liger05 Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 Also, some people have mentoned the Gamecube...The Gamecube did NOT fail because it was powerful, it failed in spite of it. Launching late, terrible branding, giving the FPS market to Microsoft....Many reasons why it sold poorly. It's annoying that the Gamecube is used as an example of why Nintendo shouldnt produce a console which is comparable to the competition when the reasons for its failure were nothing to do with how powerful it was.
Serebii Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 You do realise the greatest flaw with that, right? Which was always known to be with an attach rate of 1 at launch - it's hardly rocket science(as I've mentioned weeks ago in context with your wild mis-estimations) that they will be either turning profit or minimal loss now, given cost of production should go down with time. This is the sort of stuff I find interesting - when it comes to gaming and similar that they DO talk about - what tends to dominate the subject matter? Is it smartphones etc, XBone, PS4, social media, something else altogther? I'm pretty sure it would have been at a profit earlier, if not for the price cut.
Blade Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 Well, for one, I don't recall any other Nintendo console getting an Assassins Creed, let alone two. It started off pretty well. And to be frank, I would rather the Wii U gets zero third party support as opposed to half-baked attempts such as: Final Fantasy Chrystal Chronicles, ports with less-than features, and remakes where other consoles get new games. Just give me my Zelda, Smash, Pokemon etc and I'll be fine. Im a grown ass man with full days - Im not after every game when I don't even have the time for them. Me neither. You missed my point. I buy Nintendo consoles for the Nintendo games and I too have a job and an outside life which results in less time spent on gaming than in previous years. For me personally I don't really mind that 3rd parties do not release much as it is unlikely that I would have the opportunity to play them anyway. But I think saying that relations are better when there is hardly anything currently being released for the console is difficult to argue. You raise the point that Assassins Creed has been released. That's fair enough. However in my opinion relations with third parties have worsened since the release of the Wii U.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 Alternate question: you feel they shouldn't? Why? Well, one reason: I will never buy a console for over 300 pounds. I also feel that in todays world, I don't see that big a leap in terms of specs and so I feel its unnecessary. Particularly with regards to the bolded, the lack of 3rd party has explicitly been stated by many developers due to a lack of power under the hood and not being able to run the engines being used by many of the studies. Yes, the likes of Unreal Engine 4 are scalable but when you're base game now virtually the same across the PC, PS4, and Xbone why bother making a second version that takes up additional resources and capital when devs are already being stretched due to a tough market at the moment. If Nintendo had approached 3rd parties and asked them what they want from the console, such as what Sony did with the PS4, and produced something that fitted with the progression of the industry and the titles that 3rd parties are wanting to make, rather than focusing on what they themselves are hoping to put out, then yes there would be more support. A lack of sales is a reason for some to stay away but Nintendo's insular nature about hardware specs and trying to 'revolutionise' gaming with the gamepad turned a lot of devs away straight off the bat regardless of who turned up in their sizzle reel of developers talking about the possibilities of the gamepad. Yes, it's a well trodden argument that I've laboured many times before but simply showing the likes of Ken Levine and what not, who have been making some of the more interesting 3rd party titles in recent years, the gamepad rather than asking what their developers would like from the hardware is what has cost them dearly. It's the same reason why indies are shying away from the Microsoft currently to an extent because they aren't being as open to them as Sony and, to give them some dues, Nintendo. 3rd party support would come if Nintendo were more open with 3rd parties with the hardware; hardware that reflected the progression of the industry (even if you don't think more power is what's needed it's certainly where better game ideas, AI and what not are coming from) without forcing a certain control scheme that isn't desired by the majority of consumers, even if there are multiple control options (which again is more resources and capital needing to be used by devs unnecessarily). Conformity may not be what some want from Nintendo's hardware but in focusing on hardware that is GPU reliant (not as drastic as say the PS3's Cell chip but still clearly causing issues for optimisation) with a small amount of RAM and that gamepad, they have more or less produced a 1st party machine that isn't future proof. Fair point. But hey, Nintendo has always been Nintendo, and if they want to; I see no problem developing hardware to primarily meet the needs of their software. Part of the answer is to make better 1st party games - be online-friendly, have multiple genres and be less formulaic. The Gamepad was perhaps unnecessary and did drive prices up, but a gamepad-less Wii U Model, with a semi rebranding ala the 2DS, will be very attractive to the people on the fence and impulse buyers - given a massive price reduction. And we all knew the marketing was skewed before its release, and as we know many people still don't know what exactly the Wii U is... I don't believe a lack of third party support is the chief reason behind slumped sales. And I don't see how an even more expensive Nintendo system, albeit as powerful as the PS4 and X1 will have been any better given the same factors above.
Sheikah Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 Why 300? Seems a bit of an arbitrary value. Besides Titanfall bundles have been going for like 320 with codes, effectively making the console cost sub 300 when you factor in the cost of a game (which you will buy at least one of anyway with the system). Fair enough if it's not your thing but there is so much more value with the other consoles. Also Wii U launched at 300 vs 350 of PS4, so the launch price difference was never all that.
Rummy Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 But hey, Nintendo has always been Nintendo, and if they want to; I see no problem developing hardware to primarily meet the needs of their software. The point is - have they? As has been mentioned by some before(though it's a matter of opinion), so far one of the best and most creative outings of the Gamepad was done by a third party. On launch. Where's the software needs that this hardware is primarily meeting since then?
Grazza Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 I do agree that it's preferable for consoles not to exceed £300. That's a good launch price, whereas £200 is when they can really take off. The issue with the Wii U, though, was not the price, but what the money was paying for (ie. the controller). Without the GamePad, surely the Wii U could have been in the same tier as PS4/Xbox One in the important areas (CPU, GPU, RAM). I was honestly ready to spend £300 on one at launch, but then I saw the CPU was weaker than the PS3 (it's much slower), and many of the early games were continuing the "Wii" vibe, and I just thought "This isn't what I want my money to go towards". I've ordered one now and I genuinely think the Wii U can be a great machine if Nintendo supports it and does get out Metroid, Zelda, F-Zero etc, but I think it'll always be characterised by having a slow start which aimed at the wrong market. Hopefully the next two years will see it remembered for great games instead - it's all in Nintendo's hands.
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 This is the sort of stuff I find interesting - when it comes to gaming and similar that they DO talk about - what tends to dominate the subject matter? Is it smartphones etc, XBone, PS4, social media, something else altogther? One word: Minecraft. Along with whatever smartphone game is "in" at the time. But, by some distance, Minecraft. The likes of FIFA will always be in because that's the go-to game to get your football fix. Kids don't generally give a shit about gameplay mechanics and upgrades from the previous season. They want to play as Ronaldo, Messi and Rooney, etc. There doesn't seem to be that much of a buzz for the XBone, but the PS4 seems to be the "future" purchase for many. At least, from what I've seen. It'll most likely be the Christmas present for some when that comes around and/or it's a bit cheaper. Wii U is non-existent.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) The point is - have they? As has been mentioned by some before(though it's a matter of opinion), so far one of the best and most creative outings of the Gamepad was done by a third party. On launch. Where's the software needs that this hardware is primarily meeting since then? Pikmin 3 comes to mind - a simple inclusion, but it works and I am satisfied with the map interaction, and added features such as directing the other captains to areas of the map. Hasn't every 1st party software used the Gamepad in some way? Lets not act like off-screen play wasn't the main feature of the Gamepad, and it is convenient. Because its not mind-boggling intuitive, its not being used? I've ordered one now and I genuinely think the Wii U can be a great machine if Nintendo supports it and does get out Metroid, Zelda, F-Zero etc, but I think it'll always be characterised by having a slow start which aimed at the wrong market. Hopefully the next two years will see it remembered for great games instead - it's all in Nintendo's hands. It will and in my opinion it is already a great console with what I have experienced so far, and my opinion will only be enhanced by the end of the year. Whats brain-numbingly annoying is the lack of hindsight (in relation to other Nintendo consoles and the very same arguments, reborn) and the lack of foresight (in the scare-mongering belief that Nintendo will ditch the Wii U and not create top class games on it). As well as the above, theres this mish-mash of sales rhetoric, where low sales officially equals a crappy console - despite the extremely poor marketing. We all look back and state the N64, GC and Wii as 'great' consoles, with great games. This will be the case with the Wii U too. Edited May 8, 2014 by King_V Automerged Doublepost
Ashley Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 I find it troubling to say "in the future we'll look at the past [present] and it'll be fine". Can't we live in the moment? After all, isn't that our only real option?
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) Of course we can (live in the moment), and if people actually give the Wii U a chance they might just enjoy it - there are a good few class games on the system - Its only 1.5 years since release. Its no different from the way early adopters of the other consoles state how the future will definitely hold good things in store, but if we are going to compare in the here and now, what is available on the Wii U so far is the better deal. (and yes talking about the other consoles is relevant in this case, as we always seem to be drawing comparisons). Edited May 8, 2014 by King_V
Oxigen_Waste Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) I love the WiiU just as it is. There were never any illusions in my mind about it being anything other than what Nintendo consoles have been for quite some time... the outsider. It doesn't deliver as often, but whenever there's a gem, it's ridiculously good. Anyone who bought it and expected it to seriously compete with PS/XB is delusional. I don't mind if it stays as it is for the rest of it's life. It's been out for less than 2 years and we already have Pikmin 3, The Wonderful 101, NSMBU/LU, Tropical Freeze, Zombi U and SM3DW under it's belt. Let's not forget MK8 will be out very soon. And if she's your only HD console, you still have a few amazing multiplats to help keep you busy, like NFS:MWU (best version of the game, by far), Rayman Legends (same as NFS, best version by far), Deus Ex: Human Revolution DC, Batman Arkham City or Assassin's Creed IV. And you can always go for a spin on the definitive versions of 2 incredible gems, Wind Waker HD and Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate. It's been out for 1 year and a half. Considering how almost every single console ever made sucks ass for the first year, that's a very respectable start. It's doomed to fail, but it's been doing it in style. Edited May 9, 2014 by Oxigen_Waste
Jonnas Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 It's annoying that the Gamecube is used as an example of why Nintendo shouldnt produce a console which is comparable to the competition when the reasons for its failure were nothing to do with how powerful it was. The main argument there is that a good deal of power is meaningless for a Nintendo console's success or failure. It's not a proof of correlation, but the proof of lack of. Furthermore, cutting-edge consoles now and then are different things. The Gamecube didn't fail because it was powerful, but a modern console with PS4/X1 level specs would bring incredible losses, especially when other companies went bankrupt recently due to similar misjudgements. Well, at least that's how I always saw the argument. Some say that the Gamecube's power brought the golden years of Nintendo's quality, and I can't say I disagree, but if Nintendo's going to catch up with the competition for the sake of following the standard, they'll be doing it for the wrong reasons, not to mention ignoring the bigger picture.
Daft Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 I feel Nintendo were onto a winner with the Wii. The ball was in their court. They didn't have to move first they could easily have played 'wait and see' and supported the Wii more - while at the same time growing their portfolio of first party studios. This isn't a case of hindsight is 20/20. I said at the time that I found the decision strange, I remember discussing it with people here. In the end they jumped the gun. Took a risk on an idea that had no real thought behind it - as indicated by Nintendo's inability to show any convincing and essential use of the game pad so long after launch. They assumed third parties would do something, anything; they were wrong. So it comes down to what is Nintendo good at? They are terrible at third party relations. Their hardware leads a lot to be desired (even with the 3DS - as shown by the release of the 2DS). Their UX and UI is poor, and that's being generous. So again, what are Nintendo good at? Software. That is their ONLY redeeming feature. Their software is good in spite of their hardware, not because of it. Yeah, it's this argument again, they have shown they don't have the chops to stay in the hardware business - AND the world is even less forgiving about poor hardware in a post-iPod/iPhone world - Nintendo should go third party.
liger05 Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Furthermore, cutting-edge consoles now and then are different things. The Gamecube didn't fail because it was powerful, but a modern console with PS4/X1 level specs would bring incredible losses, especially when other companies went bankrupt recently due to similar misjudgements. Thats speculation.
dazzybee Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 I feel Nintendo were onto a winner with the Wii. The ball was in their court. They didn't have to move first they could easily have played 'wait and see' and supported the Wii more - while at the same time growing their portfolio of first party studios. This isn't a case of hindsight is 20/20. I said at the time that I found the decision strange, I remember discussing it with people here. In the end they jumped the gun. Took a risk on an idea that had no real thought behind it - as indicated by Nintendo's inability to show any convincing and essential use of the game pad so long after launch. They assumed third parties would do something, anything; they were wrong. So it comes down to what is Nintendo good at? They are terrible at third party relations. Their hardware leads a lot to be desired (even with the 3DS - as shown by the release of the 2DS). Their UX and UI is poor, and that's being generous. So again, what are Nintendo good at? Software. That is their ONLY redeeming feature. Their software is good in spite of their hardware, not because of it. Yeah, it's this argument again, they have shown they don't have the chops to stay in the hardware business - AND the world is even less forgiving about poor hardware in a post-iPod/iPhone world - Nintendo should go third party. This is just pure opinion. How does the 2DS show the 3DS leaves a lot to be desired... Bizarre. How is their UI poor? I find it better than ps3 and INFINITELY better than the awful bubbles of vita. Miiverse is fantastic. And you know, some people like the gamepad, and they could show some great games at e3 which use it. You never know! It's fine you think the way you do, but it's just an opinion. However, killing the Wii and having 2 years of home console silence was an absolute bullet to the head for Nintendo! Zombi u is a really unique FPS because of the gamepad. Nintendoland is one of the greatest local mutiplayer games because of the gamepad. I can play most games in my bed, or with the tele off (VC and eshop games are actually better) because of the gamepad... Why do people want to completely dismiss these experiences? I don't understand.
Cube Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 The 3DS OS looks nice. In terms of functionality, however, it's cack.
Agent Gibbs Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) Consoles succeed or die based on more factors other than power, but to outright assume that it doesn't matter is short sighted Producing under powered consoles is not helping third party support, and the lack of it is killing the WiiU, they should at least make a console on par or very close to it with the direct competitors, then they can expect ports. Right now its like nintendo have thought because their on par power wise console failed (gamecube) and their under powered one did well (Wii), that they should just produce a console to fit only their needs.....whilst completely ignoring the other reasons they were successful/unsuccessful Nintendo should do everything they can do to succeed, produce a console on par with the competition, court third parties and advertise. You don't cut out your weakness in favour of your strengths in any other business, you seek to improve them! Imagine a car company following nintendo's current trend: Company A and B have similar spec cars that sell well, and veteran car company N having a loyal user base and some modest success with a previous model (due to its value for money). At the end of a long period the companies are all due to release new models, company A and B produce new up to date cars, basically refreshes of the previous model but one on the money the other over priced as it comes with a free mountain bike or something, and veteran car company releasing a new car with the same spec as the previous competitors models at almost the same price as the previous models, but it has some fancy new tech that might make driving more convenient? what would happen? they'd fail, and frankly that sort of thing has happened in other industries and its shown the "veteran" company has lost touch, they go slowly into obscurity relying on a dwindling loyal user base, before closing or being bought out. Land Rover, Mini, Rover etc etc etc are all car examples of companies who lost touch and did similar things to nintendo. I fear for them as a company as they are constantly a step behind and slowly rely on their existing user base I want nintedno to succeed and change this defeatist trend also whats wrong with the 3DS? build quality isn't as good as the vita but its a 9/10 where as vita is 10/10 thats like saying oh super model X is ugly as sin because she isn't as hot as supermodel Y The 3dS os is beautiful and only lacks true multitasking and a good web browser, the Vita can multitask better and the web browser is better...marginally Edited May 9, 2014 by Agent Gibbs
Daft Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 This is just pure opinion. How does the 2DS show the 3DS leaves a lot to be desired... Bizarre. How is their UI poor? I find it better than ps3 and INFINITELY better than the awful bubbles of vita. Miiverse is fantastic. And you know, some people like the gamepad, and they could show some great games at e3 which use it. You never know! It's fine you think the way you do, but it's just an opinion. However, killing the Wii and having 2 years of home console silence was an absolute bullet to the head for Nintendo! Zombi u is a really unique FPS because of the gamepad. Nintendoland is one of the greatest local mutiplayer games because of the gamepad. I can play most games in my bed, or with the tele off (VC and eshop games are actually better) because of the gamepad... Why do people want to completely dismiss these experiences? I don't understand. The 3D is pointless. If it was necessary to the experience then the 2DS wouldn't be possible. The UI is functional, but the Wii U's is abysmal. The PS3's XMB is an award winning UI. And I think the Vita's bubble design is shit too (yet another instance of using one company's poor decisions to let off another company). The Vita's UI flies in the face of the current design discourse - it's actually weird how crap and non-standard the UI is. Yeah, some people like the GamePad but not enough to sell well - not enough to base a console around. And while Nintendo might show how it could be used, WHY has it taken so long? It was Nintendo's choice to wind down the Wii's life early. I don't get how ZombiU is unique. If anything it's a derivative of two of the most common game genres; zombies and FPSes (I'm amazed how criticisms of unoriginality can be levelled at the rest of the industry and ZombiU is used as an example of something 'unique'). I've played ZombiU along with NintendoLand and both were vaguely intriguing (I think Towerfall leagues better any local co-op game). That is my personal opinion and just like yours they are irrelevant to this discussion because at the end of the day - from a point of business - they did not result in sales.
liger05 Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Consoles succeed or die based on more factors other than power, but to outright assume that it doesn't matter is short sightedProducing under powered consoles is not helping third party support, and the lack of it is killing the WiiU, they should at least make a console on par or very close to it with the direct competitors, then they can expect ports. Right now its like nintendo have thought because their on par power wise console failed (gamecube) and their under powered one did well (Wii), that they should just produce a console to fit only their needs.....whilst completely ignoring the other reasons they were successful/unsuccessful Nintendo should do everything they can do to succeed, produce a console on par with the competition, court third parties and advertise. You don't cut out your weakness in favour of your strengths in any other business, you seek to improve them! Imagine a car company following nintendo's current trend: Company A and B have similar spec cars that sell well, and veteran car company N having a loyal user base and some modest success with a previous model (due to its value for money). At the end of a long period the companies are all due to release new models, company A and B produce new up to date cars, basically refreshes of the previous model but one on the money the other over priced as it comes with a free mountain bike or something, and veteran car company releasing a new car with the same spec as the previous competitors models at almost the same price as the previous models, but it has some fancy new tech that might make driving more convenient? what would happen? they'd fail, and frankly that sort of thing has happened in other industries and its shown the "veteran" company has lost touch, they go slowly into obscurity relying on a dwindling loyal user base, before closing or being bought out. Land Rover, Mini, Rover etc etc etc are all car examples of companies who lost touch and did similar things to nintendo. I fear for them as a company as they are constantly a step behind and slowly rely on their existing user base I want nintedno to succeed and change this defeatist trend also whats wrong with the 3DS? build quality isn't as good as the vita but its a 9/10 where as vita is 10/10 thats like saying oh super model X is ugly as sin because she isn't as hot as supermodel Y The 3dS os is beautiful and only lacks true multitasking and a good web browser, the Vita can multitask better and the web browser is better...marginally See Blackberry. The demise of that company will be a case study for years and Nintendo remind me of them when they continued to ignore what was happening around them.
dazzybee Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 The 3D is pointless. If it was necessary to the experience then the 2DS wouldn't be possible. The UI is functional, but the Wii U's is abysmal. The PS3's XMB is an award winning UI. And I think the Vita's bubble design is shit too (yet another instance of using one company's poor decisions to let off another company). The Vita's UI flies in the face of the current design discourse - it's actually weird how crap and non-standard the UI is. Yeah, some people like the GamePad but not enough to sell well - not enough to base a console around. And while Nintendo might show how it could be used, WHY has it taken so long? It was Nintendo's choice to wind down the Wii's life early. I don't get how ZombiU is unique. If anything it's a derivative of two of the most common game genres; zombies and FPSes (I'm amazed how criticisms of unoriginality can be levelled at the rest of the industry and ZombiU is used as an example of something 'unique'). I've played ZombiU along with NintendoLand and both were vaguely intriguing (I think Towerfall leagues better any local co-op game). That is my personal opinion and just like yours they are irrelevant to this discussion because at the end of the day - from a point of business - they did not result in sales. But screw sales. The Wii u has led to some unique experiences, that's what's important surely? I don't understand why we wish a company didn't do something my because if sales... Maybe Nintendo wished they did things differently but ultimately I wouldn't swap what the Wii u has given us for anything. I don't understand what people debate on here... It's like all that matters are sales figures, if they're good there's nothing to argue about, if they're bad then it invalidates how good or different something is. As for the 3D thing... Again, bizarre argument, does vitas new screen make the oled one bad? No. Nintendo just wanted to release a cheaper model. But all of a sudden this shows how bad it was in the first place... No logic!
Recommended Posts