Jonnas Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Thats speculation. And that's dismissing someone's views nonchalantly. Are your views on what Nintendo should've done are also speculation, then? It's an opinion like any other, and not an unreasonable one, considering what's been happening with the videogame industry as a whole. Their hardware design choices directly affect their software design choices. We can see from their delays that they had more trouble with the HD transition than they expected, and caused their projected software schedule to slip (in other words, their greatest strength, as Daft put it, was already hindered enough by the leap they did make). As they are now, this is a blow they can recover from. If the hill had been steeper, maybe they couldn't. Both choices had their fair share of risks involved, and the one they took sounds like the one that allowed more room for error. Nintendo did make plenty of mistakes, but I don't think this was one of them. If anything it's a derivative of two of the most common game genres; zombies and FPSes We really should find different names for the things you just mentioned. Makes it sound like "Zombies" is a video game genre in the same league as "Platformer" or "RPG".
Daft Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 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! But I'm talking about Nintendo's business strategy. So Nintendo made some 'unique' experiences? As if no other company makes unique experience. Were Nintendo's unique experiences worth it? Worth ending Wii support early? Worth jumping the gun? Worth that price point? Worth alienating third parties? You're having a laugh. Mario Kart, its best game, is actually only made worse by the GamePad. If Nintendo weren't so insular, and so set on creating a bespoke piece of hardware, they could have maybe pioneered second screen tech on other devices. Almost on ZombiU or Pikmin or Mario Kart couldn't have been just as well with a Tablet of a Smart Phone. Also, WHAT?! How on EARTH does the 3DS/2DS comparison work with the Vita?! The Vita for all intense and purposes does EXACTLY the same thing. The 3D in the 3DS actually requires more power from the processor to pull off. The 2DS cannot DO 3D. The new Vita's screen can do everything the old one did. We really should find different names for the things you just mentioned. Makes it sound like "Zombies" is a video game genre in the same league as "Platformer" or "RPG". Isn't it though? Day Z, Walking Dead, Left 4 Dead, ZombiU, H1Z1, Dying Light. It might not be a gameplay genre but its a narrative genre. Personally, zombie games bore me no matter what form the gameplay takes (similarly Mario bores me no matter the gameplay - although with occasional exceptions, also fantasy games - yawn).
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) Thats speculation. LOL. So what do you call your opinion? The truth? Edited May 9, 2014 by King_V
dazzybee Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Also, WHAT?! How on EARTH does the 3DS/2DS comparison work with the Vita?! The Vita for all intense and purposes does EXACTLY the same thing. The 3D in the 3DS actually requires more power from the processor to pull off. The 2DS cannot DO 3D. The new Vita's screen can do everything the old one The first bit there's no point continuing. It's just a matter of opinion, I personally do think it's all worth it, bad sales don't invalidate its quality in my opinion. And I am please there's a company trying something different, successful or not. I think it's healthy in any industry. But this bit, all the 3D does is add a extra bit of visual flourish, like the oled screen does. But, my point wasn't that it is exactly the same thing, more how releasing the 2DS invalidates the 3DS, I don't get it at all, I think it just bizarre. It's just a cheaper option... It's like saying the gameboy micro shows the using a bigger screen was bad...
Sheikah Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Anyone who bought it and expected it to seriously compete with PS/XB is delusional. Nobody expects it. This is Nintendo - if you expect them to behave competently, you will probably be disappointed. What I will say is that your sentiment perfectly capitulates Nintendo's poisoned mindset. It's one they've developed step by step over the years, and was no doubt strengthened enormously by the success of the Wii U. They used to compete with everyone else. Here's two games for you - Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI. Think how awesome they were, and still are, and know that they most likely won't get games like that in the current state. When you compete you can get people making games on your system, some of which will be awesome. It's just a shame, really. LOL. So what do you call your opinion? The truth? I think he was just being polite tbh. Personally, I'd susbtitute 'speculation' for the testacles of choice.
Clownferret Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 But I'm talking about Nintendo's business strategy. So Nintendo made some 'unique' experiences? As if no other company makes unique experience. Were Nintendo's unique experiences worth it? Worth ending Wii support early? Worth jumping the gun? Worth that price point? Worth alienating third parties? You're having a laugh. Mario Kart, its best game, is actually only made worse by the GamePad. If Nintendo weren't so insular, and so set on creating a bespoke piece of hardware, they could have maybe pioneered second screen tech on other devices. Almost on ZombiU or Pikmin or Mario Kart couldn't have been just as well with a Tablet of a Smart Phone. Also, WHAT?! How on EARTH does the 3DS/2DS comparison work with the Vita?! The Vita for all intense and purposes does EXACTLY the same thing. The 3D in the 3DS actually requires more power from the processor to pull off. The 2DS cannot DO 3D. The new Vita's screen can do everything the old one did. Isn't it though? Day Z, Walking Dead, Left 4 Dead, ZombiU, H1Z1, Dying Light. It might not be a gameplay genre but its a narrative genre. Personally, zombie games bore me no matter what form the gameplay takes (similarly Mario bores me no matter the gameplay - although with occasional exceptions, also fantasy games - yawn). Really? Reminds me of an episode of Modern Family. LOL
Sheikah Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 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. And I would strongly disagree that more power wouldn't result in anything good. Hardware inferiority is one of a multitude of factors that deter third parties from Nintendo consoles. The other factors are poor communication/attitude with said developers, a childish image (their policies towards messaging/communication certainly strengthen this view), a poor online infrastructure in comparison to the competition and a lack of incentives for people to remain tied to the company (a la PSN trophies/store downloads/PS Plus subscriptions). Graphical power is one piece of the pie. Other hardware related issues like a larger on board hard drive are also important. They could have got more third party support by contacting developers when deciding how to make their console - this would have revealed they needed more power and would have boosted third party relations in one. Online accounts, they have had a whole fucking generation to sort out. So yes, hardware is not the only issue and would likely not fix anything if corrected alone. But it still very much needs to be done.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 The 3D is pointless. So what if the 3D is pointless? I'd still want a company to give it a shot. Nintendo are the only ones out there with the balls to want try whatever they want. And more power to them, especially when they hit it off. The 3D in the 3DS annoys me, just as much as the motion controls in the Wii - but I still respect the fact Nintendo are trying to be creative with their hardware. There is a silent respect for Nintendo for doing things that no one else can, and still succeed to varying degrees. They are the outsider and standout, and their risks can either fail ridiculously or be dazzling successes - and I'm happy with that as long as I get my mainstays (Zelda, Pokemon, Smash etc). After all, if you don't like it you can always, you know, buy a Playstation.
liger05 Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) LOL. So what do you call your opinion? The truth? No but if someone is going to say Nintendo producing a console with similar specs to the PS4 or XB1 would result in huge losses I think they should give the reason for why that would be the case instead of just guessing. The fact that the PS4 is profitable from 1 PSN sub and the Wii U was profitable from 1 game purchase to me suggests that producing a console similar to the PS4 would of been no more expensive that producing the Wii U. So what if the 3D is pointless? I'd still want a company to give it a shot. Nintendo are the only ones out there with the balls to want try whatever they want. Innovation for the sake of innovation is pointless. I want to see them do things which enhance the experience we already get and not just push out gimmicks hoping they catch fire. Edited May 9, 2014 by liger05
Sheikah Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 So what if the 3D is pointless? I'd still want a company to give it a shot. Nintendo are the only ones out there with the balls to want try whatever they want. Completely untrue. Xbox pushes Kinect, even still, which is very different to anything else out there, and they're trying to find new uses for it. Sony are developing VR, which is definitely different to what the other two consoles are doing. They even recently admitted that the glow on the PS4 controllers is for VR tracking, indicating they plan to get it out this gen. Nintendo are not the only ones who try something different.
Retro_Link Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 So what if the 3D is pointless? I'd still want a company to give it a shot. Nintendo are the only ones out there with the balls to want try whatever they want.What about Sony pursuing a VR headset? that's a huge risk! (arguably the biggest of any) The Wonderbook games. Microsoft significantly upgrading and sticking with the Kinect when it was a bit of a joke on the 360.
Sheikah Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 No but if someone is going to say Nintendo producing a console with similar specs to the PS4 or XB1 would result in huge losses I think they should give the reason for why that would be the case instead of just guessing. The fact that the PS4 is profitable from 1 PSN sub and the Wii U was profitable from 1 game purchase to me suggests that producing a console similar to the PS4 would of been no more expensive that producing the Wii U. Exactly. Everything we know to be true flies in the face of Serebii's comment. I thought it was very controlled of you to call his comment speculation and not something more flavourful, heh.
Clownferret Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Completely untrue. Xbox pushes Kinect, even still, which is very different to anything else out there, and they're trying to find new uses for it. Sony are developing VR, which is definitely different to what the other two consoles are doing. They even recently admitted that the glow on the PS4 controllers is for VR tracking, indicating they plan to get it out this gen. Nintendo are not the only ones who try something different. Kinect only came about because Microsoft were trying to jump on the Wii gravy train, just as Move was for Sony. Copying a competitor is not innovating.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 What about Sony pursuing a VR headset? that's a huge risk! (arguably the biggest of any) The Wonderbook games. Microsoft significantly upgrading and sticking with the Kinect when it was a bit of a joke on the 360. Forgive my ignorance, but I feel to make, for example, raw motion controls as the main USP of your fifth main piece of hardware was the biggest risk in my eyes. It wasn't a secondary, mid-generation tac on - it was mainstream. Without the Wii, I don't really think Kinect will even exist. No but if someone is going to say Nintendo producing a console with similar specs to the PS4 or XB1 would result in huge losses I think they should give the reason for why that would be the case instead of just guessing. The reasoning is all over this thread - If Nintendo are suffering huge losses now with the Wii U, what changes things if it went high spec? Multi-platformers, IMO, wouldn't change much.
Retro_Link Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Forgive my ignorance, but I feel to make, for example, raw motion controls as the main USP of your fifth main piece of hardware was the biggest risk in my eyes. It wasn't a secondary, mid-generation tac on - it was mainstream. Without the Wii, I don't really think Kinect will even exist. So you're just going to ignore my reply then and maintain Nintendo are the only risk takers. And looking at it that way, without all the other tablets that preceded Nintendo's I doubt the Gamepad would even exist.
liger05 Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 The reasoning is all over this thread - If Nintendo are suffering huge losses now with the Wii U, what changes things if it went high spec? Multi-platformers, IMO, wouldn't change much. Thats on the assumption that regardless of the console Nintendo produced it would be a flop like the Wii U. If thats the case then they might as well give up now and dont bother releasing anything. I dont believe that to be the case though. Nintendo were in a great position to launch a new console before the competition in a market which was starved for a next generation console after the last generation went on for longer than usual. A console which would easily out-peform the 360/PS3 recieving multi platform games which were a clear improvement on the 360/PS3 versions and being true definate editions to me changes a lot compared to what the Wii U was offering instead.
Retro_Link Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 The reasoning is all over this thread - If Nintendo are suffering huge losses now with the Wii U, what changes things if it went high spec?Consumers being able to put their faith in a long-term/futureproof console that would at least be capable of receiving ports of third party games at the very least.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) So you're just going to ignore my reply then and maintain Nintendo are the only risk takers. And looking at it that way, without all the other tablets that preceded Nintendo's I doubt the Gamepad would even exist. ...How have I ignored your post? Your point is granted - thank you very much for it (is that better?) My point is obviously I see Nintendo as having made more important risks. I asked for forgiveness for my ignorance as I am not following the PS VR... But unless I don't see it as the MAIN USP of a Sony console - no - I wouldn't say that is as big as a risk as the Wii was. Edited May 9, 2014 by King_V
Goron_3 Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 No it's not. It's mathematics. It wouldn't bring huge losses and that's a fact brah. It would be no worse than the losses incurred by investing in the gamepad. PS4 is great example of this, and that includes the costly price of DDR5. No need to leave a comment like that unless you plan for it to bring any discussion.
Retro_Link Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 ...How have I ignored your post? Your point is granted - thank you very much for it (is that better?) My point is obviously I see Nintendo as having made more important risks. I asked forgive for my ignorance as I am not following the PS VR... But unless I don't see it as the MAIN USP of a Sony console - no - I wouldn't that as big as a risk as the Wii was. What a great attitude.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Consumers being able to put their faith in a long-term/futureproof console that would at least be capable of receiving ports of third party games at the very least. What guarantees this? IIRC, there was no GTA3, Vice City and San Andreas on the Gamecube, despite it being more than possible. What a great attitude. Yeah, I got annoyed at being accused of ignoring your post. Im sorry if its not what you wanna hear.
Wii Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 The big news is that they are now profiting on the Wii U! From the briefing yesterday. - Wii U target of 3.6 million units will need more manufactured than in current inventory- Nintendo not experiencing a loss from hardware anymore Had Nintendo been selling the Wii U at a reasonable rate they could have been selling it at a profit long ago perhaps. They're only now selling the last of the inventory from launch a year and a half later. This I believe is why the Mario Kart 8 Wii U bundle has awful skin covers for the gamepad rather than being manufactured in true colours like the Mario remote. Once the backlog clears I hope to see different colured SKU's going forward. By Christmas we'll see if they're different because the only thing that's been different from the black and white was the Wind Waker gamepad. That was minimalistic, just the front of the gamepad and limited production. Oh and the different colours will go nicely with the €50 price drop just in time for the holidays.
Retro_Link Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) What guarantees this? IIRC, there was no GTA3, Vice City and San Andreas on the Gamecube, despite it being more than possible.Fair enough, except well there's zero chance if it's not even technically possible. It's then up to Nintendo to do the rest. Maybe intead of loosing all the money they have on the Wii U they could have put that money into third party projects. Heck even pay for GTAV on your console if it'll sell them. Yeah, I got annoyed at being accused of ignoring your post. Im sorry if its not what you wanna hear.You didn't even begin to acknowledge that it's not only Nintendo that take risks. Seemed like ignoring the point to me, but hey. Edited May 9, 2014 by Retro_Link
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 it's not on Nintendo that take risks. Seemed like ignoring the point to me, but hey. I've never stated otherwise - I just think Nintendo's are more prominent. Fair enough, except well there's zero chance if it's not even technically possible. Yet it seems theres zero chance even if it is...?
Goron_3 Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 What guarantees this? IIRC, there was no GTA3, Vice City and San Andreas on the Gamecube, despite it being more than possible. Yeah, I got annoyed at being accused of ignoring your post. Im sorry if its not what you wanna hear. Gamecube had a lot of issues but there was no reason why GTA should gave gone to GC because Nintendo weren't releasing games thaf cultivated that audience on the console. It's not like the N64 where they had Goldeneye which led the way. There are many interviews around where they say that they didn't understand western gamers back then and it wasnt rockstar's job to sort it out. If Nintendo ever want to succeed again they need to seriously up their amount of western development teams. Monster Games, Retro and the guys that made LM2 can't make enough games to make western gamers interested in Nintendo games. If that doesn't happen, 3rd parties will never change their tune.
Recommended Posts