Wii U General Discussion

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

I think the Basic bundle should be the one with OTT price cuts, having the premium at a top price is doing what its supposed to do... rip bros off.

[Serebii]

I think the Basic bundle should be the one with OTT price cuts, having the premium at a top price is doing what its supposed to do... rip bros off.

 

If it was doing like £100+ profit, then yes it would be a rip off.

[Cube]

RRP is £249.99. Which is not too much

 

If I hadn't seen the Wii U Wind Waker bundle for £199.99, I wouldn't own a Wii U.

[Retro_Link]

No. If they were to take a massive chunk off so everyone would be happy, then it selling would do far more damage than it not selling, especially as there are no third party royalties coming in.

So Nintendo have produced a console no one wants, at a price that isn't attractive or competitive, and at a cost they can't afford to lower?

 

... well there's a definition for royally fucked up if ever I saw one.

[Goron_3]

The thing that hurts them the most is the value vs the competition. Put simply, the Wii brand has certain negative stigma to it; it is the cheap, weak console and to see bundles around £50 less than you can get a PS4 for is crazy, especially given that it's an older console and has older tech in it.

 

The other thing to mention is that the Wii brand name is almost dead and has been for 2-3 years; it does not have the strength of the Playstation branding to get people excited. NES->SNES worked, because the NES had a great reputation when the SNES released...Nintendo dropped the Wii hard from 2010(ish) and most of the casual audience left completely.

 

@Serebii is right though; Nintendo can't drop the price of the console as it will ruin them. What they need to do is focus on how they can get existing users to give them more money, hence why we're getting quick jobs like NES Remix etc.

 

The price thing does make you wonder why they went for the high price/take a loss model. Did they anticipate the PS4 and XB1 costing $499/$599 again?

[Clownferret]

What? No. The M&L ones look great in person.

 

 

It's happening?

 

http://www.gameblog.fr/news/42526-un-pack-wii-u-avec-mario-kart-8-est-prevu

 

Out 30th May for 299EUR if it's true.

 

They should at least throw in the Wii Wheel and a t-shirt or a copy of NintendoLand. They must have a warehouse full of that game based on their original sales targets. Having said that you are getting the console for £210 which how anybody can say is expensive is beyond me. You can pick up Wii U games for pennies with a small amount of effort.

[Fierce_LiNk]

RRP is £249.99. Which is not too much

 

Zelda bundle RRP is £249.99

New Super Mario Bros/New Super Luigi U bundle RRP is £249.99

Wii Party U bundle is £249.99

Just Dance 2014 bundle is £249.99

Lego City Undercover bundle is £249.99

 

Other places have inflated prices due to demand in the marketplaces.

 

Also, the Wii U is not "on par" with the PS3/360. It's more powerful, the developers just have to tap it. Look at Mario Kart 8. Running that, with the effects, lighting etc. at a locked 60fps is not possible on those consoles. Yes, it's closer to the PS3/360 than the PS4/Xbox One, but it's disingenuous to say it's on par.

 

We're paying this price because the device is physically worth the price. Nintendo isn't a charity.

 

£249 is far too high. Normally we don't disagree on things, but I have to disagree with you on this.

 

There isn't a great deal of difference between Wii U games graphically and PS3/360. If it isn't on par, then it's very, very, very, very close to those systems, far closer to them than the current generation. Mario Kart looks gorgeous, but we also know that there's not going to be many games that will top it. The third party games aren't coming, and even the ones that are aren't going to be heavily optimised for the Wii U.

 

The price is a total rip-off for what we're getting. I just can't justify it. Clearly their strategy isn't working as the consoles aren't being picked up. From the public/average person on the street's view:

 

1. They don't know the consoles exists.

2. If they do know it exists, they think it's the Wii or some sort of new version of it (DSlite to DS)

3. If they do know what it is, they're priced out.

 

Somewhere at £170 with Nintendoland, Mario Kart, 32GB model. That's it. Possibly push it to 180, but anything beyond that isn't a good deal. Certainly not 240 territory.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Fierce_LiNk

[Clownferret]

: The price thing does make you wonder why they went for the high price/take a loss model. Did they anticipate the PS4 and XB1 costing $499/$599 again?

 

As opposed to what? Selling at a lower price and making an even bigger loss?

[Serebii]

£249 is far too high. Normally we don't disagree on things, but I have to disagree with you on this.

 

There isn't a great deal of difference between Wii U games graphically and PS3/360. If it isn't on par, then it's very, very, very, very close to those systems, far closer to them than the current generation. Mario Kart looks gorgeous, but we also know that there's not going to be many games that will top it. The third party games aren't coming, and even the ones that are aren't going to be heavily optimised for the Wii U.

 

The price is a total rip-off for what we're getting. I just can't justify it. Clearly their strategy isn't working as the consoles aren't being picked up. From the public/average person on the street's view:

 

1. They don't know the consoles exists.

2. If they do know it exists, they think it's the Wii or some sort of new version of it (DSlite to DS)

3. If they do know what it is, they're priced out.

 

Somewhere at £170 with Nintendoland, Mario Kart, 32GB model. That's it. Possibly push it to 180, but anything beyond that isn't a good deal. Certainly not 240 territory.

I've been watching Nintendo's E3 conferences of late (2002-2007 so far) and there is a running theme...risk and disruption. It's what Nintendo has been doing with their hardware since 2004 and the Wii U is just like that. However, unlike the DS, Wii and eventually 3DS, the risk just didn't pay off. They can't take risks and succeed every time. That's not how the world works.

 

The GamePad in concept could be a complete gamechanger (I argue, and have countless times, that it is already). As such, they went to disrupt the industry again rather than just go the "More Power" route of the other formats. As such, the GamePad adds to the cost. You cannot just compare it to other console prices because you're completely ignoring the other tech costs within the overall package. It's not just about graphics.

[Kav]

You're on the right track, but I still think that's far too high. Think of what you're paying for. You're paying for a machine that is on par with the last generation of consoles (PS3/360) with a controller that isn't getting used by anyone...not even Nintendo. Why should we be paying ANYTHING close to the prices for this generation's system?

 

A PS3 with 500GB (500fuckinggigabytes...That's more than 10 times the hard drive size of the Wii U Premium) will cost you around £180-190 on Amazon. Plus, that's your blu-ray player, too. It doesn't make sense for the Wii U to be around 50 quid more expensive, no sense at all.

 

You make a very, very good point there actually. As much as I love the Gamepad, the only use it gets out of me is Off-TV Play.

 

The fact Nintendo aren't showing us why we should have two screens solidifies your point even further!

[Wii]

buzz.....buzz.....buzz O.K. Who rattled the hornets nest this time?

[Goron_3]

As opposed to what? Selling at a lower price and making an even bigger loss?

 

As opposed to doing what they normally do; low cost+make a profit (Wii, DS, SNES) or low cost+make a small loss (N64+GC). The 3DS and Wii U are the first time they've gone for the high price+Make a loss combo which is bizarre. I'd love to know their thought process for the Wii U.

[dazzybee]

But Nintendo have specifically said at e3 they will show software that really uses the two screens. Criticise them after e4 if it's limp, but it's unfair now!

 

As for price... I think £250 with mario kart is okay (they really should've thrown in Nintendoland). It'll sell okay. Then knock it down to £199.99 for Christmas. Still think they should just hold the bundle until then as well though.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

249.99 sounds just about right tbf. 170? Your talking Gamecube power level. Wii U tech has much more potential and can be still pretty impressive.

[Kav]

But Nintendo have specifically said at e3 they will show software that really uses the two screens. Criticise them after e4 if it's limp, but it's unfair now!

 

As for price... I think £250 with mario kart is okay (they really should've thrown in Nintendoland). It'll sell okay. Then knock it down to £199.99 for Christmas. Still think they should just hold the bundle until then as well though.

 

I don't think it is unfair at all, they've released the sodding thing, they should have been releasing things that show why they've gone with a second screen.

 

It's like you get a car but you can't drive it for two years... it's bollocks!

[Goron_3]

But Nintendo have specifically said at e3 they will show software that really uses the two screens. Criticise them after e4 if it's limp, but it's unfair now!

 

As for price... I think £250 with mario kart is okay (they really should've thrown in Nintendoland). It'll sell okay. Then knock it down to £199.99 for Christmas. Still think they should just hold the bundle until then as well though.

 

Yeah I think £199 is the right price.

 

As for the two screen stuff, they should have shown that at E3 2011 and 2012. I can't believe we are ONLY about to start seeing software which uses the Gamepad properly. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool controller but it's not suitable for gaming in the house for me as the battery life is too short and well, I have a 3DS for handheld gaming.

 

As for its use in games that I own, I think I had to use the screen in SM3DW at one point? I think you had to poke the screen to make some walls pop out or something. I mean, really? That's the reason the console is so expensive?

[Cube]

249.99 sounds just about right tbf. 170? Your talking Gamecube power level.

 

The Wii was £180 eight years ago. With a game.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I've been watching Nintendo's E3 conferences of late (2002-2007 so far) and there is a running theme...risk and disruption. It's what Nintendo has been doing with their hardware since 2004 and the Wii U is just like that. However, unlike the DS, Wii and eventually 3DS, the risk just didn't pay off. They can't take risks and succeed every time. That's not how the world works.

 

The GamePad in concept could be a complete gamechanger (I argue, and have countless times, that it is already). As such, they went to disrupt the industry again rather than just go the "More Power" route of the other formats. As such, the GamePad adds to the cost. You cannot just compare it to other console prices because you're completely ignoring the other tech costs within the overall package. It's not just about graphics.

 

I'll give you credit where it's due; you argue your points valiantly and your strong in your beliefs. But, I disagree with almost everything you said that second paragraph.

 

Sure, Nintendo take risks. But, there's a fine line between "risk" and "gimmick". They pushed that to the absolute limit with the Wii and they got away with it for the most part. It was something new, different, exciting. The GamePad is most definitely not a game changer. I still maintain the one of the only titles that truly used it innovatively was a third party launch title, ZombiU. There haven't been enough inventive uses for it.

 

Furthermore, it's limited. You can't pick up the GamePad and go into the bedroom or the other side of the house and keep gaming. You are limited to using it in the same room. There may be exceptions where people have unusually thin walls where it might work in the next room, but on the whole it's limited.

 

I'm up to about World 4/5 in Super Mario 3D World. This is what is meant to be Nintendo's flagship title for the Wii U. So far, I have encountered two uses where I've had to use the GamePad:

 

1. Blowing on the mic to move the platform.

 

2. Using the touchscreen to pull a block which you can then jump on.

 

 

They're decent uses of the technology, but the game isn't built around it. It's not a game changer. It's useful, but it's not a changer.

 

In addition to all of this, how many gamers actually wanted or needed this in the first place? Developers aren't using it, so ultimately it's a waste. Why didn't Nintendo ask around first and get a feel for this from developers beforehand? Why weren't there umpteen exclusives in the pipeline for the first year (the most important year of the system's life) of the Wii U?

 

 

You make a very, very good point there actually. As much as I love the Gamepad, the only use it gets out of me is Off-TV Play.

 

The fact Nintendo aren't showing us why we should have two screens solidifies your point even further!

 

Nintendo aren't showing us because they're spent. They don't have any useful ideas. They must have had a very romantic view of how it would all go. Remember the E3 unveiling of NintendoLand? They must have been exciting rapturous applauses and critical acclaim. What they got was an audience who didn't care. They probably expected it to fly off the shelves and for the GamePad to sell the system, or the system to sell itself. Riding off the success of the original Wii.

 

I'm so dubious with Nintendo and peripherals. How many interesting uses have we got out of the balance board? WiiMotionPlus? GamePad?

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

The Wii was £180 eight years ago. With a game.

 

Sorry can't decipher if you're pro a 180 Wii U price point..?

[Cube]

Sorry can't decipher if you're pro a 180 Wii U price point..?

 

I think £199.99 with a game is the perfect price (as that's the price point that convinced me to buy one).

[Fierce_LiNk]

249.99 sounds just about right tbf. 170? Your talking Gamecube power level. Wii U tech has much more potential and can be still pretty impressive.

 

Would you go out tomorrow and get a Wii U at that price?

Would the first mother you plucked off the street pay that much for a Wii U and Mario Kart for her kid?

Would teenagers go for it at that price?

Would you get students in 2014 going for this?

 

Who is this system aimed at? Do Nintendo even know? I certainly wouldn't even look at it at 249. No sane parent would and teenagers/students have moved onto the Playstation/Xbox/potentially PC combo and aren't looking back.

 

If you were 12 when the GameCube came out, that would make you 24 now. Most people my age (if they are into gaming) wouldn't snap at a Wii U with this price.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

I think £199.99 with a game is the perfect price (as that's the price point that convinced me to buy one).

 

I think you would have still eventually got one for 49.99 more. In either case, the 8gb model can be minus 200... If you only got a Wii U for WW, then you would have probably got the 8gb too.

 

(I love how the forum just goes all Royal Rumble with these subjects )

[Fierce_LiNk]

I think £199.99 with a game is the perfect price (as that's the price point that convinced me to buy one).

 

A Wii U, MarioKart, NintendoLand at 199 isn't too bad a deal. I'd be more inclined going for that than the 249 nonsense.

[dazzybee]

I don't think it is unfair at all, they've released the sodding thing, they should have been releasing things that show why they've gone with a second screen.

 

It's like you get a car but you can't drive it for two years... it's bollocks!

 

It's not like there's been nothing. Off TV play in itself is a brilliant thing and justifies to me, and there have been some great examples of it - Nintendoland, sonic racing, batman, zombi u, miiverse art, rayman/mario, cod etc. Yeah they should have done more, but they've promised it's coming.

[Serebii]

I'll give you credit where it's due; you argue your points valiantly and your strong in your beliefs. But, I disagree with almost everything you said that second paragraph.

 

Sure, Nintendo take risks. But, there's a fine line between "risk" and "gimmick". They pushed that to the absolute limit with the Wii and they got away with it for the most part. It was something new, different, exciting. The GamePad is most definitely not a game changer. I still maintain the one of the only titles that truly used it innovatively was a third party launch title, ZombiU. There haven't been enough inventive uses for it.

 

Furthermore, it's limited. You can't pick up the GamePad and go into the bedroom or the other side of the house and keep gaming. You are limited to using it in the same room. There may be exceptions where people have unusually thin walls where it might work in the next room, but on the whole it's limited.

 

I'm up to about World 4/5 in Super Mario 3D World. This is what is meant to be Nintendo's flagship title for the Wii U. So far, I have encountered two uses where I've had to use the GamePad:

 

1. Blowing on the mic to move the platform.

 

2. Using the touchscreen to pull a block which you can then jump on.

 

 

They're decent uses of the technology, but the game isn't built around it. It's not a game changer. It's useful, but it's not a changer.

 

In addition to all of this, how many gamers actually wanted or needed this in the first place? Developers aren't using it, so ultimately it's a waste. Why didn't Nintendo ask around first and get a feel for this from developers beforehand? Why weren't there umpteen exclusives in the pipeline for the first year (the most important year of the system's life) of the Wii U?

 

It is a gamechanger in my view because it streamlines the process considerably. In its most mundane use, having a map and inventory, it has completely changed and streamlined how I play games. Yes, in other games in the past you could load up a menu and check these things, but being able to change/check on the fly is just amazing.

 

Why must every use be a massive grandiose demonstration of it? NintendoLand showed it well, as did ZombiU, and Game & Wario, and The Wonderful 101, but it doesn't have to be a massive use.

 

It's not limited. My house has brick walls, not thin, and I can play the Wii U at any part of my house. But it all depends on the structure of your house, I guess. Sure, they could boost the antenna, but more distance means more lag.

 

As for 3D World, the instances you listed are the mandatory ones, sure. However, you can use it at all times, to extract coins from flowers, to find hidden blocks, to activate switches, to hinder enemies.

 

Again, why must a game be built around a massively creative use of the controller? I again argue that the best uses are the subtle ones. It was the same with the Wii. Ones which were full motion, waggle etc. weren't good, but ones like Metroid Prime, Super Mario Galaxy etc. got it right.

 

Also, Nintendo did take it to third party developers and they did react positively, but unfortunately their publishers care about power so few projects were greenlit. There are reports and interviews around the net of developers being excited about the GamePad, but then having pause because of the specs (and Nintendo rushing it and so the dev kit situation wasn't as it could have been).

 

 

 

Nintendo aren't showing us because they're spent. They don't have any useful ideas. They must have had a very romantic view of how it would all go. Remember the E3 unveiling of NintendoLand? They must have been exciting rapturous applauses and critical acclaim. What they got was an audience who didn't care. They probably expected it to fly off the shelves and for the GamePad to sell the system, or the system to sell itself. Riding off the success of the original Wii.

 

I'm so dubious with Nintendo and peripherals. How many interesting uses have we got out of the balance board? WiiMotionPlus? GamePad?

 

No, they're showing us at E3. They have "useful" ideas.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Serebii