Do Nintendo still have what it takes to produce hardware?

[Clownferret]

Meaning if it wasn't for the GamePad the console would be a lower price, hence people having to pay a higher price because of its inclusion.

 

well if my brother had tits, he'd be my sister. The console is what it is. My car would be cheaper if I could buy it with two wheels and no back seats.

[Wii]

well if my brother had tits, he'd be my sister. The console is what it is. My car would be cheaper if I could buy it with two wheels and no back seats.

 

No that still wouldn't make him your sister and you'd have a motorbike

[Londragon]

Anyway, @londragon I get your point. And that sounds very cool. But, I don't think it's enough to justify a console around.

 

Thanks, I love the Gamepad and am sold on it, just hope I see more of its potential at E3. If you're not feeling it I hope Nintendo show something at E3 to pique your interest and justify it to you.

 

To be totally honest I was thinking back on all the consoles I've ever owned, mostly Nintendo, and apart from the N64, the Wii U is my favourite. It's giving me everything I need at the moment. Each to his/her own.

[Hero-of-Time]

well if my brother had tits, he'd be my sister. The console is what it is. My car would be cheaper if I could buy it with two wheels and no back seats.

 

Yup and the consumer has to pay for it whether they like it or not, whereas with the other two it's entirely optional, which was the point if the original discussion between us. The console that is, not your brothers tits.

[tapedeck]

[...]The console that is, not your brothers tits.

 

lol

[Clownferret]

Yup and the consumer has to pay for it whether they like it or not, whereas with the other two it's entirely optional, which was the point if the original discussion between us. The console that is, not your brothers tits.

 

but that goes for all the consoles, since the dawn of time. It's never been an option to buy a console without certain elements, so why is it even a discussion?

I wished I could buy a PS4 without a Bluray player and a subscription, but I know it's not an option so don't waste mine and everybody else's time discussing something that is not going to happen.

I really don't get why the people on here who do nothing but criticise the Wii U and/or gamepad bought one in the first place and still have one.

 

Thanks, I love the Gamepad and am sold on it, just hope I see more of its potential at E3. If you're not feeling it I hope Nintendo show something at E3 to pique your interest and justify it to you.

 

To be totally honest I was thinking back on all the consoles I've ever owned, mostly Nintendo, and apart from the N64, the Wii U is my favourite. It's giving me everything I need at the moment. Each to his/her own.

 

I'm with you. And to be honest, even the N64, which I loved, had the benefit of jumping from 2D to 3D and having three of the best games ever made, which has probably clouded my judgement somewhat. I'm pretty sure I already own more Wii U games than I did in the N64's entire life.

[Hero-of-Time]

but that goes for all the consoles, since the dawn of time. It's never been an option to buy a console without certain elements, so why is it even a discussion?

I wished I could buy a PS4 without a Bluray player and a subscription, but I know it's not an option so don't waste mine and everybody else's time discussing something that is not going to happen.

I really don't get why the people on here who do nothing but criticise the Wii U and/or gamepad bought one in the first place and still have one.

 

Its a discussion because of this.

 

Can somebody/anybody explain to me the argument that Wii U is overpriced because of the gamepad and justify it by saying a PS4/Vita or XB1/Tablet can do the same thing albeit at quadruple the price.

 

Again, with the other consoles its optional, with the Wii U the cost of the console is forced up. Yes, that's just the way it is but you have a choice on whether you want another screen with the other 2 systems.

 

Now, i'm sure if that last comment was targeted at me but I will respond anyway. I have over 30 retail Wii U games, over 10 VC games and a bunch of e-Shop titles. I've played easily over a 1000 hours on the Wii U ( 600 on MH alone ) but this doesn't make me blind to the short comings of the console. Do I have fun with it? Of course. Is it perfect? Not at all.

 

As I stated earlier today, I have no issue with the price of the Wii U or the GamePad for that matter, but I can see why people do have issues with it. If the Gamepad was such a good feature and hook then the Wii U would be flying off the shelves but it simply isn't.

[Retro_Link]

Quadruple the price?... The PS4/Xbone are £1000 now?

[Cube]

but that goes for all the consoles, since the dawn of time. It's never been an option to buy a console without certain elements, so why is it even a discussion?

 

Next month, Microsoft will be selling the Xbox One without its unique selling point: The Kinect.

[Goron_3]

The Gamepad isn't a "tiny low res screen" really though is it..? It's very good quality, so much so that I play CoD entirely on the Gamepad, I don't use the TV!

 

Oh come on. Compare the screen on the gamepad to any modern device, it's infinitely poorer. Of course, it's like that to cut costs, but the ppi is pretty bad. Compare to say an iPad 2/newish mobile phone it's really not great.

[Kav]

Oh come on. Compare the screen on the gamepad to any modern device, it's infinitely poorer. Of course, it's like that to cut costs, but the ppi is pretty bad. Compare to say an iPad 2/newish mobile phone it's really not great.

 

I'm not saying it's amazing but I am saying it's not like it's poor!

 

I play CoD on the Gamepad and find it better than on my HDTV, simply for the size and distance I hold it from my face, I find it even easier to take in everything that's going on within the game, sure the visuals aren't as crisp but even so it gives me an advantage over the TV because I can take everything in better. It doesn't detract from the game, it enhances it.

[Goron_3]

I'm not saying it's amazing but I am saying it's not like it's poor!

 

I play CoD on the Gamepad and find it better than on my HDTV, simply for the size and distance I hold it from my face, I find it even easier to take in everything that's going on within the game, sure the visuals aren't as crisp but even so it gives me an advantage over the TV because I can take everything in better. It doesn't detract from the game, it enhances it.

 

I don't play CoD but for other games I find the gamepad takes away some of the experience. Beautiful games like SM3DW and Rayman don't look great on the gamepad at all imo. That said I love it for games like Super Metroid etc, where the lack of a good screen don't make a difference.

[Clownferret]

No that still wouldn't make him your sister and you'd have a motorbike

 

touche, well played Sir

 

Its a discussion because of this.

 

 

 

Again, with the other consoles its optional, with the Wii U the cost of the console is forced up. Yes, that's just the way it is but you have a choice on whether you want another screen with the other 2 systems.

 

Now, i'm sure if that last comment was targeted at me but I will respond anyway. I have over 30 retail Wii U games, over 10 VC games and a bunch of e-Shop titles. I've played easily over a 1000 hours on the Wii U ( 600 on MH alone ) but this doesn't make me blind to the short comings of the console. Do I have fun with it? Of course. Is it perfect? Not at all.

 

As I stated earlier today, I have no issue with the price of the Wii U or the GamePad for that matter, but I can see why people do have issues with it. If the Gamepad was such a good feature and hook then the Wii U would be flying off the shelves but it simply isn't.

 

no not targeted at you bud, just a generalisation.

I get the point that 2nd screen is optional on PS4 & XB1 but the gamepad isn't just a 2nd screen it's the main controller for the console that happens to have a screen. Kinect is an add on.

 

Quadruple the price?... The PS4/Xbone are £1000 now?

 

an xb1 + a tablet + subscription is getting there

[Sheikah]

an xb1 + a tablet + subscription is getting there

 

Except most people into tech already have a tablet.

 

So with Wii U you are paying for a Wii U console and again for a propriety 'tablet' (it isn't a tablet).

 

With others you are paying for the console only. You already have the tablet, so you're saving money.

 

Also you can't compare online services. Wii U is severely lacking comprehensive online games, and the lineup for such titles is looking bleak (particularly since most Nintendo games don't feature much significant online play). It's like arguing the bird in the hand is worth as much as 1 in the bush. It isn't.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Sheikah

[Goron_3]

it's relevant but if people are going to bring up tablets it's worth remembering that everyone owns a tablet nowadays...

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

A tablet that plays Nintendo games?

[Sheikah]

A tablet that plays Nintendo games?

 

The initial point was basically 'you don't have to buy an extra tablet for the off screen play/interactivity with Wii U'. But you do, as it's included in the price and the reason why the Wii U costs more than it should.

 

This point was then used as a positive compared to the use of tablets by the other consoles - 'Unlike the Wii U, you have to buy a tablet to get the same functionality'. Except most people who will want this have a tablet already. So in most people's cases, non propriety tablet wins out in terms of cost effectiveness, plus you have a useful tablet to use for other things rather than just a screen.

[Kav]

I don't own a tablet... in fact, the majority of my gaming mates (mostly on 360) don't own one. Granted there are millions that do but still.

[gaggle64]

I sometimes wonder if letting go of a home-console concern might not ultimately be freeing for Nintendo. It wouldn't be like what happened to Sega who had to get out just to make sure they could salvage something of themselves. A lot of what's wrong with the WiiU though has less to do with the pad and mostly with the back-office stuff: The behind-the-curve connectivity, the absence of information & support for 3rd party publishers. If they could learn these lessons they still have a clear identity to pursue as a family-friendly games machine manufacturer.

 

However if even toddlers are acquainted with the hardware of rivals far better equipped to produce competitive products why wouldn't they throw the towel in and just use those platforms to make games they could sell to the maximum number of people possible? Imagine Mario Kart 8 coming out next month being available for the same number of consumers the next Call of Duty game will. They could outsell even the biggest publishers. They could dictate their own creative terms. They'd have Sony & Microsoft execs shanking each other for exclusives. They could keep their much more successful handheld platform, a fun & well supported device that exemplifies the company philosophy.

 

The thing that tears me is if they do that will Nintendo continue evolve as something uniquely Nintendo or would the pressure of being in that end of the market shift it too much? I don't know but if I was in charge of the Big N I would definitely be looking down the road and wondering if a smaller operation might not offer bigger rewards.

Edited May 14, 2014 by gaggle64

[Wii]

The thing is with Nintendo hardware is that it isn't like some terminal disease, it's for the most part self inflicted wounds. Most of, if not all of their problems could be solved if they'd cop on and change their ways. They need to evolve more quickly or in time it is possible they could go the way of the dinosaur. Some would argue they are a living dinosaur.

[markderoos]

it's relevant but if people are going to bring up tablets it's worth remembering that everyone owns a tablet nowadays...

 

The initial point was basically 'you don't have to buy an extra tablet for the off screen play/interactivity with Wii U'. But you do, as it's included in the price and the reason why the Wii U costs more than it should.

 

This point was then used as a positive compared to the use of tablets by the other consoles - 'Unlike the Wii U, you have to buy a tablet to get the same functionality'. Except most people who will want this have a tablet already. So in most people's cases, non propriety tablet wins out in terms of cost effectiveness, plus you have a useful tablet to use for other things rather than just a screen.

 

That there is what makes the difference: developers on Xbox and PS are taking a risk (however small/big that risk is, we can't be sure) when they develop a game for those platforms that totally depends on second screen (so no, not companion apps and the like).

With Wii U they don't take that risk, because the second screen comes bundled in.

 

It's in fact the same risk with developing games for Motion Plus (Red Steel 2/ Fling Smash), Kinect and all other peripherals. When you don't add it in with every console, developers will see it as a device for optional gameplay. And when they do take that risk, high sales are VERY difficult to obtain.

 

That is exactly the reason why Nintendo needs to show the other developers AND the public what you can do with it. Otherwise the added gamepad will have almost no worth at all.

 

I think Nintendo can still show what's unique about it but I also think that Wii U will never attract more "core" gamers who are generally more attracted to Xbox and Playstation and the games that are typically identified with those two.

By the way, I like Nintendo for that; they offer something else, next to the other two.

Edited May 15, 2014 by markderoos

[Sheikah]

With Wii U they don't take that risk, because the second screen comes bundled in.

I would argue this is a bigger risk; by making it the controller they are putting all their eggs in one basket with this idea - if the concept isn't popular then they're in a difficult position. It also put the price of the console way up, unlike the other consoles which didn't charge extra for such a thing since it is optional.

 

NB - regarding the tablets being 'optional' as they're not included with the console - the gamepad is also optional. Most games aren't using the gamepad in any significant way. Aside from off screen play.

[Daft]

I don't own a tablet... in fact, the majority of my gaming mates (mostly on 360) don't own one. Granted there are millions that do but still.

 

And none of you own smartphones?

[markderoos]

I would argue this is a bigger risk; by making it the controller they are putting all their eggs in one basket with this idea - if the concept isn't popular then they're in a difficult position. It also put the price of the console way up, unlike the other consoles which didn't charge extra for such a thing since it is optional.

 

NB - regarding the tablets being 'optional' as they're not included with the console - the gamepad is also optional. Most games aren't using the gamepad in any significant way. Aside from off screen play.

 

Ah, I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear with what I meant to say.

 

I meant: game developers take no risk when they develop a game with comprehensive second screen gameplay on Wii U. Simply because every Wii U owner bought that device included with the console. Nintendo already took the risk when they launched the Wii U.

When developers create a "second screen game" for PS/XB they rely heavily on consumers with a third party device (iPad, smartphone, other). They don't know for sure if PS/XB gamers have those/want to use those already. What you see as a result: developers don't dare to take a risk with gameplay, instead they choose for optional extra enhancement in the form of (for example) companion apps.

 

About the optional part: that's indeed what I said. Nintendo need to show the rest how much more interesting gaming can become when using the Gamepad to its full potential.

[Clownferret]

The initial point was basically 'you don't have to buy an extra tablet for the off screen play/interactivity with Wii U'. But you do, as it's included in the price and the reason why the Wii U costs more than it should.

 

This point was then used as a positive compared to the use of tablets by the other consoles - 'Unlike the Wii U, you have to buy a tablet to get the same functionality'. Except most people who will want this have a tablet already. So in most people's cases, non propriety tablet wins out in terms of cost effectiveness, plus you have a useful tablet to use for other things rather than just a screen.

 

explain to me how I could play a game on a tablet.

I own a tablet that the kids use for angrybirds etc, but it does not have any buttons, analogue sticks or shoulder triggers, so I don't see anyway that I could use it as a second screen for playing multiplayer games.