VG_Addict said:
Why do people say that they won't buy Nintendo consoles for the games, yet want Nintendo to put their games on consoles of their choice? They can't want the games too badly if they're willing to buy a more expensive console (Sony and Microsoft's consoles generally cost more) just to get games they want instead of paying less for the console that has said games. What these people don't realize is that most of Nintendo's profits come from their hardware. If they went third party, Nintendo would lose most of their money.
The handful of games that Nintendo puts out during the lifetime of a console are not generally enough to warrant paying for the games AND for a console. If Nintendo produces ten games that you like, then that's something like $30 added to the price of each game. They're good games, but I wouldn't pay $90+ for games, especially not with an up-front cost of $300 (and that's without buying more controllers). It isn't that Nintendo is crap. It's that Nintendo is only one (albeit very big and high quality) development studio. I don't care what studio you are, you aren't enough to make me purchase a console. There's simply too much quality 3rd party stuff on the market, that HAS to be there too. I'd say the same thing about Sony or Microsoft or whomever else if they produced consoles that other publishers didn't make games for (either because of the console being weak or lack of agreements).
So what I usually do is wait for about four years into the cycle before buying the console. Then I get the console and the first four years of games at a reduced cost. It all then sort of evens out in the end.
Getting those games on other consoles would enable me to get all my desired entertainment at one price and in one place. As is, the Wii and WiiU are a hassle to purchase and to allow to take up space in my living room. They have tremendously little 3rd party support and the WiiU has been absolutely terrible with first party launches this time around compared with other consoles. They've done a few really good ones but 3 or 4 titles isn't nearly enough through the first year after launch. At launch, sure, but not the entire year after the launch and several months. I think Sony and Microsoft had a really weak offering at the start of their launch. If they're the same way by the end of next year I'll be harping on them too. But I've seen the games Sony at least has planned for the first year and it swallows WiiU's actual performance whole. If they can deliver, then shame on Nintendo and they'll lose my position of best development studio to Sony. Sony has been gaining a lot of ground there since the ps1. If I were honest I'd say Sony already produces more games I want to buy and play. Would I prefer a game like The Last of Us to New Super Mario Bros U? Yeah, yeah I would. But Nintendo is holding on by the thinnest thread of nostalgia and I think this generation will conquer it if nothing much changes.
Within the same amount of time after the Wii's launch (2006-2007)they had
Wii Sports/play/fit, Zelda, WarioWare smooth moves, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Mario Strikers Charged (if you care about that game at all, I'm just including Nintendo games with high 70 metas or better), Battalion Wars 2, Fire Emblem, Super Paper Mario, Mario Party 8 and even a few low quality cash grabs (Donkey Kong Barrel Blast, Link's Crossbow Training and Pokemon Battle Revolution). All of this was bolstered by an innovative control scheme that even the elderly could easily pick up(which is no longer new and the gamepad isn't cutting it) and they had decent 3rd party support with games that weren't necessarily good but were a draw like Red Steel and No More Heroes. The WiiU just isn't cutting the muster and I think the reason is that they thought all those big name ported games would sell huge. But they didn't because they'd all been out for months by the time the WiiU launched.
