General Gaming Sales/Charts Discussion

[Goron_3]

That’s subjective. Personally I don’t really see any use for it. I don’t use off tv play, the battery is very very weak, the screen resolution is low and it lacks multi touch being a resistive screen. Who uses resistive screens these days? I would of preferred a standard controller and the money spent producing the gamepad used instead for more horsepower under the hood of the console.

 

Not really. I said that people with families who had to share the TV it was genius. And the gamepad battery life is fine for average use. Sure if you're the sterotypical spotty teenager who plays in his bedroom for hours on end then your comments are valid. If Nintendo just released a more powerful console with just the pro controller then they would be going directly head on with PS4 and XB1 and history has proved that there is not enough room for 3 similar consoles in a single generation.

 

Well the Gamecube didn't do too well against the PS2 and Xbox but let's remember that they made some awful mistakes with the GC and even then, it was competing against the behemoth that was the PS2. In fact it was barely outsold by the Xbox.

 

Could Nintendo create a powerful console with no gimmicks other than top quality 1st and 3rd party software and expect it to sell well? Maybe it wouldn't sell at Playstation level but I firmly believe it would sell very well, much better than say the N64 did. If the hardware and software are appealing and the price is right, any Nintendo console can succeed. The problem is, since the SNES they've rarely done both to a high standard.

[Clownferret]

 

I'm not sure it's all about power, that's just what gets mentioned as it's the only thing PS4 and XB1 have over the Wii U. It's more herd mentality, this thread has already trod the "it's not cool to own Nintendo" path. It's too easy to just say that because the sales figures are what they are.

 

Imagine this is Dragons Den and you are Sony pitching the PS4.

The Wii has just kicked PS3's butt and your idea is to launch a new console with no backwards compatibilty for games or controllers, a subscription fee to play online, no new games of note at launch but it's HD+.

The only thing you had over the Wii with PS3 was a big graphical advantage and that didn't work and now that gap is much smaller. The Wii U on the other hand is fully backwards compatible, free online, you get a tablet controller and the graphics are now comparable to the latest next gen machines.

They Dragons would all be oot.

The point is, on paper the Wii U is a far more superior machine to it's predecessor than PS4 and XB1 so there is no logic that it would bomb whilst they sell out.

You ask anybody on here who owns a Wii U and they will tell you what a brilliant machine it is.

[liger05]

Not really. I said that people with families who had to share the TV it was genius. And the gamepad battery life is fine for average use. Sure if you're the sterotypical spotty teenager who plays in his bedroom for hours on end then your comments are valid. If Nintendo just released a more powerful console with just the pro controller then they would be going directly head on with PS4 and XB1 and history has proved that there is not enough room for 3 similar consoles in a single generation.

 

But isn’t the issue that today families don’t really share a TV. There are multiple tv’s in homes now and while off tv play is a nice feature I don’t think it’s a requirement.

 

The Wii U gamepad lasts for what 3 hours? That’s not a long time at all.

 

Even if one was to believe 3 similar consoles cant exist in the same generation why is it that Nintendo has to step away and go a different route? It’s a defeatist attitude from a company which is supposed to take pride in its software.

 

I don’t think history has shown that to be the case? If 140 mil bought 360/PS3 then there is no reason why a third party cannot aim to steal a chunk of that audience.

 

Imagine this is Dragons Den and you are Sony pitching the PS4.

The Wii has just kicked PS3's butt and your idea is to launch a new console with no backwards compatibilty for games or controllers, a subscription fee to play online, no new games of note at launch but it's HD+.

The only thing you had over the Wii with PS3 was a big graphical advantage and that didn't work and now that gap is much smaller. The Wii U on the other hand is fully backwards compatible, free online, you get a tablet controller and the graphics are now comparable to the latest next gen machines.

They Dragons would all be oot.

 

The point is, on paper the Wii U is a far more superior machine to it's predecessor than PS4 and XB1 so there is no logic that it would bomb whilst they sell out.

You ask anybody on here who owns a Wii U and they will tell you what a brilliant machine it is.

 

I have a Wii U and I am pleased with it but I got it for £199 at launch. I would never of paid £299.

 

I’m not sure the Wii U being far superior to the Wii is an achievement when it barely more superior than the PS3/360. The Wii is not what Nintendo should be looking at when designing a new console. The eyes should be on the competition and to make sure the console stands up to what they were likely to be producing. Remember this consoles should last for a minimum of 4/5 years so the idea that you release a console which matches the consoles on there way out doesn’t really make sense to me.

 

What incentive was there for a PS3/360 owner to buy a Wii U instead of waiting 12 months. Nobody is saying its all about power but its pretty much normal practice that with a new generation of console its superior to the last generation of consoles. Its always been that way other than the Wii which was lightning in a bottle.

Edited December 13, 2013 by liger05

[Phube]

Perfect example at work today:

 

Mate (who's 30, a 360 owner, semi-casual player): My PS4 turned up today.

Me: Why not get a Wii U as there are no games for it yet?

Mate: I don't want a Child's console!

 

Seriously this was today... not 20 years ago... It's that UK Nintendo image thing.

[Serebii]

Perfect example at work today:

 

Mate (who's 30, a 360 owner, semi-casual player): My PS4 turned up today.

Me: Why not get a Wii U as there are no games for it yet?

Mate: I don't want a Child's console!

 

Seriously this was today... not 20 years ago... It's that UK Nintendo image thing.

Had similar last year in regards to Zombi U, a friend asked me why they were bringing out a zombie game on a console for kids.

 

Have no idea how Nintendo can get rid of that view.

[liger05]

Had similar last year in regards to Zombi U, a friend asked me why they were bringing out a zombie game on a console for kids.

 

Have no idea how Nintendo can get rid of that view.

 

Get western studios to produce the genre of games which are more adult themed.

[Rummy]

Sort your quotes out guys! Confused me for a while earlier lol.

 

I'm not sure it's all about power, that's just what gets mentioned as it's the only thing PS4 and XB1 have over the Wii U. It's more herd mentality, this thread has already trod the "it's not cool to own Nintendo" path. It's too easy to just say that because the sales figures are what they are.

 

Imagine this is Dragons Den and you are Sony pitching the PS4.

The Wii has just kicked PS3's butt and your idea is to launch a new console with no backwards compatibilty for games or controllers, a subscription fee to play online, no new games of note at launch but it's HD+.

The only thing you had over the Wii with PS3 was a big graphical advantage and that didn't work and now that gap is much smaller. The Wii U on the other hand is fully backwards compatible, free online, you get a tablet controller and the graphics are now comparable to the latest next gen machines.

They Dragons would all be oot.

The point is, on paper the Wii U is a far more superior machine to it's predecessor than PS4 and XB1 so there is no logic that it would bomb whilst they sell out.

You ask anybody on here who owns a Wii U and they will tell you what a brilliant machine it is.

 

In theory practise is everything, in practice theory is nothing.

 

Btw, for your last point - I own a Wii U. I'm also one of the(number of) people calling out the Wii U and Nintendo for what they've done. Brilliant machine? In what sense? It's ok/good, it's got potential - it's not realizing it fully. I'm also with Liger in that I got mine for £200 on a good(better than average) deal - I wouldn't have paid more and still sometimes I wonder if that was still worth it.

[Serebii]

Get western studios to produce the genre of games which are more adult themed.

All that'll do is not sell and have people question why it's on a "kid's console"

[liger05]

All that'll do is not sell and have people question why it's on a "kid's console"

 

Initially maybe but that's the only way to change the perception.

[Dcubed]

Get western studios to produce the genre of games which are more adult themed.

 

Didn't help the N64 or the GCN...

[tapedeck]

Initially maybe but that's the only way to change the perception.

 

I agree. Look at what Turok and Goldeneye did for the N64. Original, exclusive content is key. On the GCN third party mature games were also on other systems, so those gamers just bought such titles on the PS2. The XBox then had Halo which was a saving grace at the time.

Certainly in the UK Turok and Goldeneye gave the N64 system respect - and then many of my friends dipped into other gems on the system that would otherwise have been considered 'kiddie'. Plus it had ISS which was arguably the best football game available on the market at the time. Again, Nintendo didn't market it...

 

Such games didn't look out of place on Nintendo systems, but when they went, Nintendo didn't replace these genres/developers. Their systems are now starved of variety in key areas. Heck knows when I can play a new realistic football game on the Wii U, or a realistic racer or a moody adventure game like Uncharted or Tomb Raider. Sadly, the answer seems like 'once' or 'never', and most of the core market knows that. With only fantasy/cutesy games to fill the void, that mature market is drifting further away from Nintendo.

Edited December 14, 2013 by tapedeck

[liger05]

I agree. Look at what Turok and Goldeneye did for the N64. Original, exclusive content is key. On the GCN third party mature games were also on other systems, so those gamers just bought such titles on the PS2. The XBox then had Halo which was a saving grace at the time.

Certainly in the UK Turok and Goldeneye gave the N64 system respect - and then many of my friends dipped into other gems on the system that would otherwise have been considered 'kiddie'. Plus it had ISS which was arguably the best football game available on the market at the time. Again, Nintendo didn't market it...

 

Such games didn't look out of place on Nintendo systems, but when they went, Nintendo didn't replace these genres/developers. Their systems are now starved of variety in key areas. Heck knows when I can play a new realistic football game on the Wii U, or a realistic racer or a moody adventure game like Uncharted or Tomb Raider. Sadly, the answer seems like 'once' or 'never', and most of the core market knows that. With only fantasy/cutesy games to fill the void, that mature market is drifting further away from Nintendo.

 

Good post. I think when THQ went bust Nintendo should of bought some of those ip's. Saints row for instance being one of them. I'm not a great fan of the series however it sells well and it's the kind of exclusive title which adds something totally different to the library and one people wouldn't expect to see on a Nintendo console.

[Goron_3]

I agree. Look at what Turok and Goldeneye did for the N64. Original, exclusive content is key. On the GCN third party mature games were also on other systems, so those gamers just bought such titles on the PS2. The XBox then had Halo which was a saving grace at the time.

Certainly in the UK Turok and Goldeneye gave the N64 system respect - and then many of my friends dipped into other gems on the system that would otherwise have been considered 'kiddie'. Plus it had ISS which was arguably the best football game available on the market at the time. Again, Nintendo didn't market it...

 

Such games didn't look out of place on Nintendo systems, but when they went, Nintendo didn't replace these genres/developers. Their systems are now starved of variety in key areas. Heck knows when I can play a new realistic football game on the Wii U, or a realistic racer or a moody adventure game like Uncharted or Tomb Raider. Sadly, the answer seems like 'once' or 'never', and most of the core market knows that. With only fantasy/cutesy games to fill the void, that mature market is drifting further away from Nintendo.

 

This is a fantastic post and it highlights Nintendo's woes since the N64. Yeah, they got mature content on the N64 but ultimately they made huge mistakes with that console, particularly the decision to go for cartridges. 3rd parties ran to the Playstation and they never looked back.

 

Then when the Gamecube came out late, the generation was basically over as Sony were dominating, but even though the GC got games like REmake & Eternal Darkness, they gave up the FPS market and basically handed it it to Microsoft. The fact that they Gamecube was purple and looked like a lunch box didn't help either. Wind Waker, despite it being amazing, was another nail in the coffin.

 

The problem is, Nintendo now have this mindset of 'we can't compete with the others so we need to be different'. Is that true though? Nintendo couldn't compete during the N64 and GC days because quite frankly they made a whole horde of mistakes and never made any effort to appeal to the western market. If they seriously invested in western developers and I.P's, the reputation they have would be different. Ultimately, this need to be 'different' has cost them with the Wii U, where they've made a console nobody asked for.

 

They need to rethink their approach and it needs to start top down. Give NoA some power and actually look at the market for a change.

[Fused King]

 

Seriously this was today... not 20 years ago... It's that UK Nintendo image thing.

 

This isn't just in the UK, my friend.

 

I've heard from many a mainland European that NINTENDO consoles are not for that 'full-fledged gaming experience' like you have with your Mass Effect or your Last of Us.

 

Take Poland for instance. Apparently only 300 or so people have a WiiU there and NINTENDO sections in stores are found in a dimly lit corner somewhere.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Fused King

[Jamba]

I've heard from many a mainland European that NINTENDO consoles are not for that 'full-fledged gaming experience' like you have with your Mass Effect or your Last of Us.

 

 

That is true though. The fact that Nintendo wouldnt go after these franchises in any other way than posthumously is a bit scary but then again, could they? The Wii couldn't have handled any of the AAA darlings of the last generation either. It's only been because Activision have wanted to blanket the market that CoD turned up on Wii U but hats off to them for their work on the Wii. I very much doubt Nintendo game them any help.

 

Nintendo are actually on the position now that they would need literally 3 years of investment in marketing and leveraging companies to make the right games for their console to turn this around. And it's a trap made from games like Mario being to successful. Why would they do this when all of their classics sell so well?

[Rummy]

AS said, just having the 'mature' games doesn't mean they'll sell - and in fact that is part of the slippery slope that's happened with Nintendo systems.

 

With Wii U it's going to be doubly as bad because the install base is shit. Even if half of all of those were 'core' or 'mature' gamers with a hypothetically optimistic 80% of which would go out and buy this 'mature' title - what is that in an absolute numbers game? 80% of zero is still zero and all that blahblah.

 

The one I'm waiting for however is Watch Dogs - be very interesting to see what its Wii U sales are like, I genuinely believe that's going to be a massive title for judgement of the Wii U.

 

Definitely agree with Jamba that Wii U will need a lot of resources put in to turn it around to a high standard.

 

(I'm just as guilty in it all btw, the 'mature' titles that have appeared in the past haven't appealed enough to me to buy them)

Edited December 17, 2013 by Rummy

[Hero-of-Time]

The one I'm waiting for however is Watch Dogs - be very interesting to see what its Wii U sales are like, I genuinely believe that's going to be a massive title for judgement of the Wii U.

 

I personally see it being a flop on the Wii U.

[khilafah]

I personally see it being a flop on the Wii U.

 

no doubt about this.

 

just like AC and Splinter Cell were.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Watch Dogs will most likely be canned for the Wii U. Can't see it coming.

 

If it does come, it'll flop.

 

There's no dignity in either scenario.

[Sheikah]

I'm not sure it's all about power, that's just what gets mentioned as it's the only thing PS4 and XB1 have over the Wii U. It's more herd mentality, this thread has already trod the "it's not cool to own Nintendo" path. It's too easy to just say that because the sales figures are what they are.

 

Imagine this is Dragons Den and you are Sony pitching the PS4.

The Wii has just kicked PS3's butt and your idea is to launch a new console with no backwards compatibilty for games or controllers, a subscription fee to play online, no new games of note at launch but it's HD+.

The only thing you had over the Wii with PS3 was a big graphical advantage and that didn't work and now that gap is much smaller. The Wii U on the other hand is fully backwards compatible, free online, you get a tablet controller and the graphics are now comparable to the latest next gen machines.

They Dragons would all be oot.

The point is, on paper the Wii U is a far more superior machine to it's predecessor than PS4 and XB1 so there is no logic that it would bomb whilst they sell out.

You ask anybody on here who owns a Wii U and they will tell you what a brilliant machine it is.

By that logic then the Wii U has absolutely nothing over the competition, since off screen play is also done by the PS4/Vita (and most people don't care about it anyway, so I think it's right that it's optional in Sony's offering), and by your own confession the PS4 and X1 are graphically superior to the Wii U. And certainly the Wii U is far behind in terms of a good online infrastructure (I don't care if it's free, because it's garbage).

 

The argument I think you might then try make is that Nintendo is unique in that its software is speshul, to which I will pre-emptivey counter with 'that doesn't need a new console' and, simply, 'Journey'.

[khilafah]

Watch Dogs will most likely be canned for the Wii U. Can't see it coming.

 

If it does come, it'll flop.

 

There's no dignity in either scenario.

 

I think development is so far down the track and costs already paid that Ubisoft will release it.

 

Wouldnt be surprised if it is the last game we see from Ubisoft for Wii U though.

[Goron_3]

I'd be hugely surprised if Watch Dogs even makes it out on the Wii U tbh as the audience for that game just isn't there.

 

If Nintendo want to get those games on their systems and SELLING, they need to lead from the front and get the audience to go to their system and secondly give them a reason to get the Nintendo version. The N64 had Goldeneye which led to gems like Turok and Perfect Dark coming to the system and selling reasonably well; they established the user base early on and as a result the N64 never suffered from the kiddy image that say, the Gamecube had.

 

With the type of games that Nintendo are bringing to the Wii U, I really can't see that audience buying into Watch Dogs because they aren't even buying AC4/ CoD (although it doesn't help that those games run worse on Wii U than on 360/PS3…).

[Ashley]

I think development is so far down the track and costs already paid that Ubisoft will release it.

 

Wouldnt be surprised if it is the last game we see from Ubisoft for Wii U though.

 

We'll still get Just Dance!

[Rummy]

I personally see it being a flop on the Wii U.

 

Oh, I'm fully expecting it to flop. The Wii U's a bit of a flop, I can't see Watch Dogs being a mad runaway success on Wii U only - but it's going to be one of the only oppurtunities we have to look at it close to all other things being equal - the game'll be releasing across PS4, XBone, PS3, 360 AND WiiU simultaneously. I don't think there's any other title to do or have done that yet?

 

Watch Dogs will most likely be canned for the Wii U. Can't see it coming.

 

I'm hoping it won't get canned as I'm planning to get the Wii U version to show some support! I have dillydallied between not bothering and just going 360 or PS3 - but I'm hoping Wii U might make good use of the Gamepad and possibly be superior to the PS360 versions.

 

Wouldnt be surprised if it is the last game we see from Ubisoft for Wii U though.

 

I am sadly kind of thinking this though. At least the last big and non-exclusive title, for a while.

[liger05]

What will be interesting about Watch Dogs is how much time and effort has gone into the wii u version and just how easy or a chore it is for developers to get stuff working on the Wii U.

 

Some of the screen shot comparisons of ACIV make the wii u look bad compared to the 360 /PS3 but whether that's a hardware issue or simply a developer one we don't really know.