Wii U General Discussion

[Serebii]

EA are so anti-Nintendo! I do not care what anyone says, something happened which changed their relationship for the worse, definitely!

 

I tend not to defend @Serebii as I think he's completely blinkered at times (no offence man), but I do feel that there is an anti-Nintendp agenda in the gaming industry. Not as dramatically as one would make out but still, more so than there should be.

Turns out an ex EA head is now CEO of n-Space, and now they say this...

 

I didnt think the anti-nintendo stance from the western industry was anything new if im being honest.

 

The Wii U being unable to sell hasnt exactly helped matters either.

If the Wii U had third party support throughout its drought, it also wouldn't be in this position

[Kav]

..If the Wii U had third party support throughout its drought, it also wouldn't be in this position

 

I can't help but think this isn't the case though. People will have bought 3rd party games on console they already owned so I don't think it would've made a difference.

 

The problem lies in Nintendo not maturing in the same way their fans have. The majority of Nintendo hardcore are gamers that gamed in the 80's/90's, no they don't live with their brothers and sisters, their friends that they gamed with now live seperate lives in different cities thanks to uni/marriage etc. Nintendo of all companies should've embraced online gaming as their fans needed it most! The oldest of the gamers. They'd have stuck around if the Xbox and the 360 didn't offer the online services they wanted Nintendo to offer!

 

This is true for many of my friends and even my brother, who has turned into an Xbox fan!

Edited August 21, 2013 by Kav
Drunk, bad spelling!

[Fierce_LiNk]

The problem lies in Nintendo not maturing in the same way their fans have. The majority of Nintendo hardcore are gamers that games in the 80's/90's, no they don't line with their brothers and sisters, their froneds that they gamed with live seperate lives in different cities thanks to uni. Nintendo of all people should've embraced online gaming as their fans needed it most! The oldest of the gamers. They'd have stuck Round if the Xbox and the 360 didn't offer the online they wanted Nintendo to!

 

That's probably the best thing you've ever typed.

 

It's completely true, too. A lot of gamers don't see it as a fad. It sticks with them for life. It's important to go after new crowds, but you should always think about your core fans who have been there from the beginning, too. In a way, it reminds me of a band who you love as a child, grow up with through your teenage years, but you can't help but notice that they change. They keep changing. The music is different to what it was at the start and you find that they don't quite sound the same to you any more. I imagine a lot of people feel this way.

 

Miiverse is great and Nintendo need to do more of that. But, they also need to get the basic stuff right, like actually adding online modes to their important titles. Not everyone can do splitscreen or invite mates around who do like videogames.

[Blade]

I have said countless times that Nintendo are just behind the times.

 

If they carry on as they are and not embrace change then I fear they will be become irrelevant. The Nintendo fanbase who are dedicated to the company is declining.

[Kav]

Wow, I'm drunk, just read that back... Hilarious!

[Fierce_LiNk]

I have said countless times that Nintendo are just behind the times.

 

If they carry on as they are and not embrace change then I fear they will be become irrelevant. The Nintendo fanbase who are dedicated to the company is declining.

 

They do need to speed up and they need to do it quickly. They should have seen the Wii U as their "restart", but it's almost a continuation of some of the problems that they've been having for years.

 

What I hate about them is that you feel you have to compromise. If a game comes to the system, you almost feel like you should be thankful that it's coming at all. Even then, it's not got all the features you'd expect in 2013. Pikmin is a fucking fantastic game. But, why no online modes? Nintendoland was genius, in my opinion. But, why wasn't Nintendoland built into every system and why wasn't that integrated with the plaza you see on the Wii U home screen? It seemed like such an obvious thing to me. You would have a theme park where you play the games (Nintendoland) but you also see what other gamers are up to and what your friends are thinking.

 

Again, why no online there? On a Sony console, we know that there will be a WipeOut at some point. We don't know if there will be a Metroid or an F Zero. I wouldn't put it past them to just HD-re-release the Prime Trilogy or upgrade GX or something.

 

Also, lead by example. It's your fucking console, Nintendo. Plough it with games and MAKE the third parties see that there are audiences there. Pointing the finger at others is wrong and gets you nowhere. We shouldn't be be speculating about EA and stuff, but merely asking the question "why?" Third parties won't cut off support for the hell of it, they'll do it for a reason.

 

I'm done! Back to Arkham City, I go.

Edit: Actually, Arkham City is a good thing that they've done and they need to do more of it. It's important to have those games there, the likes of this and Need for Speed. Do more of THAT, Nintendo.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Fierce_LiNk

[Rummy]

there's definitely an anti-Nintendo thing going on...it's the only explanation

 

DEFINITELY anti-Nintendo? The ONLY explanation?

 

I'd DEFINITELY disagree. I'd say it's as khalifah says...the publishers don't feel there's enough money in the Wii U. It's simple business.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Rummy

[Hero-of-Time]

I can't help but think this isn't the case though. People will have bought 3rd party games on console they already owned so I don't think it would've made a difference.

 

The problem lies in Nintendo not maturing in the same way their fans have. The majority of Nintendo hardcore are gamers that gamed in the 80's/90's, no they don't live with their brothers and sisters, their friends that they gamed with now live seperate lives in different cities thanks to uni/marriage etc. Nintendo of all companies should've embraced online gaming as their fans needed it most! The oldest of the gamers. They'd have stuck around if the Xbox and the 360 didn't offer the online services they wanted Nintendo to offer!

 

This is true for many of my friends and even my brother, who has turned into an Xbox fan!

 

 

:bowdown:

[Serebii]

DEFINITELY anti-Nintendo? The ONLY explanation?

 

I'd DEFINITELY disagree. I'd say it's as khalifah says...the publishers don't feel there's enough money in the Wii U. It's simple business.

Yes, but that doesn't explain them not supporting the 3DS, nor does it explain them supporting the Vita which is doing worse than the Wii U

 

I can't help but think this isn't the case though. People will have bought 3rd party games on console they already owned so I don't think it would've made a difference.

 

The problem lies in Nintendo not maturing in the same way their fans have. The majority of Nintendo hardcore are gamers that gamed in the 80's/90's, no they don't live with their brothers and sisters, their friends that they gamed with now live seperate lives in different cities thanks to uni/marriage etc. Nintendo of all companies should've embraced online gaming as their fans needed it most! The oldest of the gamers. They'd have stuck around if the Xbox and the 360 didn't offer the online services they wanted Nintendo to offer!

 

This is true for many of my friends and even my brother, who has turned into an Xbox fan!

Unfortunately, you are right. It's been seen this way since the Gamecube when Nintendo started being called "kiddy". It's a shame though as Nintendo's games are almost always the best of the best. People just struggle to see beyond the "oh it's not mature...it doesn't have guns/ridiculously in-depth story/brown" and that's quite sad.

 

They do need to speed up and they need to do it quickly. They should have seen the Wii U as their "restart", but it's almost a continuation of some of the problems that they've been having for years.

 

What I hate about them is that you feel you have to compromise. If a game comes to the system, you almost feel like you should be thankful that it's coming at all. Even then, it's not got all the features you'd expect in 2013. Pikmin is a fucking fantastic game. But, why no online modes? Nintendoland was genius, in my opinion. But, why wasn't Nintendoland built into every system and why wasn't that integrated with the plaza you see on the Wii U home screen? It seemed like such an obvious thing to me. You would have a theme park where you play the games (Nintendoland) but you also see what other gamers are up to and what your friends are thinking.

 

Again, why no online there? On a Sony console, we know that there will be a WipeOut at some point. We don't know if there will be a Metroid or an F Zero. I wouldn't put it past them to just HD-re-release the Prime Trilogy or upgrade GX or something.

 

Also, lead by example. It's your fucking console, Nintendo. Plough it with games and MAKE the third parties see that there are audiences there. Pointing the finger at others is wrong and gets you nowhere. We shouldn't be be speculating about EA and stuff, but merely asking the question "why?" Third parties won't cut off support for the hell of it, they'll do it for a reason.

 

I'm done! Back to Arkham City, I go.

Edit: Actually, Arkham City is a good thing that they've done and they need to do more of it. It's important to have those games there, the likes of this and Need for Speed. Do more of THAT, Nintendo.

Well, with Pikmin, the reason it isn't online is due to the whole way online works and the fact it'd be tracking and sending 200+ things simultaneously, and that's just in regards to the player characters, not any items, enemies etc. which just isn't particularly feasible.

 

NintendoLand just doesn't make sense online. I agree it should have been built in.

 

Nintendo also are ploughing it with games. Third parties won't see that the audience is there. Even if the Wii U was massively successful, we'd be seeing similar third party situations.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Serebii
Automerged Doublepost

[Rummy]

Yes, but that doesn't explain them not supporting the 3DS, nor does it explain them supporting the Vita which is doing worse than the Wii U

 

Wat. I'll just pop this here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_3DS_games

 

Don't worry about the Vita point, I'm gonna get to that with your own reasoning.

[Serebii]

Wat. I'll just pop this here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_3DS_games

 

Don't worry about the Vita point, I'm gonna get to that with your own reasoning.

I refer you to my previous post. Yes, some third parties do, but most do not and publishers are apparently against it

Now that's more like it.

 

I saw this article earlier, and it particularly clarifies things, and this has been exampled by Crytek before in regards to Crysis 3. Developers want to develop for the Wii U, but publishers are saying no. It's the same in regards to the 3DS despite the 3DS doing well, so there's definitely an anti-Nintendo thing going on...it's the only explanation

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-08-21-publishers-dont-want-games-for-nintendo-systems-right-now-n-space

 

They're specifying 3DS as a piece of hardware that publishers are avoiding, not just Wii U.

[Rummy]

nor does it explain them supporting the Vita which is doing worse than the Wii U

 

Comparing a worldwide trailer handheld, that has been out for two 18-22 months, for an upcoming to a home console with a lot of hype to a UK specific one for a released console that hasn't been selling all that well and that has been out days 9 months.

 

Ok.

 

I think you've already proved your own argument invalid.

[Hero-of-Time]

Nintendo also are ploughing it with games. Third parties won't see that the audience is there. Even if the Wii U was massively successful, we'd be seeing similar third party situations.

 

You can't say that with certainty. From the N64 era onwards they have always made decisions which have hampered 3rd party support. From the type of format they used ( cartridges/mini disc ), hardware/company image, to having underpowered hardware compared to the other companies.

 

Nintendo do themselves no favours when it comes to 3rd party companies. I've said it numerous times before but Nintendo were burning bridges as far back as the NES. Then there is the whole thing of making consoles to suit their own needs rather than reaching out to other developers to see what they want. There is nothing wrong with that but at the same time you can't complain that 3rd parties have issues with your hardware either.

[Serebii]

You can't say that with certainty. From the N64 era onwards they have always made decisions which have hampered 3rd party support. From the type of format they used ( cartridges/mini disc ), hardware/company image, to having underpowered hardware compared to the other companies.

 

Nintendo do themselves no favours when it comes to 3rd party companies. I've said it numerous times before but Nintendo were burning bridges as far back as the NES. Then there is the whole thing of making consoles to suit their own needs rather than reaching out to other developers to see what they want. There is nothing wrong with that but at the same time you can't complain that 3rd parties have issues with your hardware either.

Indeed, Nintendo brought it on themselves, but that further cements my point.

 

I mean come on, according to n-Space's CEO, publishers are turning down 3DS projects because the console "isn't selling enough", which is utter bull. It's a perfect example of the point I am making.

[Ashley]

But how well does the 3DS perform for other publishers? Level-5 do well out of it, Squeenix do okay and there's a handful of others that get by, but it's that age old problem of Nintendo games dominating a Nintendo console. Obviously there's little Nintendo can really do about that, but it is what it is. The console is doing fantastically, but it's doing so because of Nintendo games. It would practically be suicide to release a 3DS game in October.

 

Plus publishers may be going after the Vita because Sony is showing some sign of support and a desire to improve things? I don't think Sony expect it to ever reach 3DS levels, but they're trying to increase sales. To me, it feels like Nintendo is sitting back and letting the 3DS sell itself (which it does do).

[Rummy]

But how well does the 3DS perform for other publishers? Level-5 do well out of it, Squeenix do okay and there's a handful of others that get by, but it's that age old problem of Nintendo games dominating a Nintendo console. Obviously there's little Nintendo can really do about that, but it is what it is. The console is doing fantastically, but it's doing so because of Nintendo games. It would practically be suicide to release a 3DS game in October.

 

Plus publishers may be going after the Vita because Sony is showing some sign of support and a desire to improve things? I don't think Sony expect it to ever reach 3DS levels, but they're trying to increase sales. To me, it feels like Nintendo is sitting back and letting the 3DS sell itself (which it does do).

 

The minecraft on Vita thing - am I correct to think that Sony have paid for that? I swear I saw someone say that. There's another reason why Vita's getting supported, if it's true. I'd agree that Nintendo appear to be passive towards their hardware at the moment.

[Zechs Merquise]

Well, with Pikmin, the reason it isn't online is due to the whole way online works and the fact it'd be tracking and sending 200+ things simultaneously, and that's just in regards to the player characters, not any items, enemies etc. which just isn't particularly feasible.

 

NintendoLand just doesn't make sense online. I agree it should have been built in.

 

Nintendo also are ploughing it with games. Third parties won't see that the audience is there. Even if the Wii U was massively successful, we'd be seeing similar third party situations.

 

1) Pikmin 3 could have been online. Back in 2001/2 I was playing Command & Conquer and Red Alert online. Those game had hundreds of units and structures all doing their thing and fighting epic battles. It ran fine. Pikmin 3 has a maximum of 100 Pikmin on the field at once. If Nintendo can't get it running with three players controlling those 100 Pikmin it is pretty shameful in this day and age. I doubt Nintendo even considering an online mode.

 

2) NintendoLand does make sense online. It's a bloody multi-player game. Most people don't have four players in their home everyday who can play together, most are lucky if they have one extra player in their home. Would it have hurt NintendoLand to be online? No. Would it have meant more people played it? Yes. Would it have got more critical praise? Yes. Would I have played it more? Yes. Would anyone have not purchased it because it had an additional online mode? NO!

 

Mario Kart is better locally! 4 mates sat around the TV, a few beers, rowdy behaviour and some hectic races. But does that mean there should no online mode? Does it heck! Online in NintendoLand would only have helped sales.

 

3) You are right about third parties. Third parties have NEVER succeeded on Nintendo home consoles in the way they have on other systems. On average people buy at MOST ten games per console. For a Nintendo console the best selling games are always Nintendo games, for MS and Sony the best selling games are mainly third party games. So if you're a third party and you want to hedge your bets on where to put your title, you know it has a better chance on another system.

[Serebii]

But how well does the 3DS perform for other publishers? Level-5 do well out of it, Squeenix do okay and there's a handful of others that get by, but it's that age old problem of Nintendo games dominating a Nintendo console. Obviously there's little Nintendo can really do about that, but it is what it is. The console is doing fantastically, but it's doing so because of Nintendo games. It would practically be suicide to release a 3DS game in October.

 

Plus publishers may be going after the Vita because Sony is showing some sign of support and a desire to improve things? I don't think Sony expect it to ever reach 3DS levels, but they're trying to increase sales. To me, it feels like Nintendo is sitting back and letting the 3DS sell itself (which it does do).

If they create and publish compelling software, it will sell. Look at all the indies who are doing download titles. They're all saying that their games on 3DS are selling more than they do on iOS for Christ's sake. There is a market if you actually make decent games.

 

1) Pikmin 3 could have been online. Back in 2001/2 I was playing Command & Conquer and Red Alert online. Those game had hundreds of units and structures all doing their thing and fighting epic battles. It ran fine. Pikmin 3 has a maximum of 100 Pikmin on the field at once. If Nintendo can't get it running with three players controlling those 100 Pikmin it is pretty shameful in this day and age. I doubt Nintendo even considering an online mode.

 

2) NintendoLand does make sense online. It's a bloody multi-player game. Most people don't have four players in their home everyday who can play together, most are lucky if they have one extra player in their home. Would it have hurt NintendoLand to be online? No. Would it have meant more people played it? Yes. Would it have got more critical praise? Yes. Would I have played it more? Yes. Would anyone have not purchased it because it had an additional online mode? NO!

 

Mario Kart is better locally! 4 mates sat around the TV, a few beers, rowdy behaviour and some hectic races. But does that mean there should no online mode? Does it heck! Online in NintendoLand would only have helped sales.

 

3) You are right about third parties. Third parties have NEVER succeeded on Nintendo home consoles in the way they have on other systems. On average people buy at MOST ten games per console. For a Nintendo console the best selling games are always Nintendo games, for MS and Sony the best selling games are mainly third party games. So if you're a third party and you want to hedge your bets on where to put your title, you know it has a better chance on another system.

I'll give you Pikmin, though as a Cisco-certified network engineer, I can tell you outright that there would be serious issues to overcome if it's to be completely seamless and fluid for those with weaker connections. In games I have played with similar amount of units, they have had issues with latency.

 

NintendoLand being online just because it's multiplayer is not logical. The way that it is multiplayer does not lend itself well to the online environment. Would it be nice? Sure. Does it fit? No.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Serebii
Automerged Doublepost

[Kav]

Pikmin and Nintendoland should both have been online, it would e been easy to do, as would SM3DW. Nintendo just live in the stone-age is all.

[Serebii]

Pikmin and Nintendoland should both have been online, it would e been easy to do, as would SM3DW. Nintendo just live in the stone-age is all.

Sorry but it's not easy to do without making serious sacrifices to the gameplay for it to be seamless and perfect, which is what Nintendo strives for. Pikmin and Super Mario 3D World, while they would be nice online, would suffer from various latency issues which would cause the gameplay to be severely hindered. Nintendo would never do that.

 

I would love for those games to be online, especially the latter. However, I know that it's not overly feasible

[Happenstance]

The minecraft on Vita thing - am I correct to think that Sony have paid for that? I swear I saw someone say that. There's another reason why Vita's getting supported, if it's true. I'd agree that Nintendo appear to be passive towards their hardware at the moment.

 

I think its just an assumption on most peoples parts. Its very possible and I would think likely but as far as I know it hasnt been said.

[Rummy]

I think its just an assumption on most peoples parts. Its very possible and I would think likely but as far as I know it hasnt been said.

 

Even so, it's an approach Nintendo needs. They promised indies and yeah there's some but really not enough. They should really try and plough some money and support into little indie titles, get them on the platform and get them sold at brilliant prices.

 

Basically I think they need the Steam approach, but with more support from their own part.

[Charlie]

I'll give you Pikmin, though as a Cisco-certified network engineer, I can tell you outright that there would be serious issues to overcome if it's to be completely seamless and fluid for those with weaker connections. In games I have played with similar amount of units, they have had issues with latency.

 

I played Total Annihilation with a mod that let us have a total of 1000 independent units on a map at any one time with 4 players, 2 of them on the same (myself an my brother) 56k connection with no latency issues whatsoever.

 

Also a Cisco Certified network engineer (CCNA), you should think about retaking the exam.

 

Sorry but it's not easy to do without making serious sacrifices to the gameplay for it to be seamless and perfect, which is what Nintendo strives for. Pikmin and Super Mario 3D World, while they would be nice online, would suffer from various latency issues which would cause the gameplay to be severely hindered. Nintendo would never do that.

 

I would love for those games to be online, especially the latter. However, I know that it's not overly feasible

 

How can you possibly think that to be true? Look at what GTA V is going for (obviously we can't see how seamless and latency issues yet, but I bet it'll be fine).

 

Look at hundreds of other MMORPGs and other games that work online with absolutely no issues whatsoever. Take off your blinkers and open your eyes.

[Rummy]

I'll give you Pikmin, though as a Cisco-certified network engineer...

 

Watch out guys, we've got a badass over here.

 

I played Total Annihilation with a mod that let us have a total of 1000 independent units on a map at any one time with 4 players, 2 of them on the same (myself an my brother) 56k connection with no latency issues whatsoever.

 

No you can't have, because this isn't possible.

[Kav]

Serebii thinks its too difficult because he also lives in the stone-age. :p