Why is the Wii U not succeeding?

[Dragonbums]

I would think so?

For game save files to be stored directly onto the game disc it would require those discs to be rewritable and would require your console to have a built in disc burner which I'm pretty sure none of the current or upcoming consoles have.Game saves are stored to the system memory/hard-drive/flash drive/SD card/whatever.Cartridge based games are the only ones that store the game saves directly onto the game itself

I mean, aside from getting a USB stick so one could add more space onto their Wii U hard drive, I don't think I've ever really heard of anyone complaining about disk space for any Wii U games you have a physical copy of. Of all the detractors on the Wii, this is something I have yet to see brought up as a legitimate problem.

That's because save files tend to be pretty small averaging from a few hundred kb to a couple of mb.The 8gb or 32gb memory of the Wii U is more than enough if you only ever plan on using it for save files.The problems arise when you want to download digital titles

I see now.
Whoopsies on my part.
I guess that is such a non issue I never really cared to notice it. Or at the very least it wasn't as noticeable on the Gamecube so I just thought they did away with it.
But I agree. with downloaded titles that can indeed be a problem.
Which is often why I usually choose to get a game in physical form anyway.
Only full digital game I downloaded was Fire Emblem: Awakening, and that game practically took up all of the blocks of my 2GB card that came with my 3DS.

Captcha: sippy cup. Yes captcha I was indeed a very robust 8 year old when I got my Gamecube. I was however far gone from the sippy cup stage.

 

[Kittyhawk]

I think Amir Kondori made some good points.

LightKnight, you also make some valid points.

As for wanting a Nintendo home console to do well or not, at the end of the day a console is a box. A conduit to experience games from. Some like to have their own box, that's cool they can do that. However, if your box fails to sell well enough, you've got to ask questions and rethink.

Removing the equation of Nintendo's home console box (consider it for a second...don't panic) wouldn't change how good their games are. In fact, removing the burden of home consoles (while they'd still do hand helds) and all their 21 century trappings Nintendo find hard to grasp, IMO, would allow them to focus on the biggest, greatest strength, their games. Perhaps then their variety and creativity might explode more, producing some new better games besides those classic we love.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Dragonbums, I hope through Metal Dooley's post, you now understand how important optical storage (and storage in general) is now for consoles. Sure, Nintendo might not have used a hard drive (with their name on it) yet, but eventually they will (just as they eventually did use disc media from carts). DLC content is such a huge, lucrative part of selling extra game content these days, that various parties would love to produce it for Wii U but perhaps can't if there's nowhere to store it or guarantee gamers have that storage.

Across the life of my 360 which began with a 20gb hard drive in 2006, I managed to eventually fill it by 2010. Have since upgraded to a 250gb hard drive, which I hope will last me the rest of the current gen. A huge chunk of it is filled with DLC content, map packs etc. I'd be screwed without it. Cloud storage appeared recently, which is great for backing up game saves but not for my large amount of game content, some of which isn't available as DLC anymore (see Two Worlds/Chromehounds etc).

Lol. I remember the days of my N64 well. I played Turok 2 and it was awesome but after progressing so much my progress was scuppered and lost by a dodgy memory card, and I was never able to recover that save file and gave up playing it. I had similar experience with my PS1 too, so I'm happy not to have to deal with memory cards anymore, this current gen.

 

[Lightknight]

Nintendo has never dropped support for any console that isn't the Virtual Boy. The N64 sold 32 million, they supported the thing for years. The Gamecube sold 25 million, they supported it as well.

32 million and 22 million (the xbox is the one that sold 25 million that gen) weren't terribly small numbers for the time. They were just small when compared to the playstation's insane numbers those two generations but Nintendo certainly wasn't hurting. They only recently posted their first losses and that had nothing to do with those generations. Yes, they'd lost a lot of market share with the playstation, but they were still profiting.

The thing with the gamecube was this, it was around as powerful if not more powerful than its competitors and was the cheapest system by far. They literally couldn't have done any better where the console was concerned. So discontinuing the console wouldn't have done anything for them unless it would magically generate games to sell the system. The N64 was also perplexing. Sony just jumped into the arena and slaughtered Sega at the same time they took market share from Nintendo. All I can think of is that the Playstation was better marketed or that it had already acquired a stable fan base by having a year-lead on the N64 that was extended by a severe lack of games at launch that the playstation did NOT suffer from. But that the N64, one of the if not THE most beloved consoles ever sold that much less than its competitors is remarkable. Really, I think launch lineups have always plagued Nintendo's consoes. Don't know why they keep making the same mistake each generation.

The current WiiU console isn't close to being as powerful as its competitors and isn't that much cheaper. Right now they're smack in the middle. They're too expensive to be an impulse buy like the Wii was and they're too weak to compete with the upcoming competition. Imagine a gamecube that was almost as expensive as the ps2 and Xbox without being as powerful.

I'd be more worried about Microsoft dropping support, given their history of completely stopping anything to do with an old console once a new one comes out.

Every company, Nintendo included, discontinue their old consoles eventually after the new console comes out. The problem isn't concern over the console being discontinued later when the Wii3 is produced, it's concern over the console being discontinued early. If the XBO sold as poorly as the WiiU is selling right now I'd be even more concerned with them dropping the XBO than I'd be concerned with Nintendo doing so. But that's because I trust Nintendo more than Microsoft.

If Nintendo launched a new console this soon after the Wii U, it would irreparably damage their public image. No-one would buy a new console if Nintendo set a precedent of dropping support for previous consoles on a whim. The Virtual Boy gets a pass for having been dropped two decades ago, and because it tanked so badly anyway.

The virtual boy was discontinued within five months after its launch. It sold 770,000 units in that time when they had anticipated selling 3 million units. This means the VB sold only 26% of anticipated sales whereas the WiiU was somewhere around 60% of the original 5.5 million it expected and the 3.3 million it got. Don't think it's completely unthinkable with such a comparative example. The difference is that the Virtual Boy was a gamble from the start and they knew it.

Now then, a relaunch does not mean eradicating the existing product line. They could, for example, launch a new type of WiiU that doesn't come with the tablet to reduce the price point by $100 or more while encouraging developers to continue to support the tablet and selling the tablet separately as an optional peripheral. That's if they want to compete on a price point. Let me ask you something, do you really feel like the gamepad is worth adding $100s to the system? Actually, from the Nintendo News site the gamepad could be around $140 just to replace:

http://mynintendonews.com/2013/02/26/wii-u-gamepad-could-cost-you-at-least-140-to-replace/

Imagine if the WiiU standard was $160 and the Premium was $210. That's a pretty simple impulse buy.

Nintendo aren't going anywhere with the Wii U anytime soon. They've just started getting the hang of HD development. They're not going to be in a rush to push out a new console that supports 4K resolution and sports the latest Radeon monstrosity.

That's a problem if they're going to charge close to the same amount as a console that does sport the latest "monstrosity" (aka is capable of playing more powerful games, interesting thing to call a monstrocity).

Having to pay for online multiplayer is, in my mind, the definition of not getting the most for your buck. Not when other companies still manage to offer the service for free.

Online Multiplayers services have shot through the roof in the price of maintaining them with the adoption of huge multiplayer FPS titles like COD. I'm not the happiest about my other games subsidizing COD multiplayer but the playstation+ perks are more than competent.

Nintendo is cultivating just as many indies as Sony, if not more.

Right, and they're starting to implement that by refusing applications to develop indie games from any Japanese developers. That's a really good sign.

http://kotaku.com/apparently-nintendo-is-refusing-japanese-indie-develop-877747113

Anyone in this day and age who really cares about films has a Netflix or Hulu account. Which the Wii U supports, without hiding them behind a paywall. *Glares at Microsoft*

I do have both of those. I also have two DVDs delivered to me at any given time by Netflix's DVD mailing service for anything else that is on DVD but isn't on those services. Hence how I'm watching Game of Thrones now. And yeah, shame on Microsoft for that. I've been disappointed by that too.

Debatable. New screens from upcoming games like Bayonetta 2 show a marked difference between the original X360 game, and the level of graphics we can expect from the sequel.

No, not debateable. It has been interesting seeing people try to prevent it. The WiiU is much more powerful than the current generation but significantly weaker than next gen tech (aside from the logical argument that it is a next gen console ergo it is exactly next gen tech). The only question is how much weaker, not whether or not it is.

I wouldn't be entirely worried bout it. Nintendo's system is exactly as powerful as it needs to be to run Nintendo games.

Try Wonderful 101. The Gamepad (its not a tablet, so stop referring to it as such) allows you to specifically draw out weapons to whatever size you want. Larger weapons require more heroes to use, but do much more damage. The touchscreen gives you much greater control over drawing those weapons than the analogue stick does, and makes for a much more fluif experience.

It is a tablet. Gamepad is just the name of it. Tablet is to Gamepad as Cell Phone is to iPhone. It is correct to call it a tablet. There are other tablets that also have game-style controllers attached to them as well.

I fail to see why I'd particularly want a $140 to do small things in the game. I seriously doubt that wonderful 101 would have been undesignable/unplayable without the tablet.

 

[Lightknight]

The biggest point for me now is how poorly it is doing. I certainly don't want to drop any amount of cash for something that's just going to be dropped.

How poorly it is doing now you mean, it actually had enough traction to beat ps3 to one million in japan.

The PS3 had a terrible start and then pushed itself into an even more precarious position by dropping the price but this move eventually paid off. At least the machine was widely believed to be the most powerful of the generation AND it doubled as what was actually a cheap blu-ray player before they became common (seriously, if you remember the prices at the time, a comparable bluray player was like $1,000 for some insane reason that's still beyond me). Sony negotiated heavily for exclusives and their multi-armed development studio beast which is legion pumped out many of the most memorable titles of the generation.

Nintendo's WiiU is NOT the most powerful device, does not double as any kind of media device where disks are concerned, and is already selling at a loss for Nintendo with an arguably unecessary $140 peripheral that is the Gamepad (aka Tablet) which allows you to play games from a minor distance away (compare to a used Vita that allows you to play ps4 games and media from thousands of miles away for $145 and is entirely optional to purchase and has titles custom made for just it). They have literally no reason to justify the price otherwise and the titles just aren't there. That's what has been hurting them since the N64 when they launched with a whopping two games (Pilotwings 64 and Super Mario 64) unless you count Saikyō Habu Shōgi [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiky%C5%8D_Habu_Sh%C5%8Dgi] which I only just learned about while researching my response to you.

If the WiiU wants to pull out of this, it'll have to give a compelling reason to buy the system. Nintendo has already acknowledged this necessity without providing an answer. If the Nintendo Execs can acknowledge this, we should be able to admit that they are REALLY under-performing right now. They need games badly. They need to cut prices badly if they can't come up with a good reason to want the console at its current price. There's a lot of stuff they've got to figure out and you really shouldn't be defending them for it just like you likely weren't defending the PS3's performance if you were around when it was having troubles.

Nintendo won't drop this console, it isn't cause their dumb(it's actually smart business,) they need to bounce out the negative this console is bringing to their bank account. It wouldn't be hard to relaunch this console in the fall either before the console release or at least before Christmas.

How would you recommend they relaunch the console? What changes do you think they should make? Keep in mind, Nintendo doesn't believe that they should have to make the development on their console more appealing by "buying" developers the way Sony and Microsoft do. All that ends up meaning is that they won't have games to sell the system like the other two will because they're too proud to think they need to attract other companies. They literally do not entirely understand how 3rd party cultivation works in today's market or are unwilling to play along in a way that hurts them more than others.

Now that Nintendo is finally in the start of the constant releases, I wouldn't be surprised by them getting heavy with marketing now that they actually have something to market. People are saying price deduction but I think it would be more business savy to take a hit on a game than the console. A bundle with New Mario U or even the new one would sweeten the deal and attract the less than internet savvy.

When the WiiU is within $100 of the price of arguably the most powerful console on the market the system will have a huge initial hurdle to jump. Imagine if they dropped the tablet ($140 to make) and had a console price of $160 for the base unit, $210 for the advanced one. Suddenly the console is a very easy buy. They need to do a lot. But remember that both of the competitors have announced a ton of VERY attractive launch titles for both systems. Nintendo may only play catchup on that front and it's pretty sad that they made the same mistake for at least 3 console launches.

It's so sad because, look:

http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-video-games/zgbs/videogames#1

Both the Ps4 console and the XBO consoles are selling at a faster rate than Pikimin 3 on an hourly basis. Pikmin 3, a game I will be buying in about 2-4 years depending on the WiiU's status because it looks like a damn fine first rate game and will likely be one of Nintendo's big ten titles that people had to pay the $300 console tax to play. Wii games? DS games? They're floating all over this list. But this single object is the only thing on this list with the WiiU brand on it at the time of this posting (this updates every hour). Right this moment, the ps3 controller is selling better and that's a shame.

What I'm hoping is that this was all due to the botched media campaign and that this Christmas, all those parents who want to buy a family friendly system will look at the WiiU. That's their best shot.

The Wii U isn't hurting on number of games. A glance at the Wikipedia page will tell you Nintendo already has an impressive library.

Here's the problem though. None of those titles stand out.

The statement "The WiiU doesn't have games" and "None of these titles stand out" are practically synonymous. Of course the first statement means it doesn't have GOOD games or enough good games as the case may be.

 

[Dragonbums]

I'm just going to tell you this straight off the bat dude.
If you cannot be assed to hit the reply button when you are talking to me, then I am going to stop conversing with your until you do.
Do not MAKE me have to refresh this forum post every 20 minutes just so I can check to see if you said anything to me or not.
The function is there for a reason. USE IT.

I hope through Metal Dooley's post, you now understand how important optical storage (and storage in general) is now for consoles. Sure, Nintendo might not have used a hard drive (with their name on it) yet, but eventually they will (just as they eventually did use disc media from carts)

You cherry picked his argument. While yes, he did state that the Wii U hard drive space is a bit small, he also mentioned that save files only take up a pathetic amount of kilobytes. Let me quote that for you save files tend to be pretty small averaging from a few hundred kb to a couple of mb.The 8gb or 32gb memory of the Wii U is more than enough if you only ever plan on using it for save files.The problems arise when you want to download digital titles.
He has basically stated that Wii U disk space will NEVER be a major problem, if at all- so much a concern to third party developers.
The only people worried about such a thing would be indie devs (and even then their games are small on average anyway. Yet along file size.) and those who want to download full $60.00 games on their Wii U. That's it. Other than that, you can buy dozens of Wii U games and still not run into a hard drive space problem.

DLC content is such a huge, lucrative part of selling extra game content these days, that various parties would love to produce it for Wii U but perhaps can't if there's nowhere to store it or guarantee gamers have that storage.

Only a couple of game developers this gen have actually used DLC to add content to an already full game.
Most however utilize it as a piece meal. Things that could of been added at launch of a game that were purposefully withheld to get more money out of the consumers.
Mass Effect 2-3 are the worst offenders of this act. Keeping essential and fleshed out characters on DLC so they can charge you $10.00 extra for content that should of stayed in game.

various parties would love to produce it for Wii U but perhaps can't if there's nowhere to store it or guarantee gamers have that storage.

Considering how save files take up a very tiny amount of space on a memory card, I hardly doubt again DLC will take that much.
As for space, it is not the job of Nintendo or the developers to make sure that users know they have enough space on their hard drives. If they filled their Wii U hard drive to the brim with over bloated stuff, then that is all on them. Nintendo is not going to hold their hand when it comes to space management.

Across the life of my 360 which began with a 20gb hard drive in 2006, I managed to eventually fill it by 2010. Have since upgraded to a 250gb hard drive,

For someone who is making a big deal about lack of Wii U hard drive space, the fact that you admitted that it still took you a hearty four years to fill up your 26gb hard drive is enough to prove how much of a non issue this is. Especially when you emphasize on the fact that you filled it to the brim with DLC. You also failed to mention how many games you own, and how much DLC you own. However based on what you said, we can only assume it's a fuck ton. Especially considering how the average consumer does not spend that much money on DLC anyway.

 

[Dragonbums]

I've enjoyed our discussion so far. Please let me know if I've been appearing rude or inflammatory towards you. From my side of the table it looks like just an open discussion between gamers. I've seen some unnecessary flame baiting against you in this thread and just wanted to make sure our discussion was non-adversarial.

Yes, there is definitely a lot of flame baiting. Luckily for me I'm quite immune to such nonsense. Getting into internet shenanigans as a teen has helped me grow a very tough skin. I am not mad at this. Simply amused at these turn of events.

I have enjoyed our conversation so far. You bring up good points as a rebuttal, and I can clearly understand where you are coming from.

Deluxe's Nintendo Land Video game is selling for $17 on Amazon new.


and

The gamepad cradle/stand is $9 new. [http://www.amazon.com/Wii-GamePad-Stand-Cradle-Nintendo-U/dp/B009AFLXTS/ref=sr_1_1_title_0?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1376340380&sr=1-1&keywords=gamepad+console+stand]

That's $1.50 plus shipping mind you.

This is MAYBE $26 in extras and that's assuming that you would have bought Nintendo Land regardless. If not, you're just spending $50 extra for little more than $10. The rest is then for 24GB of Memory. For goodness sake, 24GB of Memory is nothing. Why is it not 100GB or 500GB for that price?! I can literally get you 32GB thumb drives from reliable companie for less than $10.

Here, this is literally a thumb drive (joke) that holds 64GB for $12, new. [http://www.amazon.com/Finger-Model-Memory-Stick-Flash/dp/B00CRYSCAC/ref=sr_1_7?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1376402455&sr=1-7]

Shame on Nintendo for being so stingy in a world where $80 gets you 2TB of space with a 3.0 USB ($110 gets you 3 TBs from Seagate).

The 10% deal is cute, if you don't already get a better deal by shopping Amazon or any retailer rather than purchasing on the game store which always keeps the price up for some anti-steam reason I guess. If you exclusively buy games at launch then this is an attractive deal. I buy weeks, sometimes months later. I'm currently enjoying Borderlands 2 for the first time. It's great.

I agree on this. The only games I ever buy on launch day are Pokemon games. However Nintendo games are notorious for having loving owners and it's so rare for a game to be put used en masses so it gets cheap that you might as well buy the thing new anyway.
Seriously, after all these years Mario Kart for the DS is still basically full priced. The used copies are perhaps maybe $5.00 less. Of course this is me browsing Gamestop, not Amazon, but...I just can't really trust it all that much sometimes. I guess my parents distrust for online retailers- especially customer sold products are rubbing off on me.(what I mean by customer are user based sellers like "aria2885" or something.)

I asked if you were concerned. If the game continues to sell at this rate with no pickup then it will have to be replaced by them. Are you worried about getting stuck with the bill at all here? I'm not saying you shouldn't buy it because of that concern, I'm asking if that's a concern you share. It's nice to say that Nintendo has almost never discontinued a console. But they've also never quite been in this dire straights. The PS3 was at least praised as a powerful systems with a decent game lineup and were able to fall back on price cuts even though they were already selling the system for a loss to make it through the generation.

No. I am not concerned. The Wii U will do fine soon. This is the same doom and gloom the 3DS got. And now look at it- it's the go to console right now, and it will certainly be topping the wishlists of many children this holiday season. The Wii U is picking up traction now. Just a couple more releases and the thing is necessarily good to go. Remember, even with all the negative articles, the number one thing stated on them from consumers is that they just need more games. That's really all there is to it; and Nintendo has a lot of games in their library to churn out.
Then again, that's all any console really needs to sell. Games.

I would only be concerned with trading in my Wii for a WiiU if it was not backwards compatible. Fortunately it is from what I understand, so you've got that at least. Even worst case scenario you still have that. So don't think I'm trying to scare tactic you. If you play a lot of gamecube titles on your wii then perhaps you'll miss those.

It's sentimental value more than anything. I have a perfectly operable Gamecube, so I have no worries about not being able to play those games.
I'm just the kind of person that gets pretty attached to a console. Especially one that has given me a lot of fun. It's hard to let it go.

Those servers do cost money to run at rates that FPS games demand like never before. I will say that Sony's plus program is incredibly attractive. I just played Uncharted 3 for free. Lots of fun. You should check out Little Big Planet if you haven't already. During previous generations, free online experiences were possible because the traffic wasn't that intensive. But games like Halo and COD and any of the other large multi-player titles exploded the demand on multiplayer titles in a way Sony wasn't prepared for this past generation. I don't know if you were aware of it, but there was a noticeable difference between my 360 online games and my ps3 online games. Worse lag times, worse performance, everything. Then Sony implemented the optional ps+ program and pumped that revenue into their servers and my experience on ps3's multiplayer titles changes such that my 360 started collecting dust. As long as Nintendo games don't have a ton of people playing at the same time in a computionally complex game then they won't need to charge that much more for these titles.

I am aware that severs cost money. But still, it's clear that they have a base of consumers willing to pay the price of PS+ to get those benefits. Enough so, that they are able to fund those over crowded servers. However they are now saying "pay or lose out" which isn't fair. I payed $60.00 for the game, I should get everything that comes with it. Multiplayer included. You want more PS+ members make the service more attractive. However pay or no online pay- at the end of the day both parties payed money for a full game. It's not right to basically bar out the other party because they aren't giving you extra cash on top of the already hefty price of $60.00

I've really wanted to try that game, thanks for reminding me (my birthday is in a bit and my wife is looking for things to get me. I hear I'm hard to shop for). I love studio Ghibli in general and combining that art direction with what is basically pokemon sounds like a dream come true.

Get ready for beautiful colors, adorable creatures, and facepalm worthy puns. Oh my god the puns.

I understand that, but I also enjoy more mature storylines that I feel Nintendo fails to deliver on. I really like FPS like Bioshock, the Last of Us, Halo and such. I enjoy AAA storylines like Metal Gear Solid (well, I have enjoyed MGS, lately it's become even more of a movie than a game), Uncharted always feels like I'm Indiana Jones, Shadow of the Colossus, and the hitman series which is decidedly un-Nintendo. But these aren't titles I get on the WiiU. Only two of the games mentioned are even available on the pc. I've also had a ton great experiences with Indie titles and Nintendo isn't making any observable progress there (yet?).

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy those too. However like I said, most that interest me I can easily get on the PC during steam sales (because I'm a cheap fucker)

(Viva Pinata, tell me that didn't tug on your Nintendo heart strings, haha, it did mine)

A wonderful, sadistic game disguised in cute animal pinatas. It's heart breaking playing it though...knowing the current state of the legendary company behind the game.

However, you'd got to understand that the majority of gamers now prefer more involved storylines with more adult themes and customizable gameplay.

This is where a lot of people tend to miss the mark. You are right and wrong with this in my opinion. You should rephrase that as the majority of "teen to adult" gamers. You have for the most part ignored the demographic of children. A group of consumers that seemingly is long since forgotten by Sony and Microsoft. Aside from the few little ones that develop an early taste for fine story telling, many of them for years will grow up and enjoy Nintendo's IP's. I've seen it myself with little siblings that come over to parties. They practically enjoy this stuff. Then, as they get older, this is around the time they get two consoles- One Nintendo the other Sony/Microsoft, or simply move on from Nintendo completely.

while the other consoles don't have the best where family friendly/light hearted titles are concerned, I feel like they do fill that need as best as possible without having license rights to a plumber.

The same way you say some people cannot justify buying a Wii U for two titles that interest them is the same thing I can say for Sony and Microsoft.
No kid is really going to enjoy a console when there are only maybe two or three games on it- possibly in it's entire generation that so much as attempts to cater to them. (and isn't 1st rate shovel ware like Petz) Looking at the choice between a Nintendo console and the other two; Nintendo and PC would give those kids more bang for their buck on that front. Little Big Planet was a start in the kids demographic, but I feel since then they kind of loosened their grip on it, and they don't have Spyro or Crash to back them up either which were kid title favorites on the early PS2.

But that saying only emphasizes the problem. The other two competitors have a good lineup of exclusives (particularly Sony this past generation) AND have the fully supply that is 3rd party developers. I mean, No Ni Kuni that you mentioned, that's a 3rd party Sony exclusive (there was a much less involved DS version released in Japan only). There's no reason that shouldn't have been on the Wii or WiiU and yet somehow Nintendo couldn't get that done. That's awful, they'd already had a working relationship with the company on a game that did very well on the DS and dropped the ball.

Some 3rd party games on the wii are good, but I've found that no one has more shovelware than Nintendo either. Especially on the DS which I feel has better first and third party development but a sea of crap you have to wade through to find them.

Shovelware is very easy for even average consumers to shift over. Along with being a shitty game, they also have shitty covers and people don't buy things with crappy art. Of course, that's the price you pay for having a wildly popular handheld device.

I'm not sure why a game such as Nino Kuni is not on the Nintendo systems. I guess there was a deal somewhere in there. Or perhaps a port is on the way? Idk.

Nintendo has a large cache of IP's to utilize from. Of course they put out their big sellers first. Then after that they focus on the more niche titles. More people are excited for the Fire Emblem X Shin Megami crossover than the Zelda game. Especially when Fire Emblem (and the help of a good promotion) basically skyrocketed the fanbase to numbers that fandom could only dream of.
That is not to say third party support isn't necessary.
However when I think of Sony and Microsoft, I don't really think about their first party titles. I only think about their third party games.
The only franchise I can exclusively attach to Sony in a mental sense is Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, and Little Big Planet.

For Microsoft it is only Halo. Other then that, it keeps it's most popular image as a CoD, Madden machine.

I have found that good 3rd party exclusives on Nintendo consoles are outnumbered by Nintendo 1st party titles which isn't very many. 3rd party multi-console titles are extremely lacking, particularly the high-profile one.

Many reasons for that. Some others have touched upon. An interesting thing I heard is because competing with Nintendo in the game department is hard. I agree. It is one hell of a *****. I think the thing they should utilize is standing out form the crowd. Make your game look just as interesting as Nintendo's. Rayman Legends stands out to me, and many kids, and I feel with the right amount of ads on the Nintendo platform it will be able to stand up to Nintendo's first party titles.

[qouteIf you've got a limited amount of money and can only pick one console, that's a serious issue.[/quote]

But it all comes down to preference. I have a feeling the Wii U will be facing a lot more issues this coming season than the Wii U has ever witnessed.

Hah, "If you prove that there's a full demand for your game then we want you on our system" is not them actively pursuing Indie developers. Also, this is the creator of EarthWorm Jim. He's already worked with Nintendo in the past unless I'm just imagining working on EarthWorm Jim on the SNES for hours and hours.

Earthworm Jim is mainly the artist this time around. I think it's other people who are focused on the actual production. Especially considering the fact that this was a game that was going to be PC exclusive anyway. Meaning they had no interest in making a Wii U game. Nintendo simply requested. They could of said no, but they agreed to it instead.(and managed to fund the money in quick order to develop for it.)

So all Indies need to be already have proven themselves? That's not being Indie friendly.

You need to specify on the "prove themselves bit". I didn't say that only if you got contacted by Nintendo go they make games on the Wii U. I said that for games that have generated a lot of buzz Nintendo has personally contacted them and requested their game be on their system.

That's being development company friendly. That being said, I have seen some hopeful policies from Nintendo on this front but at the same time I've seen unexplainable anti-indie practices:

For example, did you know that if you're a Japanese indie developer that Nintendo is throwing your application immediately into the trash without even looking at it? [http://www.joystiq.com/2013/07/24/nintendo-not-accepting-japanese-applications-for-wii-u-indie-dev/]

No one really knows what is going on in that front. Especially if it's in their own home country. However someone brought up in the comments section is that one of the reasons why this may be happening is because many Japanese indie games tend to either be blatant hentei games, or hentai games disguised as appropriate games that Nintendo doesn't find out until after they sink their time into reviewing those games. Again that is all speculation.

For some reason, Sony was just better at getting those 3rd party titles and exclusives. Nintendo isn't willing to play the game of courting and even subsidizing third party titles. That's why they started to fail at getting those titles because Sony made themselves more attractive to those companies. The Wii got better support because it was flying off the shelves. But even then, Nintendo wasn't courting 3rd party developers and so a lot of AAA titles ended up going for the more powerful machines rather than making it playable on all three.

I guess? I really don't know anymore. Different reasons for different studios. Not directed at you, but I'm just tired of going back and forth on third party support roulette. Why did this go on that system and so on.
It's not the argument that you presented is wrong or anything...I'm just...really tired of all this.
Whatever the reason so be it.
This is Nintendo's case to solve.

That's silly. I don't mean you're silly, just that this oft repeated notion is totally backwards. You don't fix broken companies by limiting their ability to harm themselves. You let the dumb ones over-spend to the point of exhaustion and then let the good businesses acquire the IPs over the previous company's cold dead body. Companies that spend millions more than they should in production and marketing just because some forecasting department idiot told them that their JRPG could make COD money if they did so aren't companies that deserve to succeed because they're failing to understand the basic tenants of marketing. Namely, limited demand. You can't spend an infinite amount of money on the quality of the game and marketing it to customers and expect to get unlimited customers. When selling millions of copies each of games like Tomb Raider, Hitman, and Sleeping Dogs isn't good enough then it's time to redirect the course the ship is sailing in and take another look at the basics. Millions of copies is a lot of copies in the game world. If you can't profit with that then your budget in production and/or marketing should have been tighter than it was because the demand for it just wasn't as high. Larger companies are already learning from this and I believe they're readjusting their business practices. There's a LOT that can be done to bring production budgets down, including reusing game engines and even sharing game engines across partnerships, cutting multiplayer out of games that aren't necessary, start spending smarter in marketing.

Coming from someone who say some of my favorite IP's of all time get destroyed by this nonsense...it is TOO MUCH of the gaming industry that is indulging in this idiocy. This would be a fucking okay if dumb studios do dumb things and get shut down.
However they don't keep their filthy hands to themselves. They buy out other studios that were good to keep them alfoat, and sink them dead in the water first before they go down. Or the good IP's they do have just become husks of what they once were before being taken out the back.

Do you really want companies that don't understand how to budget properly to be in control of your favorite IPs?

EA and Mass Effect. That is all I'm going to say on that matter.

I'm not seeing any less innovation from the other companies. Ever play Fruit Ninja via the Xbox Kinect?

App games have already proven themselves to think up quite a few clever things when they need to. However what is to say for the opposite?

Sony tried a number of things this past generation, I don't think they were as successful but it looks like the ps4 controllers are all going to be the wands this time around.

I'm curious as to what new things your talking about. I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm genuinely curios. The only thing I can think of is the PS move.

It just incorporated already existing tech. The WiiU is not an innovation.

Just because it incorporates existing tech doesn't mean it's not innovative. It can open a lot of doors for devs who want to try out different ways to utilize gameplay on two screens for a console. Especially if they were unable to do those things on the handhelds.

Let me ask you something. If Nintendo did have to stop developing home consoles, would you mind? Do you feel like you'd lose something if they still made their own peripherals and software for other consoles and computers? I know they're not planning on doing that, but I feel like we, as gamers, would only stand to benefit from them stopping the home console market.

This is something I will always disagree with you on.

Yes. It will be a very sad day if Nintendo drops out of the home console market, and it would affect me because now the only choice I will have is between the Sony console with same old gameplay mechanics, or the Xbox with same old gameplay mechanics with no alternative to try something out unless they want to.(Which I'm betting on, they won't most of the time.)
When Nintendo has free reign to do what they want with their own hardware, they can make it to the utmost quality. You cannot guarantee that Nintendo will always be successful in their "gimmicks" if they were on PC with that same amount of polish. People will probably ignore it just as much as if they did on their consoles. And since they don't HAVE to use it in order to play their games, I can only imagine in short time they will soon just become the same as the other two. The only difference is that they cater to kids.
Gamers aren't going to benefit from that. At least, not the ones that enjoy finding new ways to play games. The only people who will benefit are those who have been crying for Nintendo to doom themselves sine the N64 era just so they can play their games on the system of their choice.
and considering how nobody equally demands this from Sony and Microsoft- really makes me shake my head.

The thing is, a limited end point, the store front, harms every point of the business preceding that stage. In limiting themselves to one store front that isn't every successful, they harm their publishing and developing side of the business which is what they specialize in. 3.6 million WiiUs means they can't possibly sell 28 million copies of Mario Cart like they did for the Wii.

You need to look at it at a different perspective. A perspective that is starting to become lost on this generation. Mario Kart is a success in software sales alone. However ever it is even more of a success when you consider the fact that most people who own a Wii owns Mario Kart. Same can be said for Mario Kart Wii U. It is a success (hypothetically, the game hasn't come out yet) because most people who own the Wii U owns the game. When more Wii U sales come in, then that means more Mario Karts will be sold. Which means if/when the Wii U reaches a base of 20 million(or whatever high number you want to substitute) they can safely predict that 18 million of those Wii U's will have a Mario Kart with them.
That's pretty optimistic if you ask me.

 

[ThePuzzldPirate]

snip

These posts are getting far to big to quote, seeing Dragonbums almost made me wave the TLR flag. XD

I actually agree with you with many of your points you posted, I'm just going to lay down my thought process. I don't expect Nintendo to win this console generation, become profitable yes but far from winning. Everyone knows they FUBARD this entire year up which destroyed there top dollar, both with their in-experience with HD games and their very loose ties with third party.

Yes the game-pad only lets you play any where in your house(depending on the house, I've seen really good and bad ranges) but the difference here is the fact that you do get it inside the box. With the Vita having the price point and not being there out the gate, we have no clue if developers are going to support it as now its a luxury, more work for something not everyone is going to be able to use.

The correct in the price point now(WiiU < PS4). As things are now, it's not worth it but I have to add I might be the wrong person to argue this as I see any money that could be spent on console hardware could be spent on PC hardware, especially this gen. The Wii-U is going to have to sweeten the deal. I'm not defending them to not cut the price, they are going to have to do it, there is just no reason to do it right at this moment cause it would accomplish nothing. Down the road when they fix the Wii-U biggest problem(games), for sure and I see it happening before the Christmas break or near the release of Mario Kart 8 next year.

When I say relaunch it, I mean get aggressive with it again. while the Nintendo Directs is well enough for the internet savvy, they need to start getting advertising out into the public. They sort of doing it but they need to send the message that "yes we are here, this is what it out, this is what is coming out. Here is our console bundle." This has to be competing with the other two advertising cause if they don't, than they might as well throw their console under the bus.

Your right in that Nintendo has been bad with tying up companies but they have been getting better. Retro is still working with them, they seemed to have gained Platinum's trust, I wouldn't be surprised to see Grasshopper on the Wii-U as well. Ubisoft hasn't jumped ship yet while Activision will support anything that runs XD. If the rumor is true and they are bidding Atlus(This one being most likely as they need to protect FExST) than at least it won't be completely barren.

One thing I need to mention here is just my thought process for this next-gen. The reason I don't talk about hardware cause this is going to be the first generation in history where the budgets have out-grown the hardware. PS4 beats Wii-u in a arm wrestle but are developers going to be able to use it without breaking the bank? While the Hardware will allow them to take more shortcuts, it's not going to make the games look any better as that still acquires someone to make the assets. If Developers decide to support the Wii-u than most likley we will get games that just have higher visual fidelity from the Wii-u being the lowest to the top being PC. If no one does after Nintendo's Stimulus program than Nintendo is stuck with another Gamecube which means it varies from person to person if that is a good thing.

 

[MetalDooley]

Your right in that Nintendo has been bad with tying up companies but they have been getting better. Retro is still working with them

Seeing as Retro Studios are owned by Nintendo I'd be surprised if they weren't still working with them

 

[ThePuzzldPirate]

Your right in that Nintendo has been bad with tying up companies but they have been getting better. Retro is still working with them

Seeing as Retro Studios are owned by Nintendo I'd be surprised if they weren't still working with them

Hey, in this industry, studios drop like flies or end up like Rare. XD

 

[Saelune]

Let someone play Pikmin 3. I got a Wii U recently, but I am not going to buy games I can get on a different console for it. They are usually dumbed down versions. Its the games MADE FOR the Wii U that are what I want (Also Wii games since I did not own one, and Wii U actually does have backwards compatability). Once the new SSB game comes out though, sales will jump.

 

[Roxas1359]

Your right in that Nintendo has been bad with tying up companies but they have been getting better. Retro is still working with them

Seeing as Retro Studios are owned by Nintendo I'd be surprised if they weren't still working with them

Hey, in this industry, studios drop like flies or end up like Rare. XD

*sheds a tear for Nintendo selling Rare*
It was sad that they decided to sell Rare, but then again after Conker's Bad Fur Day all the main people who made Rare as popular as it was left the company really so Nintendo must have seen it as a profit, although we did lose out on Donkey Kong Racing. T^T

 

[Roxas1359]

Your right in that Nintendo has been bad with tying up companies but they have been getting better. Retro is still working with them

Seeing as Retro Studios are owned by Nintendo I'd be surprised if they weren't still working with them

Hey, in this industry, studios drop like flies or end up like Rare. XD

*sheds a tear for Nintendo selling Rare*
It was sad that they decided to sell Rare, but then again after Conker's Bad Fur Day all the main people who made Rare as popular as it was left the company really so Nintendo must have seen it as a profit, although we did lose out on Donkey Kong Racing. T^T

Hey, hey now! No-one decided to sell Rare but Rare. The Microsoft buyout is on their own heads. The Stamper Brothers wanted to sell the majority shares in Rare, and Nintendo weren't interested in buying the company outright. The Big N always said they prefer not to buy out studios, because the talent usually leaves anyway (as happened with Rare). Microsoft and Activision both put in bids for those majority shares, and Microsoft ended up offering more money.

It wasn't anything to do with Nintendo not being satisfied with Rare, just that the Stamper bros wanted more money. And look where that ended the studio up...

Well in there defense I honestly didn't mind Nuts and Bolts too much, as what other game would allow me to create a giant flying Abraham Lincoln head that has laser eyes, breaths fire, and whose hat detaches into a pilot-able missile bomber. Then Viva Pinata was fun, and extremely depressing, to play. Now though they've gone to the shiter because of MS.

 

[Lightknight]

Good luck on responding to this. I apologize that it's so long but feel free to delete things you don't think are going anywhere.

I have enjoyed our conversation so far. You bring up good points as a rebuttal, and I can clearly understand where you are coming from.

Thanks, I also understand where you're coming from and it makes sense. At several levels, the choice to go with a console has to be subjective and I'm not out to diminish your opinions of their work. I'm just trying to discuss the objective nuts and bolts.

I agree on this. The only games I ever buy on launch day are Pokemon games. However Nintendo games are notorious for having loving owners and it's so rare for a game to be put used en masses so it gets cheap that you might as well buy the thing new anyway.

Seriously, after all these years Mario Kart for the DS is still basically full priced. The used copies are perhaps maybe $5.00 less. Of course this is me browsing Gamestop, not Amazon, but...I just can't really trust it all that much sometimes. I guess my parents distrust for online retailers- especially customer sold products are rubbing off on me.(what I mean by customer are user based sellers like "aria2885" or something.)

Amazon is extremely reliable as long as you pay attention to vender ratings. For example:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BFIASS/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B000A2R54M&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0KVEHXCCQ80XMFM6R8SE

$16 plus shipping for Mario Cart from a vendor that has almost 110,000 reviews over the past 12 months and a ranking that is over 95% positive. You can even go to the vendor's site to see what they are. In this case, it's Momox.com which appears to be a UK site that buys books/cds/dvds/games off of individuals and then resells on Amazon. So it's basically a gamestop with Amazon and sites like that as the store front.

This is a perfect example. The new game costs $47. 10% and you're at $42.30 with $4.7 off. You'd basically be throwing away $22.30 for the same game if you used the 10% off deal instead of just getting it preowned. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, they're all guilty at being dumb when it comes to online sales. Hopefully Steam is showing them the way but they're really slow to the plate. Steam has sales so good I buy games I know full-well I'm not going to play within the year.

Spoilered for space:

No. I am not concerned. The Wii U will do fine soon. This is the same doom and gloom the 3DS got. And now look at it- it's the go to console right now, and it will certainly be topping the wishlists of many children this holiday season.

Nintendo's handheld division is still king. The 3DS didn't really have a games problem from what I recall and the competition's pricing is $100 more. I want you to consider that if the N64 couldn't even pull itself out of the slump against Sony why the WiiU has a better shot with all the additional things going against it that the N64 didn't have to compete with?

The Wii U is picking up traction now.

Is it? the last sales numbers from Nintendo showed a drop from a 12% increase for the first quarter to an increase of only 4%. I don't know if Pikimin will carry that number higher.

I am aware that severs cost money. But still, it's clear that they have a base of consumers willing to pay the price of PS+ to get those benefits. Enough so, that they are able to fund those over crowded servers. However they are now saying "pay or lose out" which isn't fair. I payed $60.00 for the game, I should get everything that comes with it. Multiplayer included. You want more PS+ members make the service more attractive. However pay or no online pay- at the end of the day both parties payed money for a full game. It's not right to basically bar out the other party because they aren't giving you extra cash on top of the already hefty price of $60.00

I understand that, but the price of multiplayer servers is exploding and what we took as a given in the past isn't going to be the case going forward, especially as these server farms handle ever more complex processing on their side. The ps+ was Sony's only recourse for the explosion that was COD. They had not anticipated such traffic on their system whereas Microsoft planned on it thanks to their history with Halo. Nintendo will be last to that party (if they make it there at all) because they don't have a large lineup of super intense FPS titles in the works.

I would be interested in them allowing some multiplayer titles to be played without paying because they are much cheaper to maintain, but with every game coming out now like Tomb Raider having an involved multiplayer component it's going to cost them a lot to manage that traffic. $60 per year is not a bad deal. Not when I've already gotten far more than that in PS3 and PS Vita titles for free. Do yourself a favor and look at the following link:

http://us.playstation.com/psn/playstation-plus/

That's the titles that you have access to for free the moment you put that money down. The left hand side are the free PS3 titles, the right hand side are the free Vita titles. There's a new game every month for the PS3 side of things and a new game every two months for Vita. Microsoft is sneakily trying to claim that their service has 2 free games per month but the fine print shows that it will only be 360 titles and will end in December of this year. Sneaky sneaky, Microsoft.

Get ready for beautiful colors, adorable creatures, and facepalm worthy puns. Oh my god the puns.

Hah, sounds fun. But does this mean you've played it on the ps3? Or just the Japan region-locked mini-version of the game on DS?

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy those too. However like I said, most that interest me I can easily get on the PC during steam sales (because I'm a cheap fucker)

Steam is the best. Do you happen to have a powerful PC? I work in the pc industry and built my own a year back. Extremely powerful and for less than $1,000. Still plays all games at ultra so far. Though I'm not a graphiophile so I usually just put it on average settings to extend my pc's life span.

A wonderful, sadistic game disguised in cute animal pinatas. It's heart breaking playing it though...knowing the current state of the legendary company behind the game.

? Rare (the developing company) is owned by Microsoft. THQ only published one Viva Pinata game for the DS and did not own the license as far as I know. Every console Viva Pinata games are published by Microsoft and I see no reason why another publishing company, including Nintendo, wouldn't publish the next DS title.

Do you know something about the IP I don't or were you just under the impression that THQ owned it?

This is where a lot of people tend to miss the mark. You are right and wrong with this in my opinion. You should rephrase that as the majority of "teen to adult" gamers. You have for the most part ignored the demographic of children. A group of consumers that seemingly is long since forgotten by Sony and Microsoft. Aside from the few little ones that develop an early taste for fine story telling, many of them for years will grow up and enjoy Nintendo's IP's. I've seen it myself with little siblings that come over to parties. They practically enjoy this stuff. Then, as they get older, this is around the time they get two consoles- One Nintendo the other Sony/Microsoft, or simply move on from Nintendo completely.

The majority of gamers are in the teen to adult category. It's why the average gaming age is 30 or so. If you don't include Iphone gaming then the average age is still 37 or higher. It's not that I'm ignoring children, it's that I'm saying they aren't the average gamer anymore. The thing is, a console is meant to be a platform. A platter, if you will, that holds anything that can fit on it to serve the fullest range of consumers.

You may want to look into kid friendly games a bit more on the other systems. There's a lot more than you'd think depending on the age of the child. Also, I'm not 100% sure that a tablet wouldn't offer more child friendly than any of the consoles, including Nintendo could.

The same way you say some people cannot justify buying a Wii U for two titles that interest them is the same thing I can say for Sony and Microsoft.

Oh? Take a look at Amazon's sorting of it. You can search by age group, the following are ones I've found in the 10-12 range.

10-12 years old list [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=vg_homepage_age_10_12?ie=UTF8&bbn=468642&rh=i%3Avideogames%2Cn%3A468642%2Cp_85%3A2470955011%2Cp_n_feature_three_browse-bin%3A2055861011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-5&pf_rd_r=8276B244214646BF9356&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1510330962&pf_rd_i=471306]

Under the new and popular we've got: Minecraft, Kingdom Hearts (coming out on everything except the Wii or WiiU), Ni No Kuni, Portal 2, Several Lego games and other titles that you may consider Nintendo type games that are actually available on all consoles, Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time, Journey, various kinect titles and a few move titles, Rachet and Clank, Little Big planet. Honestly, the DS is more kid friendly than the Wii and WiiU system as far as available titles.

Shovelware is very easy for even average consumers to shift over. Along with being a shitty game, they also have shitty covers and people don't buy things with crappy art. Of course, that's the price you pay for having a wildly popular handheld device.

It wouldn't persist if it didn't make money.

I'm not sure why a game such as Nino Kuni is not on the Nintendo systems. I guess there was a deal somewhere in there. Or perhaps a port is on the way? Idk.

Nintendo refuses to play the game where courting 3rd party developers are concerned. As such, they lose out to companies like Sony who believe their console would benefit from this kind of title and so actively pursues it. Regardless of Nintendo's reasoning for not doing it, the end result is the same, their customer base misses out on major titles because Nintendo won't spend a penny to gain a pound.

Nintendo has a large cache of IP's to utilize from. Of course they put out their big sellers first. Then after that they focus on the more niche titles. More people are excited for the Fire Emblem X Shin Megami crossover than the Zelda game. Especially when Fire Emblem (and the help of a good promotion) basically skyrocketed the fanbase to numbers that fandom could only dream of.
That is not to say third party support isn't necessary.

Nintendo has also been pretty bad about maintaining their existing IPs that aren't in the big five or however many they consider big. That's why they lost Final Fantasy and the Metal Gear Solid franchize that blew up even larger in new hands. This is again because they feel no need to develop their party relationships and prefer to let 3rd party developers craw on hands and knees to beg Nintendo for the honor of developing for them when no one's going to do that. At least the Wii flew off the shelves and even then the major 3rd party support never showed up because the power disparity between systems was too great.

The only franchise I can exclusively attach to Sony in a mental sense is Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, and Little Big Planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_exclusives_(seventh_generation)

Sony was the exclusives winner of the past generation.

Sony Exclusives (- = ones I find interesting, * = ones I think you may but I don't know your overall preferences, / = ones that were popular but I don't care about or think you would):
-Demon's Souls
*Disgaea
/Dragon's Crown
-*Folklore
/God of War
/Heavenly Sword
-Heavy Rain
-*inFamous (one of my all-time favorites)
-*Journey
-*Little Big Planet
*Katamari forever
-Metal Gear Solid franchise (going to XBO too in the future)
-*Ni No Kuni
*Pixel Junk
*Rachet and Clank (compare to Spyro and Crash, fyi).
-The Last of Us
-*Uncharted (I didn't have much to say about this but I played 2 and 3 recently and love the series now. It's like being Indian Jones for a bit).

Check out the list, it's big and I got bored partway into the list and didn't include a bunch.

For Microsoft it is only Halo. Other then that, it keeps it's most popular image as a CoD, Madden machine.

Same link but I'm not going to list them out. Halo, Gears of War, Viva Pinata and a few other titles. Microsoft hasn't really acquired enough big titles in my opinion. The do have a bunch of Kinect Games and I do believe those to be the most kid friendly titles imaginable.

You need to specify on the "prove themselves bit". I didn't say that only if you got contacted by Nintendo go they make games on the Wii U. I said that for games that have generated a lot of buzz Nintendo has personally contacted them and requested their game be on their system.

That means they're less Indie friendly than at least Sony right now. Unless you are an indie developer with a proven track record. That undermines the idea of having Indie developers which allows new and creative games that only have to pass curation which even Steam has to keep gamers from getting screwed or to prevent illegal activity.

No one really knows what is going on in that front.

That's besides the point. If Nintendo is willing to completely dismiss an entire nation, especially their home nation, then they aren't going to be the open arms company that Sony is being and Microsoft is trying to pretend to be.

I guess? I really don't know anymore. Different reasons for different studios. Not directed at you, but I'm just tired of going back and forth on third party support roulette. Why did this go on that system and so on.
It's not the argument that you presented is wrong or anything...I'm just...really tired of all this.
Whatever the reason so be it.
This is Nintendo's case to solve.

Actually, I'm quoting Nintendo when I say they're not willing to play ball to specifically court 3rd party developers like Microsoft and Sony are. Nintendo is literally indignant at the thought of having to sweeten the deal to subsidize third party entrants. As such, Sony and Microsoft swoop them up.

Coming from someone who say some of my favorite IP's of all time get destroyed by this nonsense...it is TOO MUCH of the gaming industry that is indulging in this idiocy. This would be a fucking okay if dumb studios do dumb things and get shut down.
However they don't keep their filthy hands to themselves. They buy out other studios that were good to keep them alfoat, and sink them dead in the water first before they go down. Or the good IP's they do have just become husks of what they once were before being taken out the back.

Again, limiting the processing power (aka, making the canvas smaller) isn't going to prevent this. That's just going to tie the hands of companies who are doing it right. Bethesda with Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3 is an easy example of a company that pushes the limits and makes a $60 game look like a steal in the process.

Companies don't magically become better at doing business just because the product is standardized or homogenized in ability. That's really backwards.

EA and Mass Effect. That is all I'm going to say on that matter.

You may need to. This is one of the biggest titles of all time and largely succeeded under the evil eye which is EA. The only complaint with the game was an artistic direction. But here's the thing, if EA continues course they will eventually crash and have to sell off those IPs. Mass Effect would then be sold off to a company that really wants it who would then be highly motivated to turn around and do something truly meaningful with it. That's why I mean when I say companies failing to compete and dying is a good thing. You want inept companies in control of major titles to fail and lose control of them.

App games have already proven themselves to think up quite a few clever things when they need to. However what is to say for the opposite?

I believe that the kinect shows a lot more promise to do everything the wii-mote tried to do and more. I'd say Nintendo was a heck of a lot more daring in trying something new but Microsoft really created the perfect device for motion capture.

I'm curious as to what new things your talking about. I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm genuinely curios. The only thing I can think of is the PS move.

The PS Move is the big one that I'm talking about and the peripherals made around it. I think the move is better at motion controls than the Wii-mote is but it didn't get as much software support. They also have the same peripherals that lock into the wand. Another one you may have forgotten about uses the same technology the Wiimote does. The six-axis control. It was a failure in my opinion and I've hated each and every attempt to implement it in gaming (serious, balance while I'm running across a tightrope?). The playstation eye also had some novelty albeit limited.

But at least they've been trying.

Just because it incorporates existing tech doesn't mean it's not innovative. It can open a lot of doors for devs who want to try out different ways to utilize gameplay on two screens for a console. Especially if they were unable to do those things on the handhelds.

I was frustrated to learn that they did not update the Wiimotes. That motion tech has gotten soooo much better thanks to Nintendo making the first popular.

This is something I will always disagree with you on.

Yes. It will be a very sad day if Nintendo drops out of the home console market, and it would affect me because now the only choice I will have is between the Sony console with same old gameplay mechanics, or the Xbox with same old gameplay mechanics with no alternative to try something out unless they want to.(Which I'm betting on, they won't most of the time.)

Nintendo dropping out of the console market does not mean they or someone partnering with them wouldn't create other peripherals. Also, not that everyone knows a good peripheral can literally sell a system, they are scrambling to provide all kinds of stuff. Sony's wand and now the basic PS4 controllers in particular can do everything the wiimote currently does and with greater accuracy. The kinect 2 can do it without a peripheral. There is nothing that Nintendo is doing that can't be done or isn't already being done.

You need to look at it at a different perspective. A perspective that is starting to become lost on this generation. Mario Kart is a success in software sales alone. However ever it is even more of a success when you consider the fact that most people who own a Wii owns Mario Kart. Same can be said for Mario Kart Wii U. It is a success (hypothetically, the game hasn't come out yet) because most people who own the Wii U owns the game. When more Wii U sales come in, then that means more Mario Karts will be sold. Which means if/when the Wii U reaches a base of 20 million(or whatever high number you want to substitute) they can safely predict that 18 million of those Wii U's will have a Mario Kart with them.
That's pretty optimistic if you ask me.

The attach rate isn't anything close to that. Mario Cart Wii was their most popular game and only sold 34 million copies. I say only merely because that's a 34% attach rate at best. Wii Sports was around 80 million but that's because it's bundled in with the Wii except in Japan. In the ones above 20 million, they're mostly all wii sports or wii fit. New Super Mario Bros got 28 million and then Galaxy came in at 12 million. Only nine titles in all sold over 10 million copies and only four of those were what I'd call games and not peripheral titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

 

[Mr.Mattress]

When the WiiU is within $100 of the price of arguably the most powerful console on the market the system will have a huge initial hurdle to jump. Imagine if they dropped the tablet ($140 to make) and had a console price of $160 for the base unit, $210 for the advanced one. Suddenly the console is a very easy buy.

I just want to say, on the surface, this might look like a good idea... But then comes the question: How will I play ZombiU or Nintendo Land, 2 games that absolutely need the Touch Screen, without the Game Pad? Am I going to buy a Separate Game Pad? Then that defeats the purpose of the Game Pad less Console. Where these games not suppose to exist? Then we'd be missing out on two very good games. Were they supposed to work with the Pro Controller? ZombiU would work fine with it, but Nintendo Land would loose a lot of it's games and appeal. Were they supposed to work with a new Nun Chuck? Then Nintendo Land would be fine but then ZombiU Would get even more flack.

 

[Lightknight]

When the WiiU is within $100 of the price of arguably the most powerful console on the market the system will have a huge initial hurdle to jump. Imagine if they dropped the tablet ($140 to make) and had a console price of $160 for the base unit, $210 for the advanced one. Suddenly the console is a very easy buy.

I just want to say, on the surface, this might look like a good idea... But then comes the question: How will I play ZombiU or Nintendo Land, 2 games that absolutely need the Touch Screen, without the Game Pad? Am I going to buy a Separate Game Pad? Then that defeats the purpose of the Game Pad less Console. Where these games not suppose to exist? Then we'd be missing out on two very good games. Were they supposed to work with the Pro Controller? ZombiU would work fine with it, but Nintendo Land would loose a lot of it's games and appeal. Were they supposed to work with a new Nun Chuck? Then Nintendo Land would be fine but then ZombiU Would get even more flack.

The gamepad would essentially become an option peripheral. Games that require it would essentially be no different than Microsoft's Kintect lineup, Sony's move titles, and any of the Wii titles that require a different peripheral than the wii-mote. We're talking about taking serious steps to save the system. A $160 price point for the base model would be incredibly affordable. I mean, shut-up-and-take-my-money affordable. Would you disagree?

 

[Lightknight]

These posts are getting far to big to quote, seeing Dragonbums almost made me wave the TLR flag. XD

Yeah, it can get rough fast. If you're ever having a discussion with me and want to drop off points you don't think warrant responding to, go ahead and drop them.

Yes the game-pad only lets you play any where in your house(depending on the house, I've seen really good and bad ranges) but the difference here is the fact that you do get it inside the box. With the Vita having the price point and not being there out the gate, we have no clue if developers are going to support it as now its a luxury, more work for something not everyone is going to be able to use.

Sony is actually requiring its third party dev to make their games support it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-sony-mandates-vita-remote-play-for-ps4-games

The only exception being games that require peripherals like the PS eye. They've made it simple to support so it will mostly require assigning buttons since the ps4 is still doing the processing. That's a huge difference from the PSP generation.

It's also important to note that while the Vita is a luxury, it at least isn't required. Can you imagine if the ps4 $399 price point also forced gamers to buy a $250 object? This is what Nintendo did, only it was a $140 object but it still nearly doubled the console price. Imagine if WiiU dropped it and suddenly started charging $160 (Current ~$300 price tage for the standard WiiU minus the $140 gamepad) for the base unit and allowed people to buy the gamepad if they wanted to? I say the gamepad is $140 because it costs that much to replace it, plus shipping, if you go through Nintendo who isn't letting other retailers sell the gamepad by itself yet.

Let me take this a step further. Did you know that the ps4 is going to allow users to use their iphone/pad or android device as a second screen that can function in much the same way as the gamepad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhfLBTPcG6U (look at 2:02 for that bit of information)

They did. Literally, the phone I have right now is basically a PS4 gamepad.

Your right in that Nintendo has been bad with tying up companies but they have been getting better. Retro is still working with them, they seemed to have gained Platinum's trust, I wouldn't be surprised to see Grasshopper on the Wii-U as well. Ubisoft hasn't jumped ship yet while Activision will support anything that runs XD. If the rumor is true and they are bidding Atlus(This one being most likely as they need to protect FExST) than at least it won't be completely barren.

We'll have to see what games are actually produced. The fact is that Nintendo doesn't want to play ball/sweeten the deal like Sony and Microsoft do to court 3rd party dev. Regardless of their reason for not doing so, the end result is the same. Less games. This is why Sony started scalping all those major titles away from Nintendo back in the first generation (Final Fantasy for example). Because Nintendo was the big dog in town and thought those companies would come crawling back the moment the ps1 failed. The problem is, they're the small (but established) kid on block again and are still maintaining that same mindset.

What they're forgetting is that consoles have two customers. Developers looking for a store front to peddle their wares and gamers who just want to have fun. Sony gets it and Microsoft gets it (to the point that they tried to make us suffer to make their developers happy and got the backlash they deserved).

The reason I don't talk about hardware cause this is going to be the first generation in history where the budgets have out-grown the hardware.

You mean development budgets? This will be really healthy for the market in general. We'll see a lot more reliable game engines being produced that will in turn be made available for smaller companies. Likewise, even though these consoles aren't as powerful as many computers on the market (Yes, I too am a member of the glorious PC master-race), they are still many times more powerful than their predecessors. If you really look at the graphics of this past generation, there's a lot of amazing work they can get done in the 6 year old machines. As such, I expect to see graphics fine tuned but not improve as drastically as they did from the ps2 to the ps3. Frankly, I don't think that change will ever happen again now that games are looking a ton more realistic. No, this generation and the next will be huge improvements in A.I. and Physics. This will make graphics look better. From the way fabric and water behaves but also things can simply move more naturally and side step that part of the uncanny valley.

It's important to realise that you can't get any better than something looking real. I think we're really close to that and I'm not yet convinced that this new hardware hasn't raised the bar enough to get there or darn close. If Skyrim is playable on 512mb of RAM divided unnecessarily into two 256mb sections and on a 6 year old CPU then I can't wait to see what they make on 8GB of GDDR5 RAM and a new CPU that is much more powerful by itself than the predecessor (by far) and is much better at offloading processing to that RAM which is what computers do now.

PS4 beats Wii-u in a arm wrestle but are developers going to be able to use it without breaking the bank? While the Hardware will allow them to take more shortcuts, it's not going to make the games look any better as that still acquires someone to make the assets. If Developers decide to support the Wii-u than most likley we will get games that just have higher visual fidelity from the Wii-u being the lowest to the top being PC. If no one does after Nintendo's Stimulus program than Nintendo is stuck with another Gamecube which means it varies from person to person if that is a good thing.

It is x86 architecture. That means one game can be developed for the ps4 or XBO and then EASILY ported to any system or pc except the WiiU which has maintained proprietary hardware.

You question is puzzling though. It is essentially asking if developers having more options is better or not. The answer is simply, yes, it is better. Companies that can't budget themselves appropriately have no... business... in the corporate world. Here's what the best companies do: They come up with a realistic and conservative amount of money they expect to make on their game (e.g. they don't pretend like their game is the next COD or could be if they only spent enough on it). Next, they come up with a mostly firm budget that gives them a decent profit with plenty of wiggle room to give developers a little more if something goes wrong or if the game does a lot more poorly. Finally, they stick to the plan.

 

[Lightknight]

The attach rate isn't anything close to that. Mario Cart Wii was their most popular game and only sold 34 million copies. I say only merely because that's a 34% attach rate at best. Wii Sports was around 80 million but that's because it's bundled in with the Wii except in Japan. In the ones above 20 million, they're mostly all wii sports or wii fit. New Super Mario Bros got 28 million and then Galaxy came in at 12 million. Only nine titles in all sold over 10 million copies and only four of those were what I'd call games and not peripheral titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

I'm not going to wade into your whole argument, especially as I've still got a mountain of a reply from you I'm still trying to scale, but this specific point needs nailing on the head:

I'm sorry, it appears you thought I was talking about overall attach rates when I was just talking about the attach rate of an individual game. Not the overall attach rate of all games sold per console sold. I actually think the wii had a better attach rate this past generation from what I've seen. Nintendo did better than ps3 and very close to the 360's attach rate while still coming just under. However, since the Wii sold 20 million more consoles than the 360, having the same attach rate is better because it's weighted more heavily (if I sell you ten hotdogs and you put ketchup on 8 of them, the ketchup attach rate is 8. If I sell you 1 million hamburgers and you put ketchup on 800,000 of them, the attach rate is still 8 but the hamburgers performed better).

The individual I was responding to regarding a specific title's performance was saying that if the WiiU sold 20 million consoles that 18 million copies of a Mario game would sell on it (exact example of numbers they gave). I was explaining that the attach rate of just one game (the most popular game on the Wii) was MUCH lower.

I'm sorry if that confused you. With this clarification I'm sure you'd agree that the average attach rate of major title isn't 90%. If you read that portion of my post again with this in mind it should make better sense.

 

[dscross]

Honestly Nintendo has a HUGE battle to fight. Their WiiU is down in the dumps, flop would not be too big a word for the reception of that console. They have to either be very aggressive with first party games or they have to think about a brand new console. Otherwise they may just want to drop the console and just go into publishing. They say that is not going to happen but it could be done and you can only support a failing product for so long.

I was thinking the same thing, hence the Dreamcast comparison. I hope they don't though. Nintendo are the oldest guys in the business and it would be a shame if they stopped making consoles. But their handheld ones are doing fine aren't they...as others on this thread have said. So they might be ok even if it does flop?...

 

[Rylingo]

The name.

The name has done some serious damage. Half of the casual users don't even know it's a different console from the Wii. Nintendo changed from the Gameboy to the DS to solve this problem before now they've actually fell into the same problem twice with handheld and home console.

As for the games, they need to get their ass in gear and release more 1st party games. It's a year since the console came out and we haven't seen either of their multiplayer behemoths (MK/SSB) released. I don't really care about the 3rd party games to be honest. I bought this console purely for nintendo's franchises, and I'm not alone in that.