Wii U General Discussion

[dazzybee]

I wrote this about how inept Nintendos attempts at online have been, specifically on the wii u. It really is painful. I don't know what breaks my heart more these days - supporting spurs, or supporting nintendo!

[Rummy]

Ugh.

Ok attempt to explain again

 

New Game.. arbitrary number - 100 man hours of work.

 

adding online will take 1 man hour of work.

 

Most likely this online would simply be added on to the 100, to make 101 man hours. great.

Now though, as a business, Nintendo have to be convinced that the 1 man hour of added effort will lead to increased sales, that exceed the cost of that 1 man hour. And really, with most Nintendo games, it's not the case, people buy the games regardless and then moan that feature x is missing. So they have little incentive to include those features.

 

I'm not saying this is an excuse, nor that I agree with it, but it is a possible reason. And perhaps low Wii U sales will push them to add more wanted features?

 

Also from a creative point of view they may not find online all that exciting or intriguing.

 

But I guess no one is really interested in why Nintendo's online offering is lacklustre, they just ask it as a rhetorical question, right?

 

Just so you're aware, your point and explanation was not inadequate - I completely understood it.

 

My point is I don't believe the justification is warranted. 101 man hours vs 100 - 105 sales vs 100. Quids in.

 

100 sales is still sales. 101 is still sales(break even). 102 is still sales. Nintendo aren't convinced, you say? How do they know if they don't try hard enough? Is it really the case that with 'most games' that 'people buy them regardless'? How do you measure all the people who didn't buy it? What if that 101 hours vs 100 turned 100 sales into 200?

 

I AM interested in why Nintendo's online offering is lacklustre when others' offerings seem to be so much less so. You can tell me, and this is perspective, that the games still sell without it - yes, but I feel they could sell MORE with it, to such a level it would exceed cost and bring in more profit.

 

Why all this? Because there are games Nintendo has made that *I* have not bought simply because they did not offer the online features I feel they should in the current age, and there are for amusing comparison games on other systems that I *have* bought sheerly for their online multiplayer functionality - I've also gotten much more playtime out of these than my offline games.

 

This complicates when it comes the price paid etc - but for one I wouldn't have bought Nintendoland for any more than £15 if even that, and I only have it as it came with my console. That I bought 6 months after launch. I bought Halo 4 at full price a day after launch because I realised someone I knew had bought it too. I was going to wait much longer for it - but my friend had it. That sale itself sold another. 100 people online all with a friend who wants to play online too equals 200, 400, 800, 1600...(yes again simplified, but I hope you see my point).

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

I thought I would just bring this over from the Watchdogs topic, after a member stated there were 20 Wii U games that surpasses the entire offering of the PS360 generation...

 

IMO...

 

Nintendoland - A demo, with low single player playability (an issue that could have been solved with online play - didn't satisfy)

 

Zombi U - Felt very buggy, unpolished and crude - to add Im not a fan of First Person games.

 

Super Mario U - Absolutely boring, not worth the price.

 

Rayman Legends - I played the demo, and it also seemed a bore. Not a fan of the main character, and I think at that point after owning SMU, didn't need a platformer.

 

Donkey Kong Country - Love the detail and audio, sadly was never a fan of DK and actually would have welcomed it more if it wasn' a platformer (and perhaps a 3D game?)

 

Pikmin 3 - Short and sweet, but expected more since Pikmin 2 (I am a major fan), and no online was simply crippling. I would have been playing this till this date if it was an online RTS.

 

Wonderful 101 - Didn't appeal to me, semi-button mashing.

 

Lego City Stories - Wasn't a fan of the lego series so I didn't buy this - regardless of being open-world, I need to like the characters/setting. I think the snob in me doesn't want to play a 'kiddie' lego game.

 

Need for Speed - Wont give this a chance, just too many in the series, and too many of the same shite.

 

Deus Ex (great wii u exclusive functionality) - Was curious, and this would be something I would be most likely to pick up at present but FP games aren't my thing.

 

COD Ghosts (good gamepad functionality) - No FPS for me pls.

 

Sonic Racing Trans(formed)ported (5 player local play with gamepad) - Loved it! Mrs loved it too, probably has the most hours spent playing.

 

Mario 3D World - It was good... But it didn't have that 64, Sunshine or Galaxy appeal... After a while, felt 'meh'.

 

Batman Arkham City (fantastic gamepad use) - Great game, a bit button-mashy, but good quality and presentation.

 

Monster Hunter 3 - Ugh, disliked.

 

Zelda - While its nice to see on the shelves, I dont really have the energy to play this again. This wasn't the Zelda that needed the remake IMO and I won't be paying the prices I see at the mo to play it, especially with its visuals-only upgrade and a few minor others.

 

So only really about 5-6 games for me... 20 games, that surpass the PS360 experience I can never vouch for.

 

You could say Im picky, but Im a simple man really. Pro online, pro scale and pro variety. Im against FPS and at the moment, platformers.

 

But on the story of Watchdogs - I guess I was gullible to look forward to this on Wii U, I agree with fierce Link - its a pisstake and shouldn't be accepted - Nintendo should have solved the issue 10 years ago when we were getting this treatment with the Gamecube.

 

Is there something wrong with my opinion/selection?

Edited March 14, 2014 by King_V

[dazzybee]

I'll reply later as it's AT LAST a discussion But Nintendoland a DEMO?! Bloody extensive demo!

[Ashley]

In my opinion, Rayman Legends is a much better experience than the Mario games. If you're going to go for one platformer, make it that.

 

Although I did prefer it on the PS3 than the Wii U...

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Although I did prefer it on the PS3 than the Wii U...

 

Is there a major difference between the two?

[Ashley]

In terms of content, no, but from what I played of the Wii U version you had to switch to the little helper dude (forget his name), whereas in the PS3 version you controlled him using a button. Thus, in the Wii U version you were basically switching between the two, whereas the PS3 version you had to control both. Felt like more of a challenge. I think I posted comparison videos in the Rayman Legends thread at some point.

 

Edit. Here: http://n-europe.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1616727#post1616727

 

Can't recall if it was different in multiplayer on Wii U though.

[Goron_3]

Rayman is DEFINITELY the best platformer I've played on Wii U so far. Incredible level design and presentation

[Serebii]

I personally found Rayman Legends to be good, but not the best. Its level design was a bit bland and unimaginative, in my view. NSMBU and DKC trounce it in that department.

 

The rhythm levels, though. <3

[Ashley]

This level man:

 

 

Such a fun challenge. Bloody crazy, but fun at the same time. Just managed to stay on the right side of the fun-challenging/difficult-for-the-sake-of-it line.

 

There was also some other level which was a vertical climb (essentially) but required such precise button-pressing that it took us ages to do. Man...I want to play it again now!

[Sheikah]

I personally found Rayman Legends to be good, but not the best. Its level design was a bit bland and unimaginative, in my view. NSMBU and DKC trounce it in that department.

 

Please, pass the crack.

 

 

[Serebii]

Be fair, you both linked to the rhythm levels, which I highly praise. However, there's like 6 of them, each with a remix. That's a small part of the game. The overall package isn't that awesome.

[Sheikah]

The rest of the game has much better level design than NSMB too. With the 2D Mario games it feels like they're just reusing level themes, designs and segments from the series. Desert, snow, poison, battleship, ghost house. Fuck that shit. It's poor show.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Hmmm, then might just pick up Rayman after work.

 

I think with regards to Nintendo`s productivity, if we were bound to get sub-par third party support, and sparse first party games, then at the very least online play should have been developed to a degree where its inclusion is a no-brainer for multiplayers or online-friendly type games.

 

Im sure I would still be playing Nintendoland and Pikmin 3 happily if it was included.

 

Perhaps Nintendo can redeem themselves with Nintendoland 2 online (+ Pokemon level)?

Edited March 14, 2014 by King_V

[Ashley]

Be fair, you both linked to the rhythm levels, which I highly praise. However, there's like 6 of them, each with a remix. That's a small part of the game. The overall package isn't that awesome.

 

I wasn't trying to make a point to you, I was just waxing nostalgic.

 

I did mention another non-rhythm level, I just can't recall the name

[Pestneb]

My point is I don't believe the justification is warranted. 101 man hours vs 100 - 105 sales vs 100. Quids in.

100 sales is still sales. 101 is still sales(break even). 102 is still sales. Nintendo aren't convinced, you say? How do they know if they don't try hard enough? Is it really the case that with 'most games' that 'people buy them regardless'? How do you measure all the people who didn't buy it? What if that 101 hours vs 100 turned 100 sales into 200?

 

Agreed, there is no way of knowing. They may have made the right choice though.

you suggest the added 1 hour could in effect on it's own be responsible for 100 sales, vs 1 sale yield for the other 100 hours. What if the reality was the other way around though?

Nintendo have a finite amount of hours, determined by staffing levels. Yes it can be increased, but it will always be a finite amount of hours.

If they are sure of a 100 sale = 1 hour, then it makes more sense to finish a game early and put the now available extra hours into a new game that is likely to yield 100 sales per hour, rather than sink that hour into online play...

 

sure they don't know how online would pan out. they only have their own experience to rely on, for GC the optional online adapter flopped (only supported by 1/2 games right?). So Nintendo gamers don't want online.

Never the less they did incorporate online into the Wii.... but they shifted from the "core gamer" group so they don't really have a lot of experience to draw on. They do appear to be a generation behind, really it does make sense if they have spent all that R&D looking into how to improve that interface, to catch up...

 

 

I AM interested in why Nintendo's online offering is lacklustre when others' offerings seem to be so much less so. You can tell me, and this is perspective, that the games still sell without it - yes, but I feel they could sell MORE with it, to such a level it would exceed cost and bring in more profit.

 

Why all this? Because there are games Nintendo has made that *I* have not bought simply because they did not offer the online features I feel they should in the current age, and there are for amusing comparison games on other systems that I *have* bought sheerly for their online multiplayer functionality - I've also gotten much more playtime out of these than my offline games.

 

This complicates when it comes the price paid etc - but for one I wouldn't have bought Nintendoland for any more than £15 if even that, and I only have it as it came with my console. That I bought 6 months after launch. I bought Halo 4 at full price a day after launch because I realised someone I knew had bought it too. I was going to wait much longer for it - but my friend had it. That sale itself sold another. 100 people online all with a friend who wants to play online too equals 200, 400, 800, 1600...(yes again simplified, but I hope you see my point).

 

Games like Halo work online because AI sucks..Nintendoland would stand to benefit less, because it is less reliant on intelligent AI.

 

I do see your point though, if compelling online experiences were made available. I mean, the game pad has the camera attached, and microphone. Straight away, opportunities. The thing I love most about multiplayer is seeing reactions, and that possibility remains. Still inferior (for me) to local multiplayer, but about as good as it can get this gen.

 

Anyway. Yeah, it's a shame, hopefully Nintendo will sort it. I think they realise now that they have to!

[Josh64]

I wasn't a huge fan of Rayman at the time (and was slightly burned considering I bought it for £40 and it was £20 a week later but... considering how Origins went it's my own stupid fault :P)

 

I thought it was okay but felt very much the same as Origins, I loved the music levels though and hope one day they make an entire rhythm game out of Rayman. That said, whilst I wasn't blown away by it, it was still MILES better than Mario Bros U and Luigi U - Those two titles are some of the laziest damn things I've ever seen Nintendo produce. The music and graphics in Rayman Legends alone shit all over NSMBU whilst the gameplay, to me, whilst slightly better, wasn't miles ahead.

 

Donkey Kong on the other hand, now that's a dream.

 

Whilst on the subject though, all four of those games would have been even better online. And sure, you can bang on about latency issues, but I really don't think that's a problem when you all have a decent connection. I had a 3 player online match on Brawl yesterday with some friends, lag free, with Skype and it was a blast - and that's the WII online, along with smash bros where the online mode seemed to have been slapped together in a matter of weeks.

 

Which proves another point - It really does add value to the title. Six years later and I'm still having fun on Brawl, but as soon as the online is off, I really won't have much reason to play it as my local friends don't like the series!

[Sheikah]

@Pestneb I don't see how you can argue they might be making the right choice. They are clearly making the wrong choice. Their fans want it, the industry wants it - and they don't deliver. Whether it costs them more money or not to ramp up their online presence is irrelevant. It is a basic and highly demanded feature - without it, they are sending a clear message that they are not adapting to the present.

[Daft]

Rayman Legends is a ridiculous wonderful game. Definitely in my top three games of last year along with The Last of Us and Tearaway.

[Cube]

Tearaway is the complete opposite of bland and unimaginative.

[Pestneb]

@Pestneb I don't see how you can argue they might be making the right choice.

Perhaps I wasn't clear then? I will try and help you see

 

End of the day, as a business Nintendo want every yen they spend to bring back as many more yen as possible.

 

If making offline games, every 1 yen makes 2 yen.

adding online functionality to the same game costs 1 yen, makes 1.1 yen.

 

Nintendo have 10 yen to invest into either:

an offline game - they will make 20 yen.

OR

making an offline game online. they make 11 yen.

 

As a business, it's not a tricky choice. Nintendo games sell largely due to the franchise - that is why we see so much Mario.

 

They are clearly making the wrong choice. Their fans want it, the industry wants it - and they don't deliver.

I assume that is all one argument. That their choice is wrong based on what their fans and industry want?

 

How about this for a scenario. Tesco's suppliers want Tesco to double the buying price (Tesco pay £2 for £1 worth of produce) and the consumers want them to half the selling price (Tesco sell goods worth £1 for £0.50).

Would Tesco be wrong to disappoint their suppliers and consumers?

 

Please see the point I'm making here - just because something would be beneficial to their industry partners and consumers, doesn't immediately make it a good/sensible choice for a company to make.

 

Whether it costs them more money or not to ramp up their online presence is irrelevant.

It is a basic and highly demanded feature - without it, they are sending a clear message that they are not adapting to the present.

 

If it costs them money they won't get back, then yes it is relevant. Most gamers who care about online are already engaged with the competitions products.

It's possible that a retrospective response, even if the resulting service is slightly superior to microsoft/sony's offerings would be less effective (in terms of reaping a financial profit) simply because the crowd to be lured in have already made their bed so to speak.

 

Having said that, their losses were due to a one off R&D project, who knows, perhaps the fruits will sate your appetite for online?

[Sheikah]

Perhaps I wasn't clear then? I will try and help you see

 

End of the day, as a business Nintendo want every yen they spend to bring back as many more yen as possible.

 

If making offline games, every 1 yen makes 2 yen.

adding online functionality to the same game costs 1 yen, makes 1.1 yen.

 

Nintendo have 10 yen to invest into either:

an offline game - they will make 20 yen.

OR

making an offline game online. they make 11 yen.

 

As a business, it's not a tricky choice. Nintendo games sell largely due to the franchise - that is why we see so much Mario.

 

 

I assume that is all one argument. That their choice is wrong based on what their fans and industry want?

 

How about this for a scenario. Tesco's suppliers want Tesco to double the buying price (Tesco pay £2 for £1 worth of produce) and the consumers want them to half the selling price (Tesco sell goods worth £1 for £0.50).

Would Tesco be wrong to disappoint their suppliers and consumers?

 

Please see the point I'm making here - just because something would be beneficial to their industry partners and consumers, doesn't immediately make it a good/sensible choice for a company to make.

 

 

 

If it costs them money they won't get back, then yes it is relevant. Most gamers who care about online are already engaged with the competitions products.

It's possible that a retrospective response, even if the resulting service is slightly superior to microsoft/sony's offerings would be less effective (in terms of reaping a financial profit) simply because the crowd to be lured in have already made their bed so to speak.

 

Having said that, their losses were due to a one off R&D project, who knows, perhaps the fruits will sate your appetite for online?

 

This has nothing to do with the potential short term gains or losses from focusing far greater on online features in their games/console. It's their image. This is about making their games and therefore their console relevant to the modern gamer. At the moment it's a farce.

 

PS4 gamers are up over X1 gamers (compared to the edge 360 had over PS3 last gen), showing that people will switch their console of choice. In fact, all you need is something amazing like Monster Hunter or Phantasy Star Online and you can have your own micro population of fans.

[dazzybee]

How anyone can prefer the ps3 version over the wii u version is insane. The gamepad stuff was excellent!! It's what added a layer of freshness to it!

 

Rayman is better than U for me (just) but not lose to Mario 3D world!! It is amazing though!

[Sheikah]

I prefer the Vita version because I can touch the main screen while still looking at it. :p

[Pestneb]

This has nothing to do with the potential short term gains or losses from focusing far greater on online features in their games/console. It's their image. This is about making their games and therefore their console relevant to the modern gamer. At the moment it's a farce.

 

PS4 gamers are up over X1 gamers (compared to the edge 360 had over PS3 last gen), showing that people will switch their console of choice. In fact, all you need is something amazing like Monster Hunter or Phantasy Star Online and you can have your own micro population of fans.

 

Surely their image is all about long term gains or losses. After all, they aren't an insecure kid looking for approval from their peers.

And on that point, yes, I think they have made a poor judgement regarding online. But it is just what I think, who knows, they may have actually made the right choice.

 

The PS4/X1 stat you showed could be promising, or it could simply be that PS3 owners are upgrading at a faster rate. I agree, exclusives are what is needed to pull new gamers in, and I would say, on that note, that 3rd party support is a more pressing issue at this moment