Wii U VC

[Dcubed]

Backwards compatibility can only go so far though. Eventually they will drop past systems because it's too expensive to make new consoles compatible with everything. It also makes no sense financially for them to make their new console compatible with games that are maybe 30-40 years old (talking about the future here).

 

If anything, the future is streaming. From what I hear from the guys here who trialled PS Now, the tech is definitely getting there, if not almost there. On demand streaming of any game that you want, where every play of a game gives them back money and they needn't role out the technology to every new console owner. Especially important given the minority will realistically want to play old games on their new console. After all, that's not really why you buy a new system.

 

Supporting Wii U BC means that you also get Wii and GCN BC at no extra cost, because the Wii U hardware is derived from those two consoles. Supporting Wii U BC also means that every single VC game currently available for Wii U (and technically Wii as well) is also playable at no extra cost.

 

If the next console is a turbo charged Wii U (which it seems like it's going to be, based on what Iwata was saying about their next console and handheld sharing an archtecture based on Wii U), then every single past Nintendo console is automatically supported out of the box from day 1, without them having to invest anything extra into the hardware cost.

 

And you can bet that this is gonna be a big selling point. Hundreds of high quality games at variable prices (from full price retail games down to £3 NES games) all there at day 1. That is how they compete in this age of race-to-the-bottom pricing.

 

Likewise, the same applies to their handheld too (though BC with 3DS is very much questionable about how they're gonna handle that...); which will almost certainly effectively be a miniaturised and downclocked Wii U (that runs in widescreen 480p instead of 720/1080p); meaning that it too will have near full BC with everything from day 1 at no extra cost in terms of hardware (of course it won't support periphrials like Wii remotes and such, so those games won't be playable on there).

 

But if the handheld is using Wii U derived hardware at a high enough spec to handle it, then that also means that they'll be able to make all existing Wii U VC/downloadable Wii/GCN games playable on there from day 1; without having to re-code anything at all - which also makes it very much financially feasible to have crossbuy across the board for all past games (since the games will just work out of the box, without any actual porting being needed to be done)

 

That's why it makes perfect sense. If the NX handheld/console are derived from Wii U hardware, then supporting all of their past games comes at zero cost and gives them a huge running start; and a huge library of quality games from day 1 is their best shot at competing in this age of established app stores with thousands of low price games.

[Sheikah]

And in say, 30-40 years, do you still think they will be using hardware where they've kept the compatibility with every generation before? I certainly don't. It's a nice idea, but ultimately a pointless one as there is much more to be gained from tossing out the old and taking in the new. Many people who wanted Nintendo's back catalogue have had plenty opportunity already. And if you look at the HD remaster of Wind Waker, the money and the wow factor is in completely remaking your games and putting them out on the console of the time, even if they don't last forever. People will pay again for that great game they remember playing, with a new lick of paint.

 

In the long term, streaming is where it's at; if not right now, definitely in the future.

[david.dakota]

(BTW Ninty, if you're reading this, and I know you are because you clearly have spies on me, I would happily pay full price for Disaster: Day of Crisis, and I'm sure many Americans would do the same)

 

An enjoyable romp (in a daft, silly, over-the-top way) but interspersed with god-damn awful combat. There a great game in there... Somewhere.

[Dcubed]

And in say, 30-40 years, do you still think they will be using hardware where they've kept the compatibility with every generation before? I certainly don't. It's a nice idea, but ultimately a pointless one as there is much more to be gained from tossing out the old and taking in the new. Many people who wanted Nintendo's back catalogue have had plenty opportunity already. And if you look at the HD remaster of Wind Waker, the money and the wow factor is in completely remaking your games and putting them out on the console of the time, even if they don't last forever. People will pay again for that great game they remember playing, with a new lick of paint.

 

In the long term, streaming is where it's at; if not right now, definitely in the future.

 

The idea behind this NX console/handheld is that it is designed around a shared hardware ecosystem. It is meant to be like the iPhone/iPad; where they stick with the same ARM/Power VR combo with boosted specs over time; so yeah, I expect them to stick with this Power PC/AMD GPU combo (with specs increasing over time) for the forseable future.

 

BC is integral to their future. It is what will allow them to keep their ecosystem alive and well (with lots of high quality games at highly variable prices) without them having to devalue their games to the point of unsustainability or re-enter the losing battle against MS and Sony over the 12-25 year old males/KGOY market. And this shared ecosystem also allows them to release new games on both platforms at a greatly reduced manpower cost; meaning that releases can be more frequent too (especially seen as they can hit the ground running; since it would be pretty much the same as developing for the Wii U - hardware that they're familiar with now).

 

Going down this route means that Nintendo can prop up their console/handheld ecosystem on their own; without having to rely on the major 3rd party publishers who will never support them (it's politics and not hardware specs that prevent them from getting proper 3rd party support)

 

And it's not like BC has prevented Nintendo from re-making their games anyway... (nor does it prevent them from making the original versions of their games available either)... even when OoT and MM were on the Wii VC, they still made OoT 3D and MM 3D as full price retail games.

 

So what is the benefit of dumping Power PC for ARM or X64? It's not going to gain them any extra support, because the major publishers just aren't interested in Nintendo's vision of the industry (plus Nintendo's family friendly brand is toxic to them) and it doesn't necessarily gain them any extra performance either (especially not in a handheld; as X86/64 isn't exactly known for being power efficient...)

 

It also means throwing out all of their existing technology and programming know how... For no real gain. It would just mean that they'd be starting from scratch, having to re-learn development all over again, with a library of zero, and still with no large scale 3rd party support to back them up.

 

It doesn't make sense.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

The idea behind this NX console/handheld is that it is designed around a shared hardware ecosystem. It is meant to be like the iPhone/iPad; where they stick with the same ARM/Power VR combo with boosted specs over time; so yeah, I expect them to stick with this Power PC/AMD GPU combo (with specs increasing over time) for the forseable future.

 

BC is integral to their future. It is what will allow them to keep their ecosystem alive and well (with lots of high quality games at highly variable prices) without them having to devalue their games to the point of unsustainability or re-enter the losing battle against MS and Sony over the 12-25 year old males/KGOY market. And this shared ecosystem also allows them to release new games on both platforms at a greatly reduced manpower cost; meaning that releases can be more frequent too (especially seen as they can hit the ground running; since it would be pretty much the same as developing for the Wii U - hardware that they're familiar with now).

 

Going down this route means that Nintendo can prop up their console/handheld ecosystem on their own; without having to rely on the major 3rd party publishers who will never support them (it's politics and not hardware specs that prevent them from getting proper 3rd party support)

 

And it's not like BC has prevented Nintendo from re-making their games anyway... (nor does it prevent them from making the original versions of their games available either)... even when OoT and MM were on the Wii VC, they still made OoT 3D and MM 3D as full price retail games.

 

So what is the benefit of dumping Power PC for ARM or X64? It's not going to gain them any extra support, because the major publishers just aren't interested in Nintendo's vision of the industry (plus Nintendo's family friendly brand is toxic to them) and it doesn't necessarily gain them any extra performance either (especially not in a handheld; as X86/64 isn't exactly known for being power efficient...)

 

It also means throwing out all of their existing technology and programming know how... For no real gain. It would just mean that they'd be starting from scratch, having to re-learn development all over again, with a library of zero, and still with no large scale 3rd party support to back them up.

 

It doesn't make sense.

 

See here's the thing. VC just has so little pull for your average gamer. Right now, the Wii U plays host to many games that are critically acclaimed. And you know what? Most people hardly care. The console hardly sells, and you'll be lucky to see even 1 of these games chart every week. What doesn't make sense is to consider VC as some kind of system seller, or even at the very least, something Nintendo must champion. If A* rated new Wii U games don't sell the system well, you can be sure as shit a VC catalogue of Wii U games we've had plenty of chances to replay in the past years is going to prove more than a drop in the ocean in swaying consumers to your system, or even making much cash. Nice to have? Sure! But in any way meaningful to the success of the system? Not at all.

 

Fast track to 20 years when the Wii U games available on the VC of the latest console look dogeared and people have already had maybe 5-10 years to pick up these games....do you see these games selling any better than they currently do now? I don't. I really, really don't.

 

I think your quote above is somewhat telling and is really what I was getting at with regards to how sustainable this approach is. You said you can see them sticking to this 'for the foreseeable'. That to me doesn't sound like 'forever'. Rather, until some new technological leap comes along, or they change focus. Tell me, honestly, do you truly believe that 50 years from now they will be using a similar setup in order to play these games; games most people are past caring about? What's madness is to think there is any financial sense to this, or that it will even happen!

 

Streaming really is the future and this isn't. Streaming completely removes the need to develop your primary console around past fossils that many care little for. Not only is streaming free from the shackles of consumer bought hardware, it is available to anyone. Sony are getting it to work on Smart TVs and then beyond, which means they can get it to everyone. Reach maximum audience, no comsumer hardware costs (beyond the controller and the continuously updated devices people buy anyway for other reasons) and for all intents and purposes, indefinite availability. As the tech improves even more, there's no reason why this won't become the most logical choice for VC distribution. Many people don't want to buy Nintendo consoles these days unless there is some must have gimmick, and Nintendo know it. They're not branching out to mobile for no reason, you know.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Sheikah

[Blade]

Streaming completely removes the need to develop your primary console around past fossils that many care little for.

 

Whoa! Wash your mouth out! I would hardly call SM64, OoT, MM, SMW, Super Metroid "fossils that many care little for"

 

I love the virtual console, it is a great idea. I'm gutted that there isn't a similar feature on the PS4! I want to download FF VII, VIII and IX but unable to do so instead I need to buy another separate device to play retro playstation games! Fuck that!

[Sheikah]

Yeah I don't doubt you do, what I mean is that many people who want those titles have had plenty chance to grab them already. If you look at the system that's storming it right now it's the PS4; a system with no VC whatsoever. Thus, VC is not really much of a deciding factor at all for most gamers.

[Dcubed]

Yeah I don't doubt you do, what I mean is that many people who want those titles have had plenty chance to grab them already. If you look at the system that's storming it right now it's the PS4; a system with no VC whatsoever. Thus, VC is not really much of a deciding factor at all for most gamers.

 

Nintendo isn't aiming for that audience though...

 

Their target audience is both younger and older. People who have a strong nostalgia for the games of old as well as those who are new to gaming in general.

 

For them, the VC is a much stronger factor than with Sony's audience (I think we've actually gone over this before :p ) and it's something that is clearly a much stronger focus for Nintendo than it is for Sony or MS.

 

Despite the fact that the VC has always had something holding it back (be it the poor shop design/online setup of the Wii, or the lack of hardware sales for the Wii U; something that comes down to lots of different factors, like price, branding etc), it has always been their strongest driver of digital sales and it continues to be so to this day.

 

If they're gonna compete against the tide of mobile devices with massive App Store catalogues and devalued games without giving up on quality games and dedicated hardware, then their best shot is with a large catalogue of games at highly variable prices from day 1; and the only way that they can realistically do that is by leveraging their legacy.

 

Online streaming might one day become a viable option, but right now it is not. It's too expensive to maintain and doesn't provide the responsiveness that Nintendo demand from their games. With Playstation Now, Sony are looking at a future that eschews the need for dedicated hardware at all, while Nintendo are looking at ways to allow them to keep making dedicated consoles/handhelds. PSNow is likely to be a test bed for whatever succeeds the PS4; but since Nintendo aren't looking to get out of the hardware business, it's not a viable option for them.

 

Fast track to 20 years when the Wii U games available on the VC of the latest console look dogeared and people have already had maybe 5-10 years to pick up these games....do you see these games selling any better than they currently do now? I don't. I really, really don't.

 

I think your quote above is somewhat telling and is really what I was getting at with regards to how sustainable this approach is. You said you can see them sticking to this 'for the foreseeable'. That to me doesn't sound like 'forever'. Rather, until some new technological leap comes along, or they change focus. Tell me, honestly, do you truly believe that 50 years from now they will be using a similar setup in order to play these games; games most people are past caring about? What's madness is to think there is any financial sense to this, or that it will even happen!

 

50 years is an absurd amount of time to be asked to predict! By that point anything NX related would be emulatable anyway, so godonlyknows what method they would be using by then (or if they can even stick around that long).

 

Streaming really is the future and this isn't. Streaming completely removes the need to develop your primary console around past fossils that many care little for. Not only is streaming free from the shackles of consumer bought hardware, it is available to anyone. Sony are getting it to work on Smart TVs and then beyond, which means they can get it to everyone. Reach maximum audience, no comsumer hardware costs (beyond the controller and the continuously updated devices people buy anyway for other reasons) and for all intents and purposes, indefinite availability. As the tech improves even more, there's no reason why this won't become the most logical choice for VC distribution. Many people don't want to buy Nintendo consoles these days unless there is some must have gimmick, and Nintendo know it. They're not branching out to mobile for no reason, you know.

 

If streaming is the future, then it's a really distant one. And they're not looking to branch out to mobile as a replacement for their games, but rather it is meant as an entry point for mobile users, as a means of entering Nintendo's ecosystem. That's what Iwata has always kept saying, even well before the DeNA announcement; and nothing that has been announced has gone against that yet.

 

The idea is that they're trying to introduce new players to their IP and move them over from mobile to their platforms. Whether or not it'll work remains to be seen though (I'm pessimistic about it, but that's beside the point).

Edited April 28, 2015 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

If quality of VC catalogue and the ability to play past games was so important then the Wii U would have sold a lot more than it has. VC might be considered important to you but it seems like you're thinking that means it's important to everyone. Truth is, it isn't really. What will do well for Nintendo is to make new games that people connect with; games like Minecraft are what the kids of today want. And to be honest, having your VC available on every console gives many people little reason to upgrade their system. See what I mean? It's the new games that make people want to buy a system. VC factors almost inconsequentially.

 

Also regarding streaming being too expensive to maintain, clearly it isn't. It must be either profit making or reasonably close to doing so for a business to be centred around it. And this isn't a question of whether it's the bees knees now; my point has always been that it is clearly the future. A service that can be played by anyone without the need for costly additional hardware. It's just so obviously the way forward; if Joe Bloggs, a casual gamer with no consoles, wants to relive the old days in Super Mario Bros 3 then I'm sure he'd rather not pay a £200-300 up front cost for a console. He'd probably just stick to his Wii tbh!

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sheikah

[Serebii]

The funny thing is that streaming Virtual Console titles would take up more bandwidth than simply downloading them

[Dcubed]

If quality of VC catalogue and the ability to play past games was so important then the Wii U would have sold a lot note than it has. VC might be considered important to you but it seems like you're thinking that means it's important to everyone. Truth is, it isn't really. What will do well for Nintendo is to make new games that people connect with. Games like Minecraft are what the kids of today want. And to be honest, having your VC available on every console gives many people little reason to upgrade their system. See what I mean? It's the new games that make people want to buy a system. VC factors almost inconsequentially.

 

First off, the Wii U's poor hardware sales come down to a huge number of factors; be it poor branding choices, too high a price, the rise of mobile gaming, poor choice of marketing mix; really, the number of potential factors is near infinitesimal. You can have a must-have feature or game, but if everything else is working against your product, it's not going to succeed.

 

Also regarding streaming being too expensive to maintain, clearly it isn't. It must be either profit making or reasonably close to doing so for a business to be centred around it.

 

Onlive was a gargantuan failure and PS Now is an experiment that has future goals in mind. It is probably not making much of a profit at all (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a money loser), but it's an investment into their long-term future, so that's why it's justifiable.

 

And this isn't a question of whether it's the bees knees now; my point has always been that it is clearly the future. A service that can be played by anyone without the need for costly additional hardware. It's just so obviously the way forward

 

If it ends up being a part of Nintendo's future, it's going to be a very distant one; probably not within the next 10 years. Predicting that far out is absurd!

 

With this new NX platform and their shared hardware architecture plan though? It is by far their best option. The alternative is to start from zero again and be crushed by the rise of mobile.

 

if Joe Bloggs, a casual gamer with no consoles, wants to relive the old days in Super Mario Bros 3 then I'm sure he'd rather not pay a £200-300 up front cost for a console. He'd probably just stick to his Wii tbh!

 

It's not going to be the only intended killer feature for those who already own previous Nintendo hardware; for them, it's just a value-add. For newcomers though? It's a way of getting them into playing Nintendo games at very low prices.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

First off, the Wii U's poor hardware sales come down to a huge number of factors; be it poor branding choices, too high a price, the rise of mobile gaming, poor choice of marketing mix; really, the number of potential factors is near infinitesimal. You can have a must-have feature or game, but if everything else is working against your product, it's not going to succeed.

 

 

 

Onlive was a gargantuan failure and PS Now is an experiment that has future goals in mind. It is probably not making much of a profit at all (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a money loser), but it's an investment into their long-term future, so that's why it's justifiable.

 

 

 

If it ends up being a part of Nintendo's future, it's going to be a very distant one; probably not within the next 10 years. Predicting that far out is absurd!

 

With this new NX platform and their shared hardware architecture plan though? It is by far their best option. The alternative is to start from zero again and be crushed by the rise of mobile.

 

And yet VC does not save the Wii U. That's the point I'm making. It's now priced reasonably, and it has a roster of great VC titles. And you know what? Hardly anyone cares. VC is not an influential factor in determining the success of a new console. And why would it be? The plan you propose is that pretty much every console from now will play all the consoles before it. So why bother buying the next console for VC?

 

Also Onlive was shit, PS Now isn't. It makes no sense to compare them as the difference is light and day. If you can make a streaming service that works and people don't have to pay for a new console to play the games, it makes sense that it will become the new method of playing past retro games. Just look at what Netflix did to DVD rentals. As soon as Netflix became viable (ie broadband speeds could hack it), the rental shops died.

 

You and I know that speeds and latency reduction continue to improve; in the same turn, so will streaming.

 

The funny thing is that streaming Virtual Console titles would take up more bandwidth than simply downloading them

Do you also know you need to pay £200-300 to buy a Nintendo console with a limited roster of new games relative to the other systems, just to play the VC games as they will be in the future? Suddenly VC games being available to everyone via streaming is potentially much more lucrative than having one system maybe hardly anyone wants as your selling front.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sheikah

[Dcubed]

And yet VC does not save the Wii U. That's the point I'm making. It's now priced reasonably, and it has a roster of great VC titles. And you know what? Hardly anyone cares. VC is not an influential factor in determining the success of a new console. And why would it be? The plan you propose is that pretty much every console from now will play all the consoles before it. So why bother buying the next console for VC?

 

The idea is that they want to lock people into their ecosystem in the same way that people are locked into iOS or Android. Once you're in, you would expect your existing purchases to carry over to any future hardware; in the same way that you expect it from your mobile. The incentive to upgrade comes from other factors though; be it new hardware features, new ways of playing games, hardware aesthetics or whatever - but people who come from mobile expect their existing stuff to just work on the new machine, so not having BC is a huge barrier for them (imagine if Apple released a new iPhone that ran none of the existing apps!)

 

Also Onlive was shit, PS Now isn't. It makes no sense to compare them as the difference is light and day. If you can make a streaming service that works and people don't have to pay for a new console to play the games, it makes sense that it will become the new method of playing games.

 

You and I know that speeds and latency reduction continue to improve; in the same turn, so will streaming.

 

Latency reduction won't happen to a point that Nintendo would be satisfied with until fibre-to-the-home becomes a standard around the 3 major territories and that's not gonna happen for a very long time...

 

... nor does it get around the problem of the enormous bandwidth and maintenance costs associated with game streaming... For a dedicated hardware maker with certain standards of latency, it's not gonna be viable for a good long while.

 

Do you also know you need to pay £200-300 to buy a Nintendo console with a limited roster of new games relative to the other systems, just to play the VC games as they will be in the future? Suddenly VC games being available to everyone via streaming is potentially much more lucrative than having one system maybe hardly anyone wants as your selling front.

 

Firstly, they're probably looking at making their next console cheaper from the outset (and certainly their next handheld). Secondly, they're not looking to get out of the dedicated hardware business so putting their games out elsewhere is not a viable option; they're trying to sustain their hardware business, not dump it!

Edited April 28, 2015 by Dcubed

[RedShell]

If you can make a streaming service that works and people don't have to pay for a new console to play the games, it makes sense that it will become the new method of playing past retro games.

Yeah, until they decide to flick the switch and then... bye bye game collection.

Streaming is a horrible innovation. Especially for retro game preservation purposes.

[Serebii]

Yeah, until they decide to flick the switch and then... bye bye game collection.

Streaming is a horrible innovation. Especially for retro game preservation purposes.

Not to mention that the latency issues will kill so many games. Until we break the laws of physics, just a tiny bit of latency would kill any Mario game.

 

Do you also know you need to pay £200-300 to buy a Nintendo console with a limited roster of new games relative to the other systems, just to play the VC games as they will be in the future? Suddenly VC games being available to everyone via streaming is potentially much more lucrative than having one system maybe hardly anyone wants as your selling front.

 

VC isn't a system selling feature. It's a bonus. They don't expect people to buy a console for Virtual Console.

 

Streaming them is a horrible idea...anyone with an ounce of sense can see this.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Serebii

[Sheikah]

The idea is that they want to lock people into their ecosystem in the same way that people are locked into iOS or Android. Once you're in, you would expect your existing purchases to carry over to any future hardware; in the same way that you expect it from your mobile.

 

But it wouldn't do that.

 

If people have a Wii with Mario Bros, Super Metroid, ALTTP, etc, all on their system....they can just fire up their Wii to replay these games. In fact, I don't doubt that's what people are already doing. Whether their games carry over or not is almost certainly going to be a rather small factor for most people. The overwhelming majority of people justify their new console purchases based on new games they want. I'm going back to the PS4 again, but just look at how it sells based on spec, upcoming games and features. It really is new content that is going to do it for Nintendo. Once your bread and butter VC titles have been around a while, they lose what little pull they ever really had to turn the tides for Nintendo.

 

Latency reduction won't happen to a point that Nintendo would be satisfied with until fibre-to-the-home becomes a standard around the 3 major territories and that's not gonna happen for a very long time...

 

From what I have heard, most people who have trialed PS Now are happy with it, and it's only going to get better. I disagree that latency is not going to get better to the point that Nintendo would be happy with it. Nintendo were previously the champions of old school gaming free of in app purchases and removed from mobile gaming. Now look at them. What I'm saying is, don't treat them like saints because they've proven to do new things that will turn a buck. I'm sure they would approve of the level of quality of the service before too long. Whether they would adopt such a strategy is another matter though.

 

... nor does it get around the problem of the enormous bandwidth and maintenance costs associated with game streaming... For a dedicated hardware maker with certain standards of latency, it's not gonna be viable for a good long while.

 

As I've said, target everyone with a smart TV or compatible device, or just Nintendo console owners (which I don't doubt will continue to be a small proportion of gamers for the forseeable future). As the tech and costs to stream becomes cheaper, and it will, this only becomes a more and more logical angle to take.

[Serebii]

Considering most ISPs, especially in America, have bandwidth caps...streaming is not an option at all.

 

It's astonishing that people can't see the massive glaring issues that exist with streaming and just spout the bull that "it's the future...honest"

[Sheikah]

Yeah, until they decide to flick the switch and then... bye bye game collection.

Streaming is a horrible innovation. Especially for retro game preservation purposes.

A streaming library can be permanently available. The same can't be said for consoles being supported indefinitely (in terms of connection to the eShop). Streaming individual titles would pay for themselves so it doesn't make too much sense for them to remove any titles or kill the service.

 

With downloaded titles, you're essentially limited to the life of the console or disk, once that console's online connectivity is dropped. That's not preservation and that's more or less the issue we're tackling here.

 

Dcubed's solution is for each console to carry over the games, which I think is less than wise since VC plays such a small factor in console success, and to centre your hardware around this goal each time seems, to me, a little mad. If all you are wanted was to fire up Mario Bros 3 every once in a while and your console died, you'd also have to spend hundreds on a new system. PS Now's way is to continuously update the service to work on new devices that people already have; a method free from a dedicated console purchase.

 

Considering most ISPs, especially in America, have bandwidth caps...streaming is not an option at all.

 

It's astonishing that people can't see the massive glaring issues that exist with streaming and just spout the bull that "it's the future...honest"

Most ISPs here don't. And even then, it obviously will change. It already has. We've gone from 56K to 150Mbit around here in the space of me growing up. You're kidding yourself if you think streaming isn't going to take off to an even greater extent in the future.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sheikah

[dazzybee]

Sheikh your point is ridiculous. Complete straw man argument. How good or valuable the VC is not disproven because the Wii U isn't doing well. The Wii u is home to loads of incredible exclusives, your argument would say no on cares about amazing console exclusives otherwise the Wii U would sell better. Preposterous arguing.

[Sheikah]

Sheikh your point is ridiculous. Complete straw man argument. How good or valuable the VC is not disproven because the Wii U isn't doing well. The Wii u is home to loads of incredible exclusives, your argument would say no on cares about amazing console exclusives otherwise the Wii U would sell better. Preposterous arguing.

 

lulz, you and saying "straw man argument". Do you even know what it means? Here a straw man argument would be propping up an easy to defeat argument myself so that I could easily topple it. Yet I have done no such thing - the comment regarding the importance of VC and the need for Nintendo to centre their future hardware ambitions around this ('for posterity') was not argued initially by me, rather it was Dcubed.

 

To topple this point, that Nintendo should focus their hardware around this goal, I only need to point out that VC is fairly unimportant to your average gamer and is unlikely to win Nintendo much support. And yeah, I'm going to bring in the failings of the Wii U. The fact the Wii U has so much other crap going on for it does not play down that VC games are not really doing anything to rescue it from this situation. You can bet your ass that if Minecraft was a Wii U exclusive with full online support that it would shift units. VC does not. Put simply, VC games have little drive in causing people to buy a console, and I even doubt they sell in significant numbers to everyone who even has the consoles, beyond that initial spike when a popular game is first available. So really, can you fault me for critcising focusing your hardware on providing something that, while nice to have, can be done in other ways that leave them free to chase other things with their system? Not just that, but Nintendo have shown with their mobile plans that they want to reach a bigger audience. Streaming to everyone versus providing to a dwindling number of people who are prepared to stump the cash to buy your home console. It's a no-brainer!

 

Lastly, regarding the allure of the Wii U's exclusives, you're damn right I'm saying they're not resonating with most gamers today like they are in your sugar spiked brain. If they were, lots more people would buy the console, especially now that it's fairly cheap. Simple!

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sheikah

[Blade]

To be fair I doubt many people know that the Wii U has a virtual console.

[Sheikah]

To be fair I doubt many people know that the Wii U has a virtual console.

 

So you think if everyone was made aware that the Wii U had a VC and you could play Mario Bros etc. then they would all rush to buy the system?

 

These are old games and I don't doubt when the Wii reached its peak that a lot of people that wanted these retro titles went and got them then. Really though, it's mostly all about the new games, or old games made shiny. That's where their main focus should be with VC as a small side project, IMO.

[dazzybee]

lulz, you and saying "straw man argument". Do you even know what it means? Here a straw man argument would be propping up an easy to defeat argument myself so that I could easily topple it. Yet I have done no such thing - the comment regarding the importance of VC and the need for Nintendo to centre their future hardware ambitions around this ('for posterity') was not argued initially by me, rather it was Dcubed.

!

 

I know exactly what it means thanks, and you remind me of it's meaning regularly. You arguing against the validity of the virtual console, saying the Wii u's lack of popularity is utterly absurd and classic straw man. No correlation whatsoever.

 

Now it doesn't mean the Virtual Console IS amazing and incredible etc But this argument is ridiculous.

 

PS But it IS amazing and incredible

[Sheikah]

I know exactly what it means thanks, and you remind me of it's meaning regularly. You arguing against the validity of the virtual console, saying the Wii u's lack of popularity is utterly absurd and classic straw man. No correlation whatsoever.

 

It's frustrating that you either haven't the time or the aptitude to actually read my argument. I'm arguing that developing your hardware and strategy around VC, something that is perhaps under-appreciated but regardless is so, is not the best of ideas. The fact Wii U VC isn't helping drive console sales is not my attempt to say VC is shit, or 'don't bother with it at all', rather a point that VC is not important enough to make such a major focus for all future hardware.

 

I've never said don't bother with VC, or that it's not worth the time developing. I'm arguing there's a better way to go about it to preserve games for posterity, through streaming to everyone (IMO), rather than locking every single future console into this path and catering to only a small subset of gamers who continue to buy Nintendo home consoles.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sheikah

[dazzybee]

It's frustrating that you either haven't the time or the aptitude to actually read my argument. I'm arguing that developing your hardware and strategy around VC, something that is perhaps under-appreciated but regardless is so, is not the best of ideas. The fact Wii U VC isn't helping drive console sales is not my attempt to say VC is shit, or 'don't bother with it at all', rather a point that VC is not important enough to make such a major focus for all future hardware.

 

I've never said don't bother with VC, or that it's not worth the time developing. I'm arguing there's a better way to go about it to preserve games for posterity, through streaming to everyone (IMO), rather than locking every single future console into this path and catering to only a small subset of gamers who continue to buy Nintendo home consoles.

 

I didn't read everything, lots of text... But you still said this "If quality of VC catalogue and the ability to play past games was so important then the Wii U would have sold a lot more than it has." This is just a weird argument. It's the same argument as saying the wii virtual console WAS important because the Wii sold as much as it did... Neither are true, they're simply not related.

 

But maybe I picked up on one small element. Your wider argument of developing a whole console around the VC is valid, but is anyone saying that? Doesn't mean we could desire and see the positive benefit of having the NX or whatever being able to play all the old games. It could be an amazing thing for the system to have and a huge selling point for some people. They may even offer different services like a pay monthly subscription to the whole service or something. Just because something fails, it doesn't mean it should be abandoned; this thinking lacks vision; often things fail, many times, and then it turns into something stunning. (speaking generally I mean, don't think the VC has failed)