just look at this forum.

However, I do agree with many of the "fanboys" that Nintendo does not need to make games for iphone (and the like). I just don't see high-end graphics and engaging gameplay on a device with limited controls and limited hardware capabilities. There's an argument for a next-gen phone/console hybrid all-in-one, but that's just it - it's not out yet (or ever, I think).

If Nintendo became a 3rd party game developer, I would seriously be willing to buy Nintendo games AND any goofy accessories they want to throw in the mix - i.e. a motion-control sword for games like Skyward Sword. [motion control is not my thing - can you tell?]

Nintendo is still a great innovator as far as gameplay goes; I just don't think they're that good at developing a console anymore.

We can sit here and talk about how successful the wii was,

[though this article, http://www.gamesrelay.com/pixel-shock/nintendo-wii-a-failure-for-gamers.html, counters that]

but at the end of the day, can any of us really argue that any new Nintendo game wouldn't have been better on the ps3 or the xbox 360?

And I just don't see the Wii U as a game-changer for me.

 

[boag]

When I say Dreamcast for those of us new to the gaming market, the Sega Dreamcast was the final console for Sega before they stopped making consoles and sticked to games only.

Slightly different circumstances... ok radically different circumstances for Nintendo than there was for Sega, Nintendo is rich, Sega wasn't, the Wii is a 'market' success even if it isn't a success for gamers, but even still, if this thing is a flop, it has to hurt.

And, of course, Sega didn't have a handheld, not that Nintendo are doing particularly well with their last one, likely due to iOS/Android infiltration of the market.

Whether or not they proceed is the question, and if the Wii U is a success, the chances are slim that they'll stop, I'm posing this question under the hopeful circumstance or 'What if' it doesn't succeed.

So even if they aren't in the same financial situation as Sega, they may decide that all the money is in the software, and release games for the other console manufacturers of the 9th (and possibly 8th) generation onward, perhaps even PC.

Or the best thing, would be for them to start making good consoles again, like, back in the 64 days... mind you, I converted over to the PlayStation camp long ago, but still, if they make enough exclusive titles I want, then I might consider having it along side the PS5.

Captcha: then ngereal

I dont even see how you can make this comparison, specially if you take into account that the Wiis performance in the Market place was nothing like the Saturns performance in the Market place.

if you are making historical comparison for how each company handled their respective consoles, then there are no similarities to bring into question or view.

 

[Veylon]

No. The Gamecube was Nintendo's Dreamcast: an underpowered machine that couldn't keep up with the competition. Or possibly the Wii. Remember all that talk about how Nintendo's motion control console would never amount to anything and probably doom the company alongside it? I do.

I also have almost no idea what is meant by a "good" console here. Something similar to the much less successful 360 or PS3? The main complaint against the Wii was and is the motion controls; would merely having the equivalent of the competition's controllers suffice? It's worth remembering that Nintendo effectively undercut Microsoft and Sony by making a console that cost a third to a half less to buy.

 

[Lunar Templar]

um ...

no.

Nintendo isn't in the same boat as Sega was
1) the Wii wasn't a flop, unlike the Saturn or all the shit they stacked on to the Genesis
2) they have a successful Hand held system
3) Nintendo is run better then Sega

so, no, its not going to be their last console

 

[Indigo11]

No. The Gamecube was Nintendo's Dreamcast: an underpowered machine that couldn't keep up with the competition. Or possibly the Wii. Remember all that talk about how Nintendo's motion control console would never amount to anything and probably doom the company alongside it? I do.

I also have almost no idea what is meant by a "good" console here. Something similar to the much less successful 360 or PS3? The main complaint against the Wii was and is the motion controls; would merely having the equivalent of the competition's controllers suffice? It's worth remembering that Nintendo effectively undercut Microsoft and Sony by making a console that cost a third to a half less to buy.

You make a good point about Nintendo setting the price lower - it worked wonders for their console sales. They filled a particular niche in the market and profited from it. Consumers benefited from the variety the wii offered and the falling ps3/xbox prices it helped to cause.
However, there's also the traditional niche for (trying to be) the hypothetical best console. A lot of gamers like me found the wii's hardware capabilities lacking for what we wanted out of a console. The wii did manage to attract a wider audience [that was one of its main strengths] and it managed to keep a lot of Nintendo fans, but it lost a lot of the rest of us.

Also, check out the article I posted earlier; it offers a different perspective on the success of the wii.



Then again, you could argue that playstation and xbox are crowding the same market/niche and that one is bound to fail; a lot of popular games are sold on both systems and they are very similar in design when you compare them to the uniqueness (good and/or bad) of the wii. This would create a sort of quasi (almost non-competitive) 2 console market; the consoles would be so different that they would have little audience overlap.

The above scenario is probably a stretch (at best), but if that's what Nintendo has in mind, then you have to salute them for vision. Maybe they realized that 3 consoles trying to do the exact same thing wouldn't work out; after all, one would have to be "the best" and one would have to be "the worst". If they could manage to be "so different", a similar analysis would be like comparing apples to oranges - maybe that's what Nintendo is striving for.

Regardless, I didn't like anything about the Wii and I don't think that (from what I've seen so far) I will like the Wii U either. Somebody probably will though, and if so, Nintendo not only wins, but breaks ground.

 

[theevilgenius60]

Man I hope not... Not that I think Big N will be getting out of the console business, but seeing a great piece of machinery left lying fallow when it could be fertile grounds for great new games saddens me. I loved my Dreamcast. That "flop" console was one of the centers of our(my roommates/teammates and I) social life my first year in college. Sadly it was left behind too early. I loved my Xbox more, but the Dreamcast forever holds a place close to my heart. I'm glad Nintendo is bringing back screens on controllers. That was a big Dreamcast thing too. It was the best for multiplayer games involving strategy while using a menu system(like a sports game).

 

[krazykidd]

Well first things first , sega did have a handheld , it was called the game gear. KNOW YOUR HISTORY!

Secondly it will sell , because nintendo changes business plans , they are now a family video game console. A console for games the whole family can enjoy. Therefor parent's will buy the WiiU for little 7 year old billy to enjoy when it rains . Not to say there aren't games for adult gamers , but it's for the family .

Thirdly , even if it does flop , nintendo is FREAKING RICH and they won't care . They will release a new zelda game , followed by mario , metroid , donkey kong,kirby and mario kart . That alone will get people buying it and make them a TON of money .

Believe it or not , nintendo has a pretty big fan base ranging from 3 years to 80 years of age . They aren't going down u less they decide to close down shop or sabotage themselves . Have you not realises yet that nintenso doesn't even need to sexualise their characters nor make adrenalin rush games to sell their product? Nintendo games are so clean ( for the most part) and their products sell so well that they don't need to resort to such primitive tactics to sell their shit . Nintendo isn't going anywhere.

 

[Conza]

SNIPPED

I dont even see how you can make this comparison, specially if you take into account that the Wiis performance in the Market place was nothing like the Saturns performance in the Market place.

if you are making historical comparison for how each company handled their respective consoles, then there are no similarities to bring into question or view.

Well, while the financial circumstances, if you read my OP, were pointed out to be very different, there is one major factor which both Sega and Nintendo, even Sony and Microsoft, consider when chosing to make a new console.

Will it make money, and how much?

Sega could've written off the Dreamcast and come out with another console inline with the PS2/GC/Xbox and been very competitive, that possibility existed, but the time and money to achieve that situation, earning more money, was slower and more expensive than simply pulling out and dedicating themselves to game making exclusively, which is where the real money is.

By having a console, they could have exclusives, there are other advantages too, but ultimately the placement of Sega's financial situation made it more logical to produce games only, as it was the quickest way to make more money.

We have no evidence that the Wii U will be a great success, we have several educated hypothesis that it will be a great failure to its original market (core gamers) and its new found/co-created market (casual/motion gamers), as it does not satisfy either with a console to achieve those tasks in a substancially superior way than their predessors, core gamers wanting to play nintendo go to the N64 and the GameBoy, the casuals won't see a reason to replace their rarely used Wii, and there we are, unsuccessful Wii U product, why continue? Just because they can? No. They need a financial reason to take another punch in the mouth - more money, and if their current scheme has anything to say about it, being rich doesn't mean you don't want to get richer.

So there you have it, I believe the Wii U will manage to squeeze out both of its potential markets cause them to rethink their marketing strategy, and possibly go games only, which at this stage for them, seems like a good idea... Or just make a good console for once in 4 generations, but you know, they'd have to wait another generation to be on par with that now wouldn't they?

Captcha: urHand steered

 

[Epona]

I'd vote for an, "I hope" option.

I really wish Nintendo would stop making home consoles and just make games.

Nintendo systems are really only good Nintendo games. Can anybody seriously tell me a game that would not have been better on the PS3/360?

Wii Sports?

Well, now with Move Wii Sports would be better on Move. I can't think of anything that would be better on Kinect.

 

[boag]

SNIPPED

I dont even see how you can make this comparison, specially if you take into account that the Wiis performance in the Market place was nothing like the Saturns performance in the Market place.

if you are making historical comparison for how each company handled their respective consoles, then there are no similarities to bring into question or view.

Well, while the financial circumstances, if you read my OP, were pointed out to be very different, there is one major factor which both Sega and Nintendo, even Sony and Microsoft, consider when chosing to make a new console.

Will it make money, and how much?

Sega could've written off the Dreamcast and come out with another console inline with the PS2/GC/Xbox and been very competitive, that possibility existed, but the time and money to achieve that situation, earning more money, was slower and more expensive than simply pulling out and dedicating themselves to game making exclusively, which is where the real money is.

By having a console, they could have exclusives, there are other advantages too, but ultimately the placement of Sega's financial situation made it more logical to produce games only, as it was the quickest way to make more money.

We have no evidence that the Wii U will be a great success, we have several educated hypothesis that it will be a great failure to its original market (core gamers) and its new found/co-created market (casual/motion gamers), as it does not satisfy either with a console to achieve those tasks in a substancially superior way than their predessors, core gamers wanting to play nintendo go to the N64 and the GameBoy, the casuals won't see a reason to replace their rarely used Wii, and there we are, unsuccessful Wii U product, why continue? Just because they can? No. They need a financial reason to take another punch in the mouth - more money, and if their current scheme has anything to say about it, being rich doesn't mean you don't want to get richer.

So there you have it, I believe the Wii U will manage to squeeze out both of its potential markets cause them to rethink their marketing strategy, and possibly go games only, which at this stage for them, seems like a good idea... Or just make a good console for once in 4 generations, but you know, they'd have to wait another generation to be on par with that now wouldn't they?

Captcha: urHand steered

But the question will it make money is question every console maker makes, by your statement, every console ever has been a dreamcast scenario.

 

[Savagezion]

I'm posing this question under the hopeful circumstance or 'What if' it doesn't succeed.

The word hopeful there has me puzzled. I am no longer in Nintendo's target marketing demographic and thus I am not really much of a fan of what Nintendo does nowadays. I actually find the shovelware crusade of this generation shameful and actually a step backwards for gaming stepping into mainstream. However, I don't wish Nintendo would cease making consoles.
Actually, I hope they continue as they are the only one of the 3 companies with any balls to try something new besides add in a better processor. This generation Nintendo brought in motion control gaming AND 3D gaming without glasses. You do realize they single-handedly brought us one big step closer to virtual reality this generation, right?

Sony and Microsoft are deeply rooted in other venues. As you read this Sony is leading the market in TVs with the Sony Bravia. As well, they are a stamp of quality in the stereo market. Microsoft is deep in software where most of their revenue comes in through operating systems. Sony and Microsoft are interested more in their contracts with other companies than how to influence gaming. Only Nintendo is elbows deep in gaming with no safety net and trying to aggressively hold their name.

As someone who is not interested in most of what Nintendo currently offers, I in no way hope that they go away. I am a fan of Nintendo even though they make mostly stuff that doesn't interest me. Their goal is to take gaming to new places and I respect that and hope they don't go away even though I have no reason as a consumer to buy their shit.

At any rate, I don't think they will even if the Wii-U fails. Comparing them to Sega isn't a proper comparison because Sega never found solid footing in the market after the Genesis. Everything after the Genesis was downhill. Nintendo has lead the market 3 times now with console releases and even when it didn't lead the market it was always a main competitor.

 

[XMark]

I don't think we have enough info to make any kind of accurate predictions on the Wii U yet. We don't even know what the hardware specs are.

 

[GonzoGamer]

WiiU isn't going to do well (certainly not as well as the Wii; with the Wii, they were doing something new, the WiiU just ads the tablet fad into the mix but the people who want tablets have them by now) but it's not going to kill Nintendo either.

In fact, I'm thinking the Playstation brand will be the next to fold. For quite a while, I've been thinking the PS3 might be Sony's Dreamcast.
They're definitely not doing anything to try and expand or win back the share of the market they lost (and it's like 2/3rds of their market: a LOT of fucking customers they lost) since the ps2.

MS would be dominating right now if they didn't charge an online fee and if their console wasn't defective.

 

[Kahldris71]

Its not the same, because even though the dreamcast was a failure... it was actually a good console. This is gonna sound like me baiting fanboys, but in all seriousness in my opinion the wii U is going to be a turd covered in vomit. The controller is just batshit retarded. The processor is woefully underpowered. The dreamcast at least had an innovative controller, a web browser its own ISP nobody used it but points for trying. Personally i wish the Dreamcast had not bombed because its a failure that i may harbour shameful love for.

 

[geK0]

So the system that offers something that the PC doesn't is the one that is going to flop?


doesn't sound plausible : \

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

If by "Nintendo's Dreamcast" you mean it will be their last console after it fails horribly... I certainly hope so.

If you mean it will be far ahead of it's time and be fucking awesome... I seriously doubt it. Players got over gimmicky features several years ago. We want quality game experiences, not gimmicks. Nintendo seems to have abandoned that crowd, which is a real shame.