Wii U to be quickly outdated?

[Syzygy23]

Wii had some of the best games this gen. Wii-U will follow the same path of innovative ideas and using the tech well to make good games. But, you hate on it.

Really? It did? Where? Is it buried somewhere under the mountain of shitty shovelware party games?

And if the WiiU does against all odds launch for $200 (and sources confirm it will definitely be over $250) then Microsoft has the clout to undercut them with discounts and bundles for their Xbox 360. Similar with Sony and PS3.

This seems to be the case already. People who have a paid subscription to PSN can get Just Cause 2, InFamous 2, Warhammer 40k: Space Marine, Little Big Planet 2, as well as several other titles I can't remember off the top of my head but are fairly well known, for free.

Yeah, that shit's all free for people who pay Sony 6 USD a month. Do Wii owners get any free Triple A games on the Wii Store?

Thought so.

 

[Treblaine]

The Wii struggled to make a profit to spite its low specification as Nintendo was in no position to manufacture such technology at a low price.

Can you provide a source for that?

Nintendo admitted that the Wii was just a rebadged gamecube with a new controller.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/15/wii-manufacturing-costs-ring-up-to-just-158/

They just made big loss on the gamecube when they sold it for $99.

What hurt the Wii was the Yed to Dollar and retail mark up of going through so many middlemen so to spite having a very low end system they struggled to make a profit at $250 per console. Wii never had any hardware revision, it likely cost that much to make through out its entire cycle.

Wii is so much less powerful and capable than 360 yet cost less than half as much:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061120132150.html

That's $325 including the hard drive with Premium model, compared to arcade/core model (without hard drive) that would be around $280. Subsequent hardware revisions reduced price even more. So Microsoft spends around 70% more and gets a system a whole generation more powerful than the Wii and makes a profit selling it at only $50 more than the Wii.

This why I don't think Nintendo's WiiU can be price and power competitive with Xbox 360 nor even the PS3.

 

[Treblaine]

-Metal Gear Solid 3

That's not true. The Xbox 360 was released on November 2005 while MGS3 was released from November 2004 to March 2005.

Sorry, I'm looking at my Subsistence copy which WAS late 2006. But march-November 2005, it's the same ball park. You see what I'm getting at.

(yes, I arrange my games in Year order, then alphabetically within.)

 

[Treblaine]

Yeah, I watched the speech last year. For a lot of it I was just uttering "wat". The guy is too smart to be making just game engines, it's a good thing he is working on things like space rockets and Head Mounted Displays.

Seeing as AMD tend to be a smaller and cheaper company, I reckon Nintendo should get a good deal on hardware compared to how nVidia screwed over Sony. I believe the reason that Sony cannot do the CPU-GPU tactic with the PS3 is because nVidia won't sell them the design of the chip so they have to use the original GPU design. Also, the fact that they should sell a lot may give them more power when agreeing on a price for hardware.

I agree that Sony is much larger though on the flipside Nintendo has only ever posted 1 year of losses while Sony has been hemorrhaging money like there is no tomorrow (mainly due to the TVs I believe though the hit on PS3 hardware was likely a big factor).

It seems that Nintendo is repeating their same money saving tactic with the Wii U. The discs will hold 25GB and will use the blu ray technology but won't actually play bluray discs. That is sure to save some money per system.

That's pretty cool about Bulldozer. I was tempted to get a Trinity desktop (which uses Piledriver cores) to upgrade my llano mini-PC but AMD are being fuckwits and are delaying it to October instead of June in order to get get rid of old stock of llano, nice one assholes.

Well, Nintendo are going the exact same route as they have before with component designers (also PowerPC and AMD) and the way Microsoft has gone with 360 (powerPC and AMD) so compared to Microsoft they are at the same advantage/disadvantage with using IMB/AMD components.

Who knows what is going on with Sony. They really wanted "Teh Cell" and that's not something that can be integrated with other components like Microsoft did with their Xenos and Xenon processor, on latest Xbox 360 that is one integrated chip. I think IBM have even abandoned research on The Cell Broadband processor (that they originally made for supercomputer purposes) and Sony is using it in legacy.

The thing is when you get as big as Sony people don't care as much about losses, but smaller companies like Nintendo. I know it's not fair. It's like how the US government can have 17 Trillion dollars of debt yet if one US Citizen (of a population of 320 million) has 1 320millionth of that debt you are considered toxic as hell.

One thing the WiiU hopefully does is use red-laser high-capacity disc technology. Red laser technology is cheap. Bluray uses expensive violet laser technology that even without paying for license to play blu-ray movies is STILL expensive. Hopefully the high-density disc technology is something like used with HD-DVD which was good economical tech.

But they are going up against Xbox 360 which is still using ULTRA CHEAP bog standard DVD drives! So nintendo would REALLY struggle to beat Microsoft at that! Microsoft have done a pretty good job with DVD showing that even compared to PS3's blu-ray that it isn't worth it. Skyrim came on a single DVD.

This is like watching a Humvee play chicken with a freight train, yeah Nintendo's got a humvee but Microsoft is in a Freight train!

 

[Ashadowpie]

honestly, all i want Nintendo to do is make an option for people who despise motion control and be able to hook up the GC controller for all their mainstream games. thats all i ask and i will buy a Wii U...once its cheaper >_>

*happily curls back up on the couch with 360 controller*

 

[Treblaine]

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. >.>

Well CONSUMERS CARE!

They don't like being sold old-generation hardware at Next-generation prices. "don't worry about generation" is a con. If Nintendo want to change more than $200 for the WiiU then it is are going to have to be MUCH more powerful, a whole generation more powerful or else it is a rip-off.

You are missing the point of Playstation 2's continuing sales.

I'm saying Nintendo weren't some geniuses who "beat the 7th gen consoles" they WERE NOT COMPETING WITH THEM! Wii was competing with the Playstation 2, it was still a 6th gen console by it's processing power. And Sony's PS2 also sold REALLY WELL in this time period.

Generation DO matter. Because everyone acting like "Well if the Wii managed to beat the 360 and PS3, then a WiiU can only do better" NO!! Wii was just a gamecube re-launch. It did about as well as the PS2 did in that same time period. Wii did slightly better by exploring the casual audience but PS2 also did well for the more casual gamers while Wii leaned more toward the casual non-gamers.

The WiiU is in NO WAY being sold to casual users any more. Or if it is then it doesn't stand a chance against the likes of Xbox 360 with kinect, Microsoft's well supported media serviced and a DVD player that can actually play movies, also the Playstatio n3 playing Blu-rays and support from its huge SOny Movie Holdings and Sony Music.

Wii appeared for being low cost. It cannot compete with $200 Xbox 360.

"And yet, it will still sell a lot of units."

Where the hell is this circular logic even coming from?

Back in 2006 the Wii was $250 compared to PS3 selling for $499. It had a simple intuitive controller. The WiiU will not have such price advantages. The WiiU will not sell well no-matter-what.

Why would Wii owners buy a $300 WiiU with hardly any new games to play rather than buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 and have HUNDREDS of new games to play!!?!

NOTHING suggest WiiU games will be only $50.

You are wishful thinking with multiple peripherals, that's not realistic. These consoles are not about 4-way splitscreem, it's about online multiplayer and if there is a demand for a second player then they bring their controller.

" Nintendo were the only one of the three previous console makers to create a console whose sales were a net PROFIT"

Nope. The Xbox 360 from 2006 onwards ALSO sold as a profit.

The original Wii was priced lower than PS3 and 360 because IT WAS A WHOLE GENERATION BEHIND! Nintendo cannot manufacture hardware as cheap as Sony or Microsoft. It costs them more to get less.

"That's because pretty much everyone who wants a Wii....already has a Wii."

Then why does this not apply to Xbox 360 and PS3?!?

I have explained that Wii was bringing in cash ONLY in the same way that the Playstation 2 was bringing in cash, but with mor casual appeal. Nothing special.
-Nintendo sold old outdated hardware at a low price with Wii.
-Sony sold old outdated hardware at a low price with the PS2.

"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."

Well I don't. And I'd remember such a thing. It has been very well established that it is a resistive touchscreen that CANNOT handle multi-touch and NEEDS a stylus for precision. ONLY resistive touchscreens work with stylus and they are NOT multitouch. Point stylus do not work with capacitive touchscreens which are capable of multitouch.

"Because, again, you misunderstand who the console is being sold to."

No you seem to have things wrong. The WiiU controller from last E3 to this E3 has been modified to be MUCH more like and Xbox 360 controller, it is launching with Assassin's Creed 3 and Black Ops 2. It is confirmed to be much more expensive than the Wii ever sold for and for a price more than either PS3 or 360. THIS IS NOT FOR THE CASUAL MARKET! This is a futile attempt at breaking into the mainstream over half a decade too late.

Source on WiiU's high price:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-06-08-shopto-estimate-wii-u-price-at-280

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/nintendo-wii-u-to-retail-for-no-less-than-300/

£280 = $450

Wii has not made as much money as Xbox 360, they made less money per console

Releasing ABSOLUTE CRAP games for wii like Conduit 2 and awful ports is not good for Wii in 2011 or 2012

You SHOULD be concerned about generations. OK. But if you don't like the word "generation" then about about:

"I just don't like how Nintendo is playing silly buggers acting like this is a a much more powerful console than PS3 and 360 with nothing to indicate it has capability a much more powerful console than PS3 and 360, and 5 months from release is STILL hiding its launch price!"

 

[Conn1496]

Who cares if it's not the strongest thing to grace consoles ever? I didn't see people complain about the Gameboy, and I still don't. The difference now is that our standards have been raised. People were skeptical about the 3DS and how it was going to be outdated, and yet it's possibly the best console to date, never mind handheld. Just because the Wii U isn't mega powerful doesn't stop it from being good. Art doesn't have to look amazing to be good, so why should consoles have to have amazing power to be good aswell? A great example of this is that I recently played Mario 3:Wario Land for the first time ever on virtual console, and it amazed me how great it was without having to be up to modern standards. It's great having power, but the Wii U doesn't really need masses of power for it's games. It's strong enough to run Mass Effect and a new Ninja Gaiden, so what more do you want? If it runs great games, it's a succesful console. It doesn't have to be powerful or have to look good doing so.

[Also]: Lol, people acting like it's about consumerism.

 

[Treblaine]

Wii has not made as much money as Xbox 360, they made less money per console

Was it enough to cover the billions of loss they incurred due to RROD?

How much precisely DID they lose from RROD as what proportion were repaired or cannibalised for parts? And how much did they make from Gold Membership and a huge attach rate and content deals?

Remember, Microsoft made 50% more per game than Wii in the licencing per game.

 

[newwiseman]

With project glass, for the xbox 360 being announced I don't expect Nintendo to break any new ground.

 

[Treblaine]

Wii has not made as much money as Xbox 360, they made less money per console

Was it enough to cover the billions of loss they incurred due to RROD?

How much precisely DID they lose from RROD as what proportion were repaired or cannibalised for parts? And how much did they make from Gold Membership and a huge attach rate and content deals?

Remember, Microsoft made 50% more per game than Wii in the licencing per game.

From memory they lost $4 billion.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9026340/Xbox_360_red_ring_of_death_costs_Microsoft_more_than_1B

By mid 07 it cost them just over $1 billion it's hard to find newer data.

Jasper came in late 2008 which pretty much fixes RROD from what I have heard. I'd estimate it to be at least around $2 billion.

Nope, you can't conclude $4 billion loss from a $1 billion loss on the launch consoles. A $1 billion over 2 years suggest the overwhelming majority were not affected.

You have to realise, compare this loss to 3.2 billion games sold for their system taking about $12 in licence per console that's $38 billion in revenue just from games. And even more from 1st party games, licence deal, streaming deals, advertising on dashboard and Gold Membership fee.

Jasper was a major cost saver but the problem of RROD was solved before that.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Really? It did? Where? Is it buried somewhere under the mountain of shitty shovelware party games?

Are you kidding? What is this, 2006? The PS3 and 360 have just as much shovelware, if not more. Stop being ignorant.

 

[wintercoat]

Wii has not made as much money as Xbox 360, they made less money per console

Was it enough to cover the billions of loss they incurred due to RROD?

How much precisely DID they lose from RROD as what proportion were repaired or cannibalised for parts? And how much did they make from Gold Membership and a huge attach rate and content deals?

Remember, Microsoft made 50% more per game than Wii in the licencing per game.

From memory they lost $4 billion.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9026340/Xbox_360_red_ring_of_death_costs_Microsoft_more_than_1B

By mid 07 it cost them just over $1 billion it's hard to find newer data.

Jasper came in late 2008 which pretty much fixes RROD from what I have heard. I'd estimate it to be at least around $2 billion.

Nope, you can't conclude $4 billion loss from a $1 billion loss on the launch consoles. A $1 billion over 2 years suggest the overwhelming majority were not affected.

You have to realise, compare this loss to 3.2 billion games sold for their system taking about $12 in licence per console that's $38 billion in revenue just from games. And even more from 1st party games, licence deal, streaming deals, advertising on dashboard and Gold Membership fee.

Jasper was a major cost saver but the problem of RROD was solved before that.

Revenue that would have come in regardless doesn't cancel out losses due to hardware problems that were preventable. The only revenue that counts towards balancing the losses would be the new consoles bought by people who got the RROD.

 

[Treblaine]

Wii has not made as much money as Xbox 360, they made less money per console

Was it enough to cover the billions of loss they incurred due to RROD?

How much precisely DID they lose from RROD as what proportion were repaired or cannibalised for parts? And how much did they make from Gold Membership and a huge attach rate and content deals?

Remember, Microsoft made 50% more per game than Wii in the licencing per game.

From memory they lost $4 billion.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9026340/Xbox_360_red_ring_of_death_costs_Microsoft_more_than_1B

By mid 07 it cost them just over $1 billion it's hard to find newer data.

Jasper came in late 2008 which pretty much fixes RROD from what I have heard. I'd estimate it to be at least around $2 billion.

Nope, you can't conclude $4 billion loss from a $1 billion loss on the launch consoles. A $1 billion over 2 years suggest the overwhelming majority were not affected.

You have to realise, compare this loss to 3.2 billion games sold for their system taking about $12 in licence per console that's $38 billion in revenue just from games. And even more from 1st party games, licence deal, streaming deals, advertising on dashboard and Gold Membership fee.

Jasper was a major cost saver but the problem of RROD was solved before that.

Revenue that would have come in regardless doesn't cancel out losses due to hardware problems that were preventable. The only revenue that counts towards balancing the losses would be the new consoles bought by people who got the RROD.

I'm not saying the RROD issue didn't cause Microsoft to lose some money. I'm just saying Microsoft didn't make a huge loss overall from the RROD issue that seems to only have affected 16% of the very first generation of consoles as Matthew pointed out.

 

[Moromillas]

I don't care if it's an exact replicate of the commodore 64 covered in dried shit. I just want to play the next Zelda.

 

[CODE-D]

Wii had some of the best games this gen.

Ha...ha...haha ...hahaha....AHAHAHAHHAAAAaaaaa.....oh man I just found that so funny....

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Wii had some of the best games this gen.

Ha...ha...haha ...hahaha....AHAHAHAHHAAAAaaaaa.....oh man I just found that so funny....

Ya know what, instead of listing quality games, how about this: There wasn't a problem of brown, brown, and more brown on the Wii ever! And you're just ignorant for thinking shovelware. It proves you closed your mind off to the console when you saw the controller and didn't keep track of any releases that would make it worth it. Well done.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'd say it was a decent one. In the end it is the bottom line that matters and when you take that into account the xbox and the 360 have been massive failures as has the PS3. This is why this generation has been dragged out, to try and minimise the billions of losses both companies have incurred.

Except that's not true and kinda entering tinfoil hat territory.

 

[CODE-D]

Wii had some of the best games this gen.

Ha...ha...haha ...hahaha....AHAHAHAHHAAAAaaaaa.....oh man I just found that so funny....

Ya know what, instead of listing quality games, how about this: There wasn't a problem of brown, brown, and more brown on the Wii ever! And you're just ignorant for thinking shovelware. It proves you closed your mind off to the console when you saw the controller and didn't keep track of any releases that would make it worth it. Well done.

No I closed my mind after playing animal crossing cf, super paper mario and brawl and no games came out and those that did were ruined by shitty controls.
And good new titles were sent to die because nintendo chose to market to families and fitness idiots.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

What part of "Both PS2 and Wii sold well post-2005 because both were low price, low abilityand for SDTV televisions?" don't you understand?

Wii got only a slight edge from the Wii-peripheral that is mainly a gimmick targeting towards casual audience. FPS games SUCK with Wii-controls even compared to gamepad.


What "some guy" says about a wikipedia article isn't credible. Though your "source" is illustrative of my point as it lists the processing power stats of Wii as far infarior of PS3 and 360 and ANY desktop PC built since 2005 and near idenical in power to a gamecube or Original Xbox. These generations are MARKETING only. The HARDWARE GENERATIONS (I have to use block capitals or you will skip over the words you don't like) are distinct. Wii is not in the same Hardware Generation as PS3 and 360.

PS2's sales are entirely relevant to the point at hand because Wii is properly categorised as a 6th gen console like the PS2 in terms of hardware capability... which IS WHAT MATTERS! Marketing BS of "wii is 7th generation because it was launched after the 360" is facile. I could release an 8 bit console in 2008 and it could be defined as "7th generation" because it was released after the Xbox 360. The hardware capability must be on parity.

It is insulting to say "no educated intelligent individual" would conclude wii was a gamecube relaunch. The internals are so similar that gamecube emulators can emulate wii games. Stop squirming out of this.

You can't seriously say new peripherals make a new generation without concluding Kinect on 360 is next generation. 360 has also had multiple software upgrades to the operating system, that doesn't make it an 8th generation console.

I don't like either console, I prefer PC gaming. Which is TRULY a whole generation ahead of xbox 360 and PS3.

but PS2 also did well for the more casual gamers while Wii leaned more toward the casual non-gamers.

....okay, you have no clue what you're talking about. The PS2 went for "casual gamers" and the Wii went for "casual non-gamers"?

I obviously meant vice-versa. If fits with everything else I said. This is an innocent mistake. But you are not considering my argument, you are practising apologetics.

Oh nintendo may TRY to sell wii to casuals but it doesn't stand a freaking chance. People gave wii-fit a chance when it was half the price of the competition, but not when the base system is no less than $300 compared to Kinect that has full body tracking fitness games, something that Wii implied but never actually delivered.

Why would any casual be anamoured with an HUGE controller with a 1990's era touchscreen in the middle? Kinect dance games. Wii can't compete with that.

Kinect is pretty original. Nintendo never did whole body tracking. Nintendo can't own the very "idea" of a fitness video game!!! And dance central and all those other Kinect games. I don't give a crap about them but you cannot deny their mainstream casual appeal that Wii once cornered the market in.

Microsoft's well supported media serviced and a DVD player that can actually play movies, also the Playstatio n3 playing Blu-rays and support from its huge SOny Movie Holdings and Sony Music.

Which apparently aren't things that the casual market cares about, otherwise they would have bought a 360 or PS3 back then.

What?!? You mean the mainstream don't want Movies, Music and TV shows?!? No, they do. The reason they didn't buy an Xbox back in 2005 was becauce it was $400, now it is $200, while the WiiU WITHOUT any DVD capability and poor precendent with media services will be £280 in the UK and considerably more than $300 in US.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/352500/iwata-signals-wii-u-will-cost-more-than-250pound163-report/

PS2 sold gangbusters because it was also a DVD player. Playstation magazines started having a DVD movie section. People don't drop hundreds of dollars on a system to "just do one thing" that's not how people justify purchases. iPhone is an everything-device and sold very well for it.

iPhones and iPads are NOT going to stream HD movies and on-demand premium-TV shows to your HDTV. Xbox 360 will. This is great for people on alternate cable packages who want to buy other cable shows or to "cut the cord" entirely.

Wii appeared for being low cost.

What. That's not even English.

It's an obvious typo, that I meant "appealed".
Is this your argument? Attack minor spelling flubs rather than the actual argument? I don't work for a magazine with a proof reading editor and stuff like this gets missed in a cursosry self proofread. I've got dyslexia, I don't catch spelling mistakes when it is a mistake into another dictionary word. Are you going to attack me for my dyslexia now? Are you just a petty bully?

No it IS circular logic to say "people were wrong about 3DS, therefore no matter the substance of their arguments they are wrong about WiiU"

You can't be a delialist for everything I say yet say I am the one with no understanding.

No I understand the key to Wii's success:
-Low power, undercut the competition in price = WiiU parity of power with 360 = 360 is less expensive
-Novel interface = WiiU controller - can't compete with 360 gamepad + kinect

WiiU is cleaiming to be the "arguably superior product" this time!

Brand Loyalty doesn't mean ANYTHING! The same market that gobbled up the Wii didn't give a crap about the Gamecube. And why have Wii sales tanked suddenly after kinect heot the scenes and 360 dropped to $200? That's not brand loyalty. You are banking everything on EVERYONE handing over all their money for what they know they won't like.

It had a simple intuitive controller.

No it didn't, it had a flipping remote control design that looked nothing like the previous several Nintendo consoles.

Um, that "remote" is VERY intuitive to a casual audience as they are all used to remove controls. They all use remote controls and play tennis games intuitively by hitting ball with flick of the wrist, not press of a button. But Kinect has that market cornered now with intuitive body tracking for fitness regimes, dancing, dodgeball, etc

3DS didn't start selling till a huge price cut. People rightly predicted it wouldn't sell well at THAT price. But 3DS COULD be cut down in price to make a loss per hardware that they did not want to make.

WiiU Still has to catch up with almost 67 MILLION console sales for Xbox 360 and similar for PS3. You cannot assume a new HD-home console costing much more than the competition with less features and less library will sell as well as a $160 handheld.

Oh SOMEONE will buy the WiiU. Not many. You cannot dismiss any suggestion that WiiU will sell well because PSV and 3DS sold well to spite some predicting otherwise. You will notice the PSV still has no where NEAR the market penetration as app-enabled smartphones which was the point people were making. You cannot say the WiiU won't flop simply because no console has flopped since 2005, it has happened in history to consoles far more deserving of success.

Why would Wii owners buy a $300 WiiU with hardly any new games to play rather than buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 and have HUNDREDS of new games to play!!?!

Because they didn't want a PS3 or 360, obviously.

You're thinking much too hard about this.

I don't think YOU are thinking hard enough.

Me: "Why won't they get a 360 or PS3"
You: "because they don't want a 360 or PS3"
Me: "that's not a 'why', that's circular logic"

Consumers DO think! Do you REALLY think millions of people will buy the WiiU over Xbox 360 to spite it being:
-just as powerful
-more expensive
-with less features
-Smaller online community for multiplayer games
-less advanced casual-market control (full body tracking kinect vs WiiU's late 1990's touchpad)

ALL ENTIRELY out of brand loyalty to Nintnedo.

"Neither the Gamecube nor the Wii sold their games for $60."

That's becasue they were 'de-facto' LAST GENERATION! Just like PS2 sold games for $50. PC games sell for $50 as there is no console licence fee on PC. I already gave a source that said WiiU games will be sold for £40 in the UK, that's $60 in US. Over here 360 and PS3 games sell for £40.

Look, stop and think about the multi-peripheral thing. No significant number of people such a Richie Rich buggers to buy 3 extra gamepads jsut in case their friends randomly come over with NO INTENTION of playing any games. No, they are told to bring their own xbox 360 controller from home. You CANNOT arbritrarily add on the cost of 3 extra controllers for Xbox 360 but not also the same cost for WiiU!

360 was sold as a profit. Look at my response to Matthew94. Wikipedia quote is WORTHLESS comapred to looking at how much the 360 actually cost to make... and how much it sold for. PS3 sold for a loss, but not Xbox 360 since 2006.

No, it is NINTENDO fans refuse to admit that Wii's power and price that is the issue. It IS de-facto previous gen by it's hardware capability. Sony apparently beat itself by the Playstation 2 outselling the PS3, but that doesn't count for anything.

It's intellectually dishonest to say people who wanted to play Modern Warfare 3 and Assassin's Creed 2 considered Nintendo Wii. No, Wii got a load of PS2 ports and EXTREMELY low quality ports of 360/PS3 games.

Then why does this not apply to Xbox 360 and PS3?!?

Because the only people who bought a 360 or PS3 years ago were the people who could afford it AND who were willing to pay any price to own it.

Oh so NOW you admit price being a factor. Well welcome to 2012, these HD console don't costs $400 any more, the Xbox 360 has an entry price of $200, WiiU has an entry price of no less than $300. Confirmed for £280 in the UK.

If WiiU was competitively priced with Xbox 360... why wouldn't they shout that out at this year's E3?!?

Wii stole the market because it was cheaper. WiiU will be more expensive.

PS2 was outdated hardware in 2005-2006
Wii was outdated hardware in 2006

"That's an entirely different marketing strategy than what Nintendo did, which is sell a brand new console with old outdated hardware for cheaper than a console with new hardware. The two are completely different situations."

It's not a "brand new" console IF IT USES GAMECUBE HARDWARE! It is only selling old hardware AS IF it was new! Nintendo conned millions acting like it was more modern than it actually was. It's pulling the same trick with WiiU, acting like it's next generation when it isn't.

"And I suppose we're all expected to take your word for it. "

No. you're supposed to do some research for yourself on capacitive and resistive touchscreens. ANd in general. You seem to have done little more than read the first paragraph of wikipedia articles without any citations.

Yes, the addition of twin concave clickable nalaogue sticks rather than analogue nubs make it MUCH more like a 360 controller as you couldn't have Call of Duty on the old controller as you'd have no left-click down for sprint or right stick click down for quick melee. The WiiU controller seen at least year's E3 had unique thumb slider controls that you couldn't click down and wouldn't work with many of the hardcore Xbox 360/PS3 games but would for Wii games.

I NEVER CLAIMED that 360 invented the clickable thumbstick! Nor implied so.

Why do you try to denigrate me with 360 fanboyism when it's clear that Nintendo is pandering to a control scheme VITAL for Call of Duty games on Xbox 360?

Look, I'm using 360 as representative, I don't want to have to get into all the BS surrounding PS3's supposed manufacturing costs and how they are making money with 3D-HDTVs and so on. Alright?

No. It HAS been confirmed to definitley cost more than $250, probably more than $300.

How is WiiU for tha casual market? HOW! You can't just conclude that because the Wii was.

The controller is geared towards games like COD and Assassin's Creed. The kinect, THAT is geared towards casual gamers and with gamepad more mainstream uses but WiiU. Why would the great mainstream give a crap about a stylus based touch-screen in what is essentially an oversized PS3/360 controller?!?!

"You are 100% wrong, and the only reason you don't want to admit it is because you've dug yourself into such a deep hole with this argument that there's no saving yourself now."

Don't use arguments that I could easilly use right back against you.

You have not made a convincing arugment (nor has nintendo) in how this can appeal to the casual market. It's not cheap. It's not intuitive.

Yeah, those estimates are right on the money. No one is saying the WiiU will be less than $200 as the XBox 360 has been selling at for a while now.

You have not provided evidence that 360 sold at a loss. You made a blind assertion and quoted a wikipedia article that speaks in generals not specifics. I have already given specifics.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061120132150.html

Now appologise.

I don't have a favourite 'console'. My favourite platform is PC. I have a LOT of problems with Xbox 360 but I DO NOT APPRECIATE being bullshitted with the WiiU nor with the Wii on their worth.

And stop calling me deluded without ever giving a single example of delusion. It's bad forum manners.

 

[Something Amyss]

Not tin foil territory, Sony made massive losses on the PS3 for years.

Which, of course, is not what I was talking about. But hey, that's probably not relevant at all.

People give estimates of around 30% or so for the Xenons (though some go as high as 54%).

Estimates with no real basis that are now being taken as somehow significant.