Sheikah

The thing is though the price point it launched at was not worth the value of the parts. While there's no doubt that it runs the sorts of games we're currently use to pretty well, it won't be able to natively run the sorts of games we can expect to see on the PS4/One, and as a result it's most likely going to miss out on a lot of third party games like the Wii did.

I wouldn't say that recently Nintendo's hardware is particularly affordable. Not for what you're getting, anyway. The Wii U launched at an expensive price - only now it's around £200 in certain places (usually timed sales) and it comes with a poor storage size. I would prefer to spend £100 more with them if they delivered a heck of a lot more like the competition (including higher spec parts). I get what he's saying; he's basically saying turn gaming into one format, a la PC. We already have several companies selling computers and there is no confusion. Admittedly PCs do not appeal to everyone, but there's no reason why people couldn't sell PCs that were as simplified as consoles (plus ran well on TVs), yet all handled the same software. It would make things so much cheaper for everyone. It'd also mean that a game developer could release a piece of hardware to go with their software, and if it was a hit (e.g. Kinect) then they could licence it for use with other games.

Still, never as disappointing as free Assassin's Creed 2, right? They're still blowing cobwebs off those discs at GAME.

Exactly this. I think some people are inferring from this one example where a company did such wrongs, and saying "this is what will happen". I would prefer to think instead "Here is how they handled it. Let's not do it like that". Which makes a lot more sense. You could also see it as making the quality of titles improve. Right now with the Wii U, Nintendo knows that it must provide most of the games to the system on account of limited third party support. While it will always be making certain titles like main Mario and Zelda games (regardless of whether it has its own home console or not) it may also have to conform to quantity over quality to deliver enough games to make the system seem reasonably supported enough to be worth buying. I'm looking at reused formulas and countless spin offs here. Not saying it will ever happen (it'd be equivalent to being told to sell your house and rent instead) but losing a home console would remove that pressure. It'd be all about spending more time producing fewer games of higher quality. Right now people complain about a lack of games on the Wii U, but if a third party dev like Naughty Dog took 2-3 years in between games then that would probably just seem normal. My point is, they currently have a responsibility and that can lead to bad decisions.

@Hogge, I think you need to step back and look at the situation here. The Wii U is fundamentally underpowered compared to its competitors, as the Wii was to the 360 and PS3. It therefore won't be able to run many of the multiformat games that the others can; that's pretty much a given that also occurred with the Wii. The online issues aren't just features, there's just generally a very poor infrastructure throughout the 3DS in my experience. For instance - friend codes are pretty cumbersome, 3DS messaging is slow / has a separate app, there's a difficulty in jumping into friends' games/invite people aside from Mario Kart... And a colossal cock up... it's impossible to see a real time message popup a friend sends to you on the 3DS. How on Earth can you matchmake? Taking a specific example (Animal Crossing NL) into account here - in order to real time message someone I have to arrange on the forum first to make sure we have friend coded each other (can't just be initiated in console by one person). Next, I have to make sure on the forum that we pick a time to visit each others' town. Then one of us has to open the gate, the other has to join, then we have to friend each other in game. Then, and only then, have we found a way to message each other in real time. And only when in game. The online infrastructure is really gash. I have no idea why the messaging feature is so slow (clicking messages button on Vita loads instantly). Also, last point (aside from the one example of Sega which I feel is being unfairly extrapolated), you realise when you say the Persona games don't look amazing is due to the last one being on the PS2? Right?

Thanks Tales, it is but I have that one

It's really weird, the SNES is really easy to emulate. It can only be marketing holding it back; to make it appear as if things are in the pipeline, and to get people to focus on individual games when they do come 1 or 2 at a time. I don't buy that it takes them any serious amount of time to 'fine tune' games that run perfectly in emulators like snes9x already.

Then Nintendo should hire the people who make the superior third party emulators and sack their staff. It's been done perfectly already.

Not true at all for the most part. True for the N64 games, but read on. Like many others I had the homebrew channel on my Wii. I downloaded a several thousand SNES, NES and Genesis pack along with the relevant emulators. Games ran flawlessly. Probably better than on the original systems, in fact. Early Nintendo/Sega consoles have been emulated pretty much perfectly. (Also, regarding their release schedule - there is no way in hell they couldn't have tweaked a massive bunch of games and released them all at once. Their staggered release is most definitely a marketing ploy).

Yeah, that was so disgusting. But I wonder what it tastes like...

Thus denying themselves a lot of money. Seems silly.

Nintendo should obviously keep at the handheld market as they're consistently the market leader in that area. But if they stand to make a lot more profit by selling console games multiformat, it'd be good both for them and the consumer. We'd have to ask this question at the end of the Wii U life - if it's likely going to continue down this path again, they'd probably be better off not making their own home console.

Really? I thought I had an awful lot of trees...remember though the number does include palms. Yeah you can have too many, although Isabelle didn't tell me. I was being told I needed more public works projects. At long last the police station was suggested to me today!

They're doing terrible with the WiiU though, what kind of royalties can they expect? Especially when they have had to go to the expense of researching, designing and manufacturing a new console; is there meaningful profit in the end? I'm guessing no. It's likely there'll be a similar situation to the Wii where games that run on Xbox/PS4 won't be worth the effort to put on the WiiU on account of hardware limitations, meaning it'll miss out on lots. The way I see it, the WiiU isn't going to do well.

Oh yeah, a couple of days ago. It was too many trees! More public works my ass, Isabelle! :p

Well I would expect the current 'new' generation to last at least another 7-8 years, and I feel the WiiU will take something miraculous to turn its fortunes around. Even if on paper an individual console can be sold at a profit, if they aren't selling any significant number then they're not going to be selling anywhere near the number of games to people that they could be. If they're really struggling to make a console that can compete with the competition on a technical level (due to them not having the same sort of capital to buffer smaller profit margins) then it would make sense to put their games on other consoles. I think a loss of their own control over new peripheral design (the main thing they wouldn't be able to do anymore) is a small price to pay to not have to fork out hundreds for mostly one developer's software. Also I don't see any reason why Nintendo would follow Sega's direction. They can still keep their existing game devs and studios (which may not have been the case for a company that underwent bankruptcy) - there's no reason why they would have to change the direction of their game design. Their games are profitable - their console not so much. Also worth bearing in mind that many successful games are already made by third parties not affiliated with an individual console directly, and have managed to either consistently deliver to a formula or constantly improve their games. Most Nintendo games are down to a formula these days anyway; constant churning of similar gameplay is what they're doing already. They would just have to keep doing it.

That's why you have to sell them at someone else's town. It's rare you'll ever get a decent 500+ price yourself.

You've got to keep your eyes peeled for the forumer with the good price, which is usually Tuesday or Wednesday. Saturday night is not the time to sell.

I'm sure Nintendo sells enough copies of most of its killer titles, of which there are many, that would far outsell many other third party titles and therefore be profitable enough to make. I'm also only suggesting they only drop their home console - something that has lost a lot of interest within the last 5 or so years. I mean, what 'profit' are they really reaping from the WiiU? Just wondering.

What exactly is your point with Sega? If Sega remain profitable and people still follow their games after losing their console, surely that suggests Nintendo can do too. In fact they'd be in a much stronger position on account of having better software that can really sell copies. If Nintendo continue with a poorly selling console then can't you see how it would make sense to deliver their games to other platforms?

I don't think it's short sighted at all. Sega went down a route of making 3D Sonic games that were pale imitations of what they did best, and had nowhere near the same sort of roster of games Nintendo has. So that's not really a good comparison; you're basically extrapolating one incident and trying to suggest that everything else would be doomed to fail if it did the same. Which really, just doesn't make sense. Nintendo hardware is woefully under-impressive compared to its competitors and long they have struggled with producing a console that can attract good third party software. Not only would putting their software onto multiple devices increase the number of potential customers, it'd mean I wouldn't have to buy hardware just to run a few games that I actually want. I'm talking about their home consoles here rather than handhelds. I actually don't mind if Persona went PS3/Xbox/PC multiformat. So long as it's not a Nintendo exclusive I'd be happy enough. Games like Dark Souls show that excellent presentation and online features can be maintained across these platforms. Assuming they made the next Persona game exactly as they intended regardless of which platform it went on, a WiiU version would be exactly the same as a PS4 version but more limited in how technically impressive they could make it. It's kinda like how I was really happy that Ni no Kuni went to the PS3 and not the Wii, even though I had both consoles.

Then why split the vote on him?

Glad you saw sense in the end in not splitting the vote. @Jonnas I'm pretty sure that's majority reached. Majority is already reached.

I don't want Persona on a Nintendo console primarily because Nintendo hardware and online infrastructure is sub par. It doesn't do an awesome title justice. I would be quite happy if Nintendo became a software developer and handheld console manufacturer only. If they can't make a home console people want because it is technically unimpressive and has few good games, I'd be mighty pissed off at the thought of having to buy one just to play one awesome game. That is really bad for the consumer and really only good for Nintendo.

So you freely admit this is all basically conjecture, yet split the vote over it? Why do something so silly? If I wanted his lynch for nefarious reasons I would have voted for him yesterday, especially when it was clear his so called 'inevitable' lynch wasn't going to happen by the end of the day. I think your comment about most people knowing Diageo's role is ludicrous. He was going down, and no one stepped in to say - "hang on! This guy isn't a knife wielding maniac targeting the wrong kind of people, he's a protector!" If I wanted his lynch for Mafia reasons, why would I have done this? Why wouldn't I have left it be, or added my vote, when there were votes piling up? This guy is the queen. Peeps doesn't give a fuck who he votes for, he's neutral. But what you're doing is just silly, danny.