Treblaine said:
Yeah, Nintendo "survived" but it didn't dominate. Only if you erroneously define Wii as a 7th gen console did it dominate this generation. And it is not 7th gen technology, it's a gamecube with a slot loading DVD drive. You can run Wii games on Gamecube emulators with the right modifications for different controller input.
People are too concerned about what "generation" it is, and don't care enough about the thing that matters: sales.
You think Nintendo gives two shits how their console is classified by hardcore gamers? Nope, they're too busy rolling in the piles of money they printed with their sales figures to care. So this "point" isn't really important. In a head-to-head, the Wii dominated its two immediate opponents. Face up to the facts.
All the while Wii was selling at high levels (compared to 360 and PS3) as a cheap low end system, Sony was also continuing to sell the Playstation 2 as a cheap low end SD-resolution system. The first two God Of War games were released on PS2 after the 7th generation had kicked off with the Xbox 360. The following PS2 games were released for the PS2 when the 7th generation had started:
-Tomb Raider Legend
-Tomb Raider Anniversary
-Metal Gear Solid 3
-Black
-Urban Chaos
-Hitman: Blood Money
-Shadow of Colossus
That's because Sony's consoles are intended to be long-duration consoles. That's their business model: put out a console, then continue to support it for roughly a decade or so.
Playstation 1: 1994, was still selling units in 2005
Playstation 2: 2000, is still selling units and creating games today
Playstation 3: 2006
Nintendo doesn't follow that same business model because its technology can't hold up as long. Simple as that.
Nintendo just extended their 6th generation console further with a novel control interface. I mean, Xbox 360 isn't 8th generation because it has Kinect, is it? Nintendo can't just make Wii 7th gen by putting an arbitrary wall between Wii games and Gamecube games.
Stop worrying about what generation the tech is, because I promise you that the companies making these consoles don't give a crap what "generation" their console is classified as.
You're right. The selling point of the Nintendo is not the hardware but the games. But YOU DID wait because the appeal of the console was just a few first party games. And what the hell is WiiU launching with as exclusive? WiiU will be on the backfoot in multiplayer right from the start, while PS3 and 360 started off more or less level pegging. Yes it had Assassin's Creed 3. But that's also on PC, 360 and PS3.
You're making the mistaken assumption that this console is being sold exclusively to you, a hardcore gamer. You're wrong. This is still clearly being sold to the casual audience.
The third party support is an attempt to attract back some of the gamers who have jumped ship since the last iteration of consoles. It's not meant to sell Sony or Microsoft's hardcore fans, nor would it do so, anyways. It's meant to be an appeal to the Nintendo fans who didn't buy into the Wii and felt left out for not having those "cool" games on the Wii.
The thing is, if the WiiU sells for just $300, it will be 50% more expensive than an xbox 360 - this is comparing models WITHOUT large internal storage. And Microsoft could easily cut the price of Xbox 360 even more, and Sony the same with PS3. Nintendo is doing what it hasn't done in a while, try to go head to head with Microsoft and Sony. Last time they did that they got caned.
And yet, it will still sell a lot of units. As I noted earlier, the backwards compatibility is not just software (games), but hardware as well. This means that anyone who owns a Wii already wouldn't need to buy as many peripherals for this console as they would to buy into a 360.
Assuming a price point of $300 and prior Wii ownership, a Wii U customer spends $300 for the console and $50 for games. The number of peripherals they have from the Wii carry over, so no additional cost there. They could potentially have up to 4 Wiimote controllers, the steering wheel, etc, all at no cost, because they already own those.
However, assuming a price point of $300 and prior Wii ownership, a 360 customer pays out at least $200 for the console (and presumably the Kinect is included, assuming they're smart enough to buy the bundle) and $60 for games. Then peripherals come into play. Have a need for 4 player action? Enjoy the additional $150 cost. Now the console already costs more than the Wii U does, and the games will continue to cost more for the life of the console.
The prices aren't as radically different as you think they are. The only people who will be paying through the nose are people who never bought a Wii, and let's be honest....they really aren't selling this console to those people. If they were, they wouldn't have put such an emphasis on having virtually every aspect of the console be backwards compatible with the Wii, hell, they might not have even called it "Wii U" in the first place.
I'd REALLY like it if the WiiU sold for $200, competitively priced with the Xbox 360 4GB. But the original Wii is still selling for $150 and last I checked they struggled to turn a profit on selling for $200! This is because Nintendo are not a powerful conglomerate like Microsoft or Nintendo, it costs more for them to manufacture the same technology. Hell, they are at a disadvantage with patents as big companies hold patent wars that Nintendo can't so they must pay more.
That's why Nintendo builds cheaper consoles. They were the only one of the three previous console makers to create a console whose sales were a net PROFIT rather than a net loss, and that meant they could price themselves lower than their competition and still make money. You're bound to succeed with a model like that.
Will it work for the Wii U? I think it will. And I think Nintendo's hiding something up their sleeve here, something they didn't want to show right away. So look for more news to come out when the console is closer to release.
Wii targeted casual gamers by being CHEAP and with no emphasis to HDTV screens. WiiU won't be cheap. If it was going to be cheap they would have announced how cheap it was at their E3 conference, as they did before with every other launch and as every other company did before their hardware launch... when the price is remotely competitive. Nintendo CANNOT except the same casual money with WiiU especially when they can't even sell Wii Consoles to them any more.
That's because pretty much everyone who wants a Wii....already has a Wii. And most people aren't going to buy two of the same console. You're making it sound like the Wii is stalling purely because the hardware is limited, even though that was known years ago when it was bringing in absurd amounts of cash DESPITE that inferiority. The primary reason it's no longer selling is because there's no longer a demand since most of the people who wanted it now have it. That's really all there is to it.
The thing is WiiU doesn't integrate a smartphone touchscreen. iPhone is know for precision multitouch with fingertips and very high pixel density. The WiiU is not that. It's a resistive touchscreen that you need a stylus for precision, and everything points to a low resolution screen. It's not the same. The pinch to zoom and all that which we are used to is no there. You know it would be kinda neat to have an iPad in the middle of my controller but that's NOT the case
Er, you should watch their tech demos more often. A lot of the functionality that the iPad is using is what they copied from. I very definitely recall seeing them use a pinch motion to zoom on the Wii U during tech demos, both last year and this year.
I don't see why anyone should buy a WiiU rather than an Xbox 360 that is likely cheaper, has a bigger library and for casuals a more novel interface with Kinect. Why would you buy a WiiU to play black ops 2, when there is a larger and more established network on PS3, 360 or even on PC.
Because, again, you misunderstand who the console is being sold to.
If you're already dedicated to your 360/PS3, Nintendo doesn't give a shit about you, and they aren't selling this console to you.
And if the WiiU does against all odds launch for $200 (and sources confirm it will definitely be over $250)
Who are these sources exactly?
then Microsoft has the clout to undercut them with discounts and bundles for their Xbox 360. Similar with Sony and PS3.
Interesting perspective, since they obviously didn't have the "clout" to do that back in '06 when their consoles were coughing up money faster than an arterial bleed. But now that they've sold more consoles (only nearly a decade late), they have gained enough "clout" to undercut a brand new console? Well I would hope they could undercut a new console's price with their ten-year-old console, otherwise they need to revamp their business model.
I suppose it depends on what "clout" is, then.
What Wii titles has Nintendo released in 2012? Last year their sole contribution was Skyward Sword. Nintendo seem to have totally given up on the Wii.
Er, that's not true. They released several titles for 2011. First-party exclusives were limited, no lie there, but I imagine that's mostly because they are still trying to push the sales of the 3DS and because they had just announced a new console. Again, Nintendo's business model isn't like Sony, where consoles get ten year shelf lives.
I just don't like how Nintendo is playing silly buggers acting like this is a next generation console which doing nothing to indicate it has next gen rendering capability, and 5 months from release is STILL hiding its launch price!
You're the only one concerned about what "generation" this is.
The price point is fair, though. I'm curious why they're guarding this one. I imagine if it's priced above $300 it's going to be a much tougher sell. At $300 it can be a justified purchase....but I guess we'll see. Either they haven't decided yet, or they're waiting to reveal it because it's too high. >.>
