Wii U Still Selling Below Cost

[Lightknight]

No, but EA hasn't exactly been honest when they slammed the console on Twitter. Especially when people have showed them saying the exact opposite when it just released.
All the other developers either haven't bothered trying or just didn't care.
It's confusing when Crytek says the WiiU can handle their engine yet have a bunch of other devs call it weak.

EDIT: I guess I should of thought twice about saying they "lied" that was a bit of a jump. Pardon me.

Wow, I really respect that you just re-evaluated the wording you used. Don't get to see that often on the internet where people have to be 100% right or else.

The thing about handling an engine versus handling a fully fleshed out game is quite a different story. Don't forget, the WiiU IS more powerful than either the 360 or the ps3 and those systems are likewise capable of "handling" Crytek's engine.

But when you start to use that engine to add assets and significant storylines then you may begin to run into a problem. Crytek in particular has learned to create engines that scale from low quality to very high. The thing is, this generally only applies to graphics whereas the physics and AI can't be so easily changed/scaled. The next generation is going to be able to advance AI and Physics a lot but that's going to be a problem for weaker machines that would have been able to function normally if not for those advancements because AI and Physics can be pretty darn resource hungry.

I think trying to argue that the WiiU can compete for cutting edge games is a losing battle. Bethesda in general always tries to push the envelope and is always at that forefront of technology so it doesn't make sense for them to develop for consoles that aren't right there with them. Let's be honest, Nintendo brings good ol' fashioned family fun to the table. It's kid safe and it is a nostalgia powerhouse The WiiU and the games it brings will be and are fun. It's just that the Nintendo brand alone is not able to carry premium priced hardware. It can't even play DVDs which takes away futher justification of it as a media console too.

I bought my Wii for Nintendo games. Come the end of the generation I've only gotten a small handful of Nintendo titles I care about and precious few third party titles that ended up also being made available on the other consoles. I'm simply not thinking that the console is worth buying if I'm not getting a full lineup out of it. Keep in mind, you're talking to a person whose childhood was full-blown Nintendo. I love the company and if even a long-term fan like me has grown tired of a console-tax to by the games then something is off.

 

[Dragonbums]

It's not like we as gamers are helping out either.
When every single article talks about how the WiiU is garbage, or devs lie out of their ass about hardware capabilities- It leaves a rotten image of the WiiU that so far it hasn't been able to shake off.

It's everybody's fault, but Nintendo's, right?

Maybe Nintendo simply overplayed their hand with another hardware skewing console that didn't take off like a rocket among mainstream audiences this time?

It's Nintendo's job to make the Wii-U worth our money, and they're not doing a very good one.

And hey, remember when everybody was hating just as much on the Wii, but Nintendo was laughing all the way to the bank, because soccer moms and grannies were buying it? I guess their console was impervious to gamer hate back then.

Nintendo needs a new marketing strategy. There is no arguing that.

But really, the amount of cynicism that's been going around for the thing lately is ridiculous. Stupid news like Bethesda not making a game for the Wii U- a company that hasn't made a game for Nintendo for more over a decade should not get hundreds of comments(on places like IGN and Gamespot) filled with nothing but people hoping the thing dies into the ground.
Devs complained about bad specs.
They improved it.
Devs complained about using the tablet.
Nintendo said they didn't have to use it.

I've played the system. It's a nice piece of hardware. The only thing it needs now is a solid lineup and it's good to go. However this situation is getting absolutely ridiculous.
I can now understand how PS3 fans must of felt like when the console first came out.

It's the same song and dance with the 3DS. A bunch of devs avoided the system. EA and Ubisoft trashed it in public, the thing took off like hot cakes, and now the same people that shot it down can hardly find room to actually put their game on it lest they want to be buried to obscurity by all the great first party titles coming out on a monthly basis.

 

[Dragonbums]

No, but EA hasn't exactly been honest when they slammed the console on Twitter. Especially when people have showed them saying the exact opposite when it just released.
All the other developers either haven't bothered trying or just didn't care.
It's confusing when Crytek says the WiiU can handle their engine yet have a bunch of other devs call it weak.

EDIT: I guess I should of thought twice about saying they "lied" that was a bit of a jump. Pardon me.

Wow, I really respect that you just re-evaluated the wording you used. Don't get to see that often on the internet where people have to be 100% right or else.

The thing about handling an engine versus handling a fully fleshed out game is quite a different story. Don't forget, the WiiU IS more powerful than either the 360 or the ps3 and those systems are likewise capable of "handling" Crytek's engine.

But when you start to use that engine to add assets and significant storylines then you may begin to run into a problem. Crytek in particular has learned to create engines that scale from low quality to very high. The thing is, this generally only applies to graphics whereas the physics and AI can't be so easily changed/scaled. The next generation is going to be able to advance AI and Physics a lot but that's going to be a problem for weaker machines that would have been able to function normally if not for those advancements because AI and Physics can be pretty darn resource hungry.

I think trying to argue that the WiiU can compete for cutting edge games is a losing battle. Bethesda in general always tries to push the envelope and is always at that forefront of technology so it doesn't make sense for them to develop for consoles that aren't right there with them. Let's be honest, Nintendo brings good ol' fashioned family fun to the table. It's kid safe and it is a nostalgia powerhouse The WiiU and the games it brings will be and are fun. It's just that the Nintendo brand alone is not able to carry premium priced hardware. It can't even play DVDs which takes away futher justification of it as a media console too.

I bought my Wii for Nintendo games. Come the end of the generation I've only gotten a small handful of Nintendo titles I care about and precious few third party titles that ended up also being made available on the other consoles. I'm simply not thinking that the console is worth buying if I'm not getting a full lineup out of it. Keep in mind, you're talking to a person whose childhood was full-blown Nintendo. I love the company and if even a long-term fan like me has grown tired of a console-tax to by the games then something is off.

Your right. The Wii U is not the console to be pushing the envelope of gaming. I do see it however as a middle ground console.
You can put sweet titles on there, but don't expect your overblown budget game to work fantastic on it.
I guess what's annoying me about the cynicism is that people are highly undervaluing what the console can do. I look at the trailer for X and the thing looked gorgeous on the Wii U. I'm also fairly certain the game can handle past Elder Scrolls titles.
Of course in my opinion, if Bethesda's newest Elder Scrolls games are still buggy as garbage on the console, they should just...stop making console games and stick to PC.
For many other studios that aren't the big players, they can't really go beyond the costs it took to make games on the Xbox360 so it's not like the Wii U is that much of a problem for them.(In my opinion.)

On that note Nintendo still has a good grasp on the children market. Something that Sony used to have with their Crash and Spyro series, but has now long since abandoned.


But you know...marketing. I'm a huge Nintendo fan and I still can't really tell you what the ACTUAL Wii U console looks like.
And the amount of stories I heard from Gamestop employees about the causal crowd buying out all the Wii U's once they realize it WASN'T an extension helps back that up.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Nintendo needs a new marketing strategy. There is no arguing that.

But really, the amount of cynicism that's been going around for the thing lately is ridiculous. Stupid news like Bethesda not making a game for the Wii U- a company that hasn't made a game for Nintendo for more over a decade should not get hundreds of comments(on places like IGN and Gamespot) filled with nothing but people hoping the thing dies into the ground.
Devs complained about bad specs.
They improved it.
Devs complained about using the tablet.
Nintendo said they didn't have to use it.

I've played the system. It's a nice piece of hardware. The only thing it needs now is a solid lineup and it's good to go. However this situation is getting absolutely ridiculous.
I can now understand how PS3 fans must of felt like when the console first came out.

It's the same song and dance with the 3DS. A bunch of devs avoided the system. EA and Ubisoft trashed it in public, the thing took off like hot cakes, and now the same people that shot it down can hardly find room to actually put their game on it lest they want to be buried to obscurity by all the great first party titles coming out on a monthly basis.

I think the difference is that Nintendo has always dominated the handheld market (disregarding phones and tablets). It makes me look at Sony and shake my head at how they pigheadedly try to push their way in after already failing with the PSP. Anyway, it was much easier for the 3DS to replace the popularity of the DS, because it was a next gen version of an already popular device many people were familiar with.

The Wii-U however falls in a very awkward middle position where it's not current gen, but it's not quite next gen either compared to what Sony and Microsoft will bring to the table. So the console is there and I'm sure it's fine, but nobody really seems to know what to do with it. It also lacks the universal appeal of the remote to hook in the mainstream this time.

So unless Nintendo or some other third party developer releases a game that can utilize the system in such a way that it will instantly make sense and click for the general audience, I don't see this confusion getting cleared up anytime soon.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

It's the same song and dance with the 3DS. A bunch of devs avoided the system. EA and Ubisoft trashed it in public, the thing took off like hot cakes, and now the same people that shot it down can hardly find room to actually put their game on it lest they want to be buried to obscurity by all the great first party titles coming out on a monthly basis.

Well, that's ultimately the thing that baffles me about the 3DS: 3rd parties who trashed it...STILL haven't come back. EA and Ubisoft haven't made one title for it in years despite the huge user base and the fact that it wouldn't cost much to make a game for it. Instead they keep doing their flawed business models of only making AAA games with budgets that are only increasing and thus making their profit margins thinner and thinner. These kind of bad business decisions are why I don't have sympathies for 3rd parties. It's hard to feel sorry for them when most of their troubles are due to THEIR mistakes, mistakes that they could rectify with ease but choose NOT to. I'm not going to feel sorry for idiots, I'm just going to feel sorry for Nintendo having to deal with them.

 

[Dragonbums]

Wait, the console is selling at a loss? That tablet controller must cost a lot.

@Dragonbums,

Yeah, the devs are lying... wait, what? Are you saying that you are personally more familiar with the capabilities of the system than developers are? What benefit do developers have in lying? If they don't want to develop games for the console because not enough people have purchased it then they can simply say that. What's the motivation here?

No, but EA hasn't exactly been honest when they slammed the console on Twitter. Especially when people have showed them saying the exact opposite when it just released.
All the other developers either haven't bothered trying or just didn't care.
It's confusing when Crytek says the WiiU can handle their engine yet have a bunch of other devs call it weak.

EDIT: I guess I should of thought twice about saying they "lied" that was a bit of a jump. Pardon me.

Crytek saying the WiiU can handle their engine really isnt that impressive as A, Crytek are pansies now. Their new engine isnt nearly as intensive as the engine for Crysis 1 was. And B, their engine can run on hardware that was released 8 years ago. If the WiiU couldnt even handle that, it would be (more of) a laughing stock.

I'm confused.
PC people on here have praised Crytek for being the prime example of the power that PC's can achieve, and have often cited it as why console users are dumb as bricks.
However it's now mandatory for any console to handle it well?
Or rather, it's no big deal?

 

[Dragonbums]

Nintendo needs a new marketing strategy. There is no arguing that.

But really, the amount of cynicism that's been going around for the thing lately is ridiculous. Stupid news like Bethesda not making a game for the Wii U- a company that hasn't made a game for Nintendo for more over a decade should not get hundreds of comments(on places like IGN and Gamespot) filled with nothing but people hoping the thing dies into the ground.
Devs complained about bad specs.
They improved it.
Devs complained about using the tablet.
Nintendo said they didn't have to use it.

I've played the system. It's a nice piece of hardware. The only thing it needs now is a solid lineup and it's good to go. However this situation is getting absolutely ridiculous.
I can now understand how PS3 fans must of felt like when the console first came out.

It's the same song and dance with the 3DS. A bunch of devs avoided the system. EA and Ubisoft trashed it in public, the thing took off like hot cakes, and now the same people that shot it down can hardly find room to actually put their game on it lest they want to be buried to obscurity by all the great first party titles coming out on a monthly basis.

I think the difference is that Nintendo has always dominated the handheld market (disregarding phones and tablets). It makes me look at Sony and shake my head at how they pigheadedly try to push their way in after already failing with the PSP. Anyway, it was much easier for the 3DS to replace the popularity of the DS, because it was a next gen version of an already popular device many people were familiar with.

The Wii-U however falls in a very awkward middle position where it's not current gen, but it's not quite next gen either compared to what Sony and Microsoft will bring to the table. So the console is there and I'm sure it's fine, but nobody really seems to know what to do with it. It also lacks the universal appeal of the remote to hook in the mainstream this time.

So unless Nintendo or some other third party developer releases a game that can utilize the system in such a way that it will instantly make sense and click for the general audience, I don't see this confusion getting cleared up anytime soon.

The 3DS situation is similar to the Wii U. Closer than what you think.

Like the Wii, the DS family took off with their two screen gimmick.(or innovation; however you see it.) Both appealed to a casual audience. Only difference is that the DS had just as much third party support. Of course the shovelware was just as prevalent. When the 3DS came out, all the third party games ditched it, and no dev knew what to make of it, nor did any consumer care for the thing. Even with the Ocarina of Time remake. I know I didn't care for it when it first came out.
Then somewhere along the line Animal Crossing: The niche franchise somehow brought the thing out of oblivion.(The price cut helped too.)
Then they just kept on making great games and now everyone is hooked.

The WiiU looks grim now, but all it needs is a good game that everyone wants and I feel it will be out of dark waters.

 

[Dragonbums]

It's the same song and dance with the 3DS. A bunch of devs avoided the system. EA and Ubisoft trashed it in public, the thing took off like hot cakes, and now the same people that shot it down can hardly find room to actually put their game on it lest they want to be buried to obscurity by all the great first party titles coming out on a monthly basis.

Well, that's ultimately the thing that baffles me about the 3DS: 3rd parties who trashed it...STILL haven't come back. EA and Ubisoft haven't made one title for it in years despite the huge user base and the fact that it wouldn't cost much to make a game for it. Instead they keep doing their flawed business models of only making AAA games with budgets that are only increasing and thus making their profit margins thinner and thinner. These kind of bad business decisions are why I don't have sympathies for 3rd parties. It's hard to feel sorry for them when most of their troubles are due to THEIR mistakes, mistakes that they could rectify with ease but choose NOT to. I'm not going to feel sorry for idiots, I'm just going to feel sorry for Nintendo having to deal with them.

EA and Ubisoft forgot business and diplomacy rule #1.

Which is to always ignore, but never burn bridges with your clients.

EA and Ubisoft did both and for at least one of the systems it went and bit them in the ass hard. Now that can't really crawl back to them lest they want to have the sign of "FOOLS" written all over them and people saying "we told you so."

 

[Lightknight]

Wait, the console is selling at a loss? That tablet controller must cost a lot.

@Dragonbums,

Yeah, the devs are lying... wait, what? Are you saying that you are personally more familiar with the capabilities of the system than developers are? What benefit do developers have in lying? If they don't want to develop games for the console because not enough people have purchased it then they can simply say that. What's the motivation here?

No, but EA hasn't exactly been honest when they slammed the console on Twitter. Especially when people have showed them saying the exact opposite when it just released.
All the other developers either haven't bothered trying or just didn't care.
It's confusing when Crytek says the WiiU can handle their engine yet have a bunch of other devs call it weak.

EDIT: I guess I should of thought twice about saying they "lied" that was a bit of a jump. Pardon me.

Crytek saying the WiiU can handle their engine really isnt that impressive as A, Crytek are pansies now. Their new engine isnt nearly as intensive as the engine for Crysis 1 was. And B, their engine can run on hardware that was released 8 years ago. If the WiiU couldnt even handle that, it would be (more of) a laughing stock.

I'm confused.
PC people on here have praised Crytek for being the prime example of the power that PC's can achieve, and have often cited it as why console users are dumb as bricks.
However it's now mandatory for any console to handle it well?
Or rather, it's no big deal?

I think the point is that it is no longer a big deal. Machines that are almost a decade old can "handle" the engine. It's how you use the engine that matters.

Please understand, all an engine is, is basically a sandbox with tools in it that allow you to make something great. Saying something can handle a game engine is like saying a car can turn on without making any other statements about it.

EA and Ubisoft forgot business and diplomacy rule #1.

Which is to always ignore, but never burn bridges with your clients.

EA and Ubisoft did both and for at least one of the systems it went and bit them in the ass hard. Now that can't really crawl back to them lest they want to have the sign of "FOOLS" written all over them and people saying "we told you so."

I don't think Nintendo is holding the cards you think it's holding. Turning down titles from EA and Ubisoft would be turning down money. These aren't business partners ridiculing Nintendo, these are clients/customers saying they won't use their product anymore.

It's important to understand that console companies have two or more customer bases. Developers and gamers are the most basic examples. That's why the XBO seemed so ridiculous to us (gamers). The actions taken weren't dumb perse, they were just squarely aimed at making the developer/publisher customer base more attracted to the console. The idea likely being that it would eventually benefit the gamers with more games and such at what they considered to be an inevitable cost. They only failed in that the market produced a viable alternative that clients flocked to.

 

[Roxas1359]

Well, that's ultimately the thing that baffles me about the 3DS: 3rd parties who trashed it...STILL haven't come back. EA and Ubisoft haven't made one title for it in years despite the huge user base and the fact that it wouldn't cost much to make a game for it. Instead they keep doing their flawed business models of only making AAA games with budgets that are only increasing and thus making their profit margins thinner and thinner. These kind of bad business decisions are why I don't have sympathies for 3rd parties. It's hard to feel sorry for them when most of their troubles are due to THEIR mistakes, mistakes that they could rectify with ease but choose NOT to. I'm not going to feel sorry for idiots, I'm just going to feel sorry for Nintendo having to deal with them.

In this case though you don't really see either company really making games on handhelds as much really. I mean heck EA didn't have that many games on the DS when it was out, and usually the games that were there were just ports of console versions. EA and UbiSoft are more of console publishers than handheld publishers if you ask me. You also need to see how the sales of those handheld games did on those systems because if they didn't make much money then usually a company wouldn't want to take a chance. Take for example Square Enix when they made Crystal Chronicles for the GameCube and what they had to work with. They supported the GameCube for 3 years, and in those 3 years they did nothing but lose money which is why they dropped support. While yes the industry makes ridiculous sales expectations nowadays, EA being a big one, if they don't at least come close to breaking even then generally a company won't take a risk on it. Remember, every company is in this industry to make money, including Nintendo as that's how a business is. If businesses were to do things for the right reasons and often times not for a profit then they'd be lucky to last at least 3 years.

 

[Dragonbums]

Please understand, all an engine is, is basically a sandbox with tools in it that allow you to make something great. Saying something can handle a game engine is like saying a car can turn on without making any other statements about it.

I kind of assume that they can handle more than just the engine at barebones when they make statements like that. Howeveer that is an equally interesting perspective. I guess I just envisioned it as them playing a full game with said engine on it?
As opposed to just putting the engine itself on the system and assuming it would work.

It's important to understand that console companies have two or more customer bases. Developers and gamers are the most basic examples. That's why the XBO seemed so ridiculous to us (gamers). The actions taken weren't dumb perse, they were just squarely aimed at making the developer/publisher customer base more attracted to the console. The idea likely being that it would eventually benefit the gamers with more games and such at what they considered to be an inevitable cost. They only failed in that the market produced a viable alternative that clients flocked to.

Keep it civil though?
I mean, there is no reason for any company that wants to be taken seriously (or as seriously anyone can take EA) to basically act like children with corporate money about it.
A simple "We have no games currently in development at this time" would suffice.
However going on social media and acting like a 12 year old angry fan doesn't make you look good. And if you want to make games for the company later down the road, it will add a lot of...tension to the deal.

 

[Roxas1359]

Keep it civil though?
I mean, there is no reason for any company that wants to be taken seriously (or as seriously anyone can take EA) to basically act like children with corporate money about it.
A simple "We have no games currently in development at this time" would suffice.
However going on social media and acting like a 12 year old angry fan doesn't make you look good. And if you want to make games for the company later down the road, it will add a lot of...tension to the deal.

After the initial Adam Orth #DealWithIt I think it has long been safe to assume that no one in the industry really cares for civility. Often times they play nice with each other in public, but then forget that the internet isn't as anonymous anymore, especially Twitter. Hell look at the Phil Fish thing not too long ago. Plus EA has never really like the Wii U since Nintendo wouldn't let them put Origin on the thing, and believe me you think that EA is immature on consoles you should see how they are with Origin. Doesn't forgive them, but like I said everyone in this industry is a little bit immature on the inside, some just more than others.

EA actually said they had no games in development at the time before the little Twitter thing, it was a few days earlier. The original report from EA when they said it was on May 16. The twitter posts were posted on the 17th and it was reported on the 17th and 18th. Like I said, it doesn't forgive him, but your timing of the events are off as this person started saying those things after EA came out and said they had no games currently in development.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

EA and Ubisoft forgot business and diplomacy rule #1.

Which is to always ignore, but never burn bridges with your clients.

EA and Ubisoft did both and for at least one of the systems it went and bit them in the ass hard. Now that can't really crawl back to them lest they want to have the sign of "FOOLS" written all over them and people saying "we told you so."

That's precisely why I can't take the 3rd parties' side. Their mistakes are so easy to avoid or rectify and yet they keep doing them anyway. It AMAZES me as how these guys make such basic fuckups and then wonder why their profit margins are so thin and why people prefer Nintendo's 1st party offerings over theirs. You can't expect people to sympathize with an idiot, especially one that ignores the 3DS and portables in general. Things need to change with 3rd parties, though I have no clue how that would happen.

 

[Roxas1359]

That's precisely why I can't take the 3rd parties' side. Their mistakes are so easy to avoid or rectify and yet they keep doing them anyway. It AMAZES me as how these guys make such basic fuckups and then wonder why their profit margins are so thin and why people prefer Nintendo's 1st party offerings over theirs. You can't expect people to sympathize with an idiot, especially one that ignores the 3DS and portables in general. Things need to change with 3rd parties, though I have no clue how that would happen.

What about the third parties that have been supporting Nintendo huh? What about SEGA, Atlus, TT Fusion, and others that are making games for the Wii U. Yes, some 3rd party developers screw up, but lumping all of them in together isn't exactly fair. Blaming all 3rd party developers isn't exactly fair, instead blame the ones who said they were going to and then either went back on their word, or purposely delay certain games to be released alongside other ports *glares at UbiSoft*.

Plus, first party games will always usually be better than most 3rd party games as more time is usually put into them and more bug testing is put in when it is made under the supervision. Hell not even all bugs are ironed out of the system, or have people forgotten the Twilight Princess cannon room bug already?

 

[Olas]

Was this "News" article just written as an excuse to dump on the Wii U some more? Like this site hasn't done that enough already. Here's a hint: if the title of your story contains the adverb "still", it probably isn't worth reporting.

 

[Dragonbums]

Was this "News" article just written as an excuse to dump on the Wii U some more? Like this site hasn't done that enough already. Here's a hint: if the title of your story contains the adverb "still", it probably isn't worth reporting.

Wii U bashing is all the fad now on Gaming news sites didn't you know?

Of course for once, Kotaku is doing something right by not falling in line with the crowd, and actually posts a positive article on the system once in a while.

 

[tlgAlaska]

How many "Wii U doesn't sell"-news articles did we have this week? Three? Four? I think the message reached everyone by now.