Support NeoGAF

[jj16802]

My belief is that Nintendo screwed themselves over by using current gen tech as next gen hardware. Now if the specs are on par with PS4 and XBONE, wouldn't porting be much easier and less costly? Add to the fact that the higher specs would attract power users as well.

In addition, Nintendo needs to prove to the gaming community that they can cater to all game genres. So far the games they make are for either a young audience or a nostalgic demographic, but they need to change it up a bit. Since they are spreading the news about a new IP, why not tread into new territory by offering something they never done before (FPS, TPS, racing simulator, etc.). Why not resurrect Geist, Goldeneye 007, the Conduit, Starfox or Metroid?

 

[stktt]

No.

 

[RobFox64tm]

My belief is that Nintendo screwed themselves over by using current gen tech as next gen hardware. Now if the specs are on par with PS4 and XBONE, wouldn't porting be much easier and less costly? Add to the fact that the higher specs would attract power users as well.

In addition, Nintendo needs to prove to the gaming community that they can cater to all game genres. So far the games they make are for either a young audience or a nostalgic demographic, but they need to change it up a bit. Since they are spreading the news about a new IP, why not tread into new territory by offering something they never done before (FPS, TPS, racing simulator, etc.). Why not resurrect Geist, Goldeneye 007, the Conduit, Starfox or Metroid?

This didn't bring Nintendo anymore success in the past than it would right now, really. I don't think the power thing would've been as big a deal with Wii U if A: Nintendo had something as impressive as, say, Mario Kart 8 on the system from the beginning, and B: if the price of the console reflected that better.

 

[Dark Octave]

Nintendo tried to strike lightning twice without understanding why it struck in the first place and forgetting that it fizzled pretty quickly.

If not third party, then they need to make something that actually competes with their competition.

If I was an artist/developer I wouldn't want to be stuck making character models and environments to run on eight year old tech when there are bigger and better challenges for my carreer/portfolio and studio out there.

 

[mantidor]

Imagine you're a developer. Which system would make the most sense financially to develop for?

All of them are pretty risky, there's exactly 0 PS4s and X1s out there, and nothing is guaranteeing them huge success. At least WiiU is out there.

I'm not agreeing with the conspiracy stuff just to clarify, even though it's hard to deny there are devs out there that really don't like Nintendo, and will never make games on their platforms.

 

[DragonSworne]

I see why have quite a few harsh critics of the movie industry in this thread.

The key problem with cherry picking your movies to fit your argument is that it ignores the fact Nintendo's whole library is stale compared to just some of the movies an individual studio will release. Warner Bros released Argo the same year it released stuff like Magic Mike. This range of quality is seen in almost every single studio in movie industry.

While the movie industry keeps releasing fresh and new stories, Nintendo keeps going back to the well. The Wii U library is basically "been there, done that" and this feeling the games give off is the reason why it is not selling.

 

[jj16802]

This didn't bring Nintendo anymore success in the past than it would right now, really. I don't think the power thing would've been as big a deal with Wii U if A: Nintendo had something as impressive as, say, Mario Kart 8 on the system from the beginning, and B: if the price of the console reflected that better.

The power issue I mentioned was about is mostly about 3rd party issues. If Nintendo had similar specs for the Wii U, EA wouldn't be complaining about how Frostbite 3 isn't compatible with the system, or how 4A Games can successfully complete a port of Metro Last Light (Metro 2033 was known to be a PC killer.) without trouble from the CPU. There would have been more games and system sellers to add to the console's library.

I feel that Nintendo is trying to repeat history just because it worked in the past. It may not pay off in this next generation.

 

[Manmademan]

PS3 sold poorly when was $599, 360 and Wii were kicking it's ass and the cell stuff was really painful at beginning. Third-parties didn't left or considered risky to developer for it. WiiU is alone in the market, PS4/X1 aren't yet release and we don't know how well they'll perform. Why it's risky for Nintendo while wasn't for Sony?

two reasons. well, three.

1.) yes, Sony sold poorly at 599. but nowhere NEAR as poorly as the wiiU. it's a completely different ballgame.

2.) Nintendo put itself into this position by prioritizing a tablet controller to attract casuals over hardware that was on par with next gen. Devs could at least port games from the 360 to PS3, Nintendo requires completely new software built just for them, as they did with the Wii. watch dogs, titanfall, ffxv, etc flat out can't run. PS3 didn't have this problem.

"but it can run last gen Ports from ps3 or 360! why not those?" you ask. good question. the answer here is that those two consoles have already been purchased by 160 million people. NONE of these are going to spend 349 to buy a system that runs games exactly the same or in some cases worse than the system they already own. The only audience here are gamers that ONLY bought a Wii last gen. this leads into problem 3.

3.) Nintendo only gamers avoid third party games like the plague. Nintendo has spent several generations making a certain type of game and sprinkling it with mascots to keep their core interested. They don't make games like EA, Activision, Ubi, etc. Sony and to a lesser degree Microsoft have a broader catalogue, so it's not a big jump for a gamer who likes uncharted to get into tomb raider, or God of war to try out castlevania. After several Gens of telling gamers who want those kinds of experiences to go elsewhere, the Nintendo hardcore consists of players who prefer ONLY the kinds of friendly mascot heavy games Nintendo makes and nothing else and these are the people buying the WiiU.

 

[Kater]

I see why have quite a few harsh critics of the movie industry in this thread.

The key problem with cherry picking your movies to fit your argument is that it ignores the fact Nintendo's whole library is stale compared to just some of the movies an individual studio will release. Warner Bros released Argo the same year it released stuff like Magic Mike. This range of quality is seen in almost every single studio in movie industry.

While the movie industry keeps releasing fresh and new stories, Nintendo keeps going back to the well.

One could argue that those movies from Disney and WB are full of recycled cliches as well. At least Mario and Kirby have you interacting with them and they always play different and the character have new powers and stuff. Also the level variety is better than in most other games.

 

[jj16802]

two reasons. well, three.

1.) yes, Sony sold poorly at 599. but nowhere NEAR as poorly as the wiiU. it's a completely different ballgame.

2.) Nintendo put itself into this position by prioritizing a tablet controller to attract casuals over hardware that was on par with next gen. Devs could at least port games from the 360 to PS3, Nintendo requires completely new software built just for them, as they did with the Wii. watch dogs, titanfall, ffxv, etc flat out can't run. PS3 didn't have this problem.

"but it can run last gen Ports from ps3 or 360! why not those?" you ask. good question. the answer here is that those two consoles have already been purchased by 160 million people. NONE of these are going to spend 349 to buy a system that runs games exactly the same or in some cases worse than the system they already own. The only audience here are gamers that ONLY bought a Wii last gen. this leads into problem 3.

3.) Nintendo only gamers avoid third party games like the plague. Nintendo has spent several generations making a certain type of game and sprinkling it with mascots to keep their core interested. They don't make games like EA, Activision, Ubi, etc. Sony and to a lesser degree Microsoft have a broader catalogue, so it's not a big jump for a gamer who likes uncharted to get into tomb raider, or God of war to try out castlevania. After several Gens of telling gamers who want those kinds of experiences to go elsewhere, the Nintendo hardcore consists of players who prefer ONLY the kinds of friendly mascot heavy games Nintendo makes and nothing else and these are the people buying the WiiU.

Just to respond to your second point, if a game developer included PS Vita cross controller support or Xbox Smartglass support for his/her game, then there should be no trouble for the tablet controller.

 

[velvet_nitemare]

This is like assuming whores won't fuck you because they want you to die a virgin.

That's not the case - they don't wanna fuck you because you don't got no money.

Beautiful.

 

[Coxy]

3DS

But as shown by the western dev community, they ignored the DS and 3DS, the platform was just begging for a diablo or baldurs gate type game, but no, too much money to make out of that logic. So yea, they mostly ignore all things nintendo, regardless of install base. N64 must have killed their dog.

by that logic Phantasy Star Zero should have sold really well

 

[Orayn]

But this year we saw Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us released, two games that transformed the idea of what video games could be.

You're right, they transformed it for the worse.

 

[DragonSworne]

by that logic Phantasy Star Zero should have sold really well

The audience for that kind of game moved to PSP by the time Phantasy Star Zero came out.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

PS3 sold poorly when was $599, 360 and Wii were kicking it's ass and the cell stuff was really painful at beginning. Third-parties didn't left or considered risky to developer for it. WiiU is alone in the market, PS4/X1 aren't yet release and we don't know how well they'll perform. Why it's risky for Nintendo while wasn't for Sony?

Revisionist history. The PS3 had its fair share of late, terrible, or outright cancelled ports in the first few years. Many of the exclusives that were planned before it even debuted were moved to multiplatform. Activision threatened to pull the plug in spring of 2008, and Gabe Newell called it a train wreck that wasn't worth saving. What changed? Sony dropped the price to $399 and finally started getting some decent sales, for both hw and sw.

 

[Manmademan]

Just to respond to your second point, if a game developer included PS Vita cross controller support or Xbox Smartglass support for his/her game, then there should be no trouble for the tablet controller.

totally different issue. the controller is VERY expensive, and built in. that's 100 dollars or so that should have gone to a better GPU or more RAM, but instead went to a tablet controller no one seems to want.

it's more like Microsoft building in Kinect than vita or smartglass support. Microsoft though can get away with selling a console for $500....or thinks they can. Nintendo was aiming for 349.

 

[AmFreak]

This excuse to not support Wii U because it's "good business" or it's "risky" is totally nonsense. How could Nintendo change this situation if third-parties aren't helping them under the argument that not supporting WiiU is "good business"? This "good business" decision will only negative affect Nintendo but also third-parties who'll fail to build ground for a potential userbase and consequently sales.

They should also make games for the Ouya, cause otherwise they will loose sales.

Remember the PS3? What if third-parties decided that PS3 was "risky" and not supporting them was "good business", could Sony manage to recover it after the $599 flop? Third-parties left the building even after the fiasco? Nope. They kept their support and this was a key reason for Sony to "phoenix down" the PS3. Wii was kicking and Xbox 360 was outselling PS3 by far and no one came with the "risky","it's good business to shaft PS3" talking.

Ya, that's wrong

Your whole point comparing the ps3 and the WiiU doesn't work. The ps3 launch-period wasn't good, but it was far from as bad as the WiiU looks now.
The ps3 never reached the abysmal hardware sales of the WiiU after the launch. The ps3 never had the abysmal software sales of the WiiU. The time seemed to work for the ps3 (most powerful console, no new competition on the horizon) instead it seems to work against the WiiU (to new opponents out in 4 months, with one much more powerful being priced 50$ higher). The typical ps3 buyer was also the one who buys games like CoD, Bioshock, NfS, etc ..., the WiiU buyer - not so much.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

two reasons. well, three.

1.) yes, Sony sold poorly at 599. but nowhere NEAR as poorly as the wiiU. it's a completely different ballgame.

2.) Nintendo put itself into this position by prioritizing a tablet controller to attract casuals over hardware that was on par with next gen. Devs could at least port games from the 360 to PS3, Nintendo requires completely new software built just for them, as they did with the Wii. watch dogs, titanfall, ffxv, etc flat out can't run. PS3 didn't have this problem.

"but it can run last gen Ports from ps3 or 360! why not those?" you ask. good question. the answer here is that those two consoles have already been purchased by 160 million people. NONE of these are going to spend 349 to buy a system that runs games exactly the same or in some cases worse than the system they already own. The only audience here are gamers that ONLY bought a Wii last gen. this leads into problem 3.

3.) Nintendo only gamers avoid third party games like the plague. Nintendo has spent several generations making a certain type of game and sprinkling it with mascots to keep their core interested. They don't make games like EA, Activision, Ubi, etc. Sony and to a lesser degree Microsoft have a broader catalogue, so it's not a big jump for a gamer who likes uncharted to get into tomb raider, or God of war to try out castlevania. After several Gens of telling gamers who want those kinds of experiences to go elsewhere, the Nintendo hardcore consists of players who prefer ONLY the kinds of friendly mascot heavy games Nintendo makes and nothing else and these are the people buying the WiiU.

1) May I add that Sony was selling poorly while had competition already available on the market. 360 and Wii were kicking it's ass and if the "good business" used to not support Wii would be logical, then third-parties would shift support for 360 and Wii because they were selling far better. Yet, they didn't. They kept their support intact for PS3 despite the $599 fiasco.

This "good business", "risky" arguments can be put in check for such reasons above.

2) What you mean can't run? Watch Dogs is coming for Wii U, as long as other big third-party games if you don't know and so far, Wii U exclusivenesses for this late year are being very core directed, unlike Wii, which were far more casual. What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

The second bold, true, I agree. That's why Wii U needs to price drop the machine and what you said will work for PS4/X1. Do you believe PS3/360 will buy them for games they can play on a system they already have? No, they won't.

3) This I wholeheartedly agree and a reason for why I constantly advocate for Nintendo's change of direction and consequently removal of Iwata, Takeda and Miyamoto from their executive jobs. Nintendo does need to diversify their audience and they're being very conservative with their current direction.

They should also make games for the Ouya, cause otherwise they will loose sales.



Ya, that's wrong

Your whole point comparing the ps3 and the WiiU doesn't work. The ps3 launch-period wasn't good, but it was far from as bad as the WiiU looks now.
The ps3 never reached the abysmal hardware sales of the WiiU after the launch. The ps3 never had the abysmal software sales of the WiiU. The time seemed to work for the ps3 (most powerful console, no new competition on the horizon) instead it seems to work against the WiiU (to new opponents out in 4 months, with one much more powerful being priced 50$ higher). The typical ps3 buyer was also the one who buys games like CoD, Bioshock, NfS, etc ..., the WiiU buyer - not so much.

You made an omission. Wii U is alone in the market, no next-gen competition yet released and they can have a price drop advantage by this year end. If they had piss poor sales and taking a beat from X1 and PS4 in sales if they were released, then yes, WiiU would be undoubtedly a failure.

Those graphs just indicates Xbox 360 had a significant lead over the PS3 and Wii was kicking it's ass. Yes, PS3 sold better than WiiU now but was selling less than the competition and Xbox 360 had a bigger userbase at the time. If these "good business", "risky" arguments are logical, then they should shaft PS3 and support 360, this didn't happened. This is why third-parties's decision to shaft WiiU while they gave significant amount of support for PS3 even under a negative situation can be questioned.

Revisionist history. The PS3 had its fair share of late, terrible, or outright cancelled ports in the first few years. Many of the exclusives that were planned before it even debuted were moved to multiplatform. Activision threatened to pull the plug in spring of 2008, and Gabe Newell called it a train wreck that wasn't worth saving. What changed? Sony dropped the price to $399 and finally started getting some decent sales, for both hw and sw.

Yep. That's likely what's gonna happen when Nintendo price drop the WiiU and the games arrives.

 

[RurouniZel]

3.) Nintendo only gamers avoid third party games like the plague. Nintendo has spent several generations making a certain type of game and sprinkling it with mascots to keep their core interested. They don't make games like EA, Activision, Ubi, etc. Sony and to a lesser degree Microsoft have a broader catalogue, so it's not a big jump for a gamer who likes uncharted to get into tomb raider, or God of war to try out castlevania. After several Gens of telling gamers who want those kinds of experiences to go elsewhere, the Nintendo hardcore consists of players who prefer ONLY the kinds of friendly mascot heavy games Nintendo makes and nothing else and these are the people buying the WiiU.

I would add to that with "Nintendo gamers don't like late as hell 3rd party left-overs". I mean, when good 3rd party games like MonHun come out people like me are all over that.

But while I agree that Nintendo gamers ignore many 3rd party games, 3rd parties trained them to be that way so it's their job to win those gamers good graces again if they want their money. However 3rd parties have decided Nintendo gamers aren't worth their time and effort and have all but closed off that door and have no intentions of revisiting it.

 

[Sami+]

Say you're a publisher, okay? You want to make an awesome, big budget blockbuster that'll make you millions of dollars. The PS4 and Xbox One both run on x84 architecture, so the two of them are very similar spec-wise, and both basically function as customized, suped-up PCs. What this means is that when you make your game, you can build it on PC, then very easily port it to PS4 and Xbox. Your game has now been released on three platforms, and owners of all three of these very marketable platforms have access to your game.

... Then there's Nintendo. You could try to port your game, but that'll be complicated. Lots of tweaking and testing will be involved, you'll have to downgrade a lot of things, and in general it'll just take a lot of money and effort to do the job. To what gain? ... Almost none, actually. Third parties, historically, do very poorly on Nintendo hardware. Generally, die-hard Nintendo fans buy their systems for the exclusives alone, and anyone who owns more than a Wii U will obviously buy the better version on another console.

Potential for sales? Low. Effort to port? High.

Why bother? It's a business, not a charity. And it's Nintendo's own fault for being the special snowflake again (CARTRIDGES WOOHOO TINY DISCS LESS SPACE YAY MOTION SHITTY SPECS WOOOOOO).

 

[sometimes i game]

I personally couldn't fathom why any dev/pub wouldn't want a console that costs less to develop for succeed.

The reality is sales numbers, online community, and other very real deterrents.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The WiiU phased itself out, it has nothing to do with developers. It's not selling and has no online gaming community, what do you expect to happen? And when the next gen consoles come out its chances of getting ports will drop further.

 

[mantidor]

The power issue I mentioned was about is mostly about 3rd party issues. If Nintendo had similar specs for the Wii U, EA wouldn't be complaining about how Frostbite 3 isn't compatible with the system, or how 4A Games can successfully complete a port of Metro Last Light (Metro 2033 was known to be a PC killer.) without trouble from the CPU. There would have been more games and system sellers to add to the console's library.

If the WiiU had Wii levels of sales frosbite would had already been ported, there little to no doubt about it.

When these engines get mobile versions, you know power isn't the issue.

 

[xValentine]

You're right, they transformed it for the worse.

Or you probably haven't played both.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

"slightly" less than next gen capabilities

 

[SmokedMeat]

In it's first years? Not really. Madden 07 and COD 3 on Wii outsold the PS3 version, for example.

How could they not when a $250 red hot Wii was competing with a $600 PS3 that was languishing on store shelves?

 

[mrklaw]

no, I don't think so. Assuming PS3 and 360 continue to get support from third parties for the next couple of years, it would be relatively easy to add a WiiU version to ports of multiplatform titles - whether that be up-ports of PS3/360 versions, or down-ports of Xbox one/PS4 titles.

It just isn't selling enough to bother.

 

[Manmademan]

1) May I add that Sony was selling poorly while had competition already available on the market. 360 and Wii were kicking it's ass and if the "good business" used to not support Wii would be logical, then third-parties would shift support for 360 and Wii because they were selling far better. Yet, they didn't. They kept their support intact for PS3 despite the $599 fiasco.

bear with me, I'm responding by phone and it's a pain.

Sony did lose support. exclusives in the works turned into multi platform titles, and the 360 ended up as lead platform a lot more often.

however, the ps3 still had sales that justified releasing Ports of titles built with the 360 in mind.
Grand Theft Auto IV and bayonetta could still run with few compromises. Sony wasn't asking for totally different engines to be built for it. The overall investment for third parties to support it is much lower.

2) What you mean can't run? Watch Dogs is coming for Wii U, as long as other big third-party games if you don't know and so far, Wii U exclusivenesses for this late year are being very core directed, unlike Wii, which were far more casual. What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

my mistake. forgot that one was cross gen. I was speaking more in terms of titles built for next gen specifically.Most people lining up to buy ps4s for 400 right now aren't doing so to play cross gen games at slightly better resolutions. Those games will be a nice bonus alongside Drive club, Killzone, infamous SS, but they aren't selling systems. I expect the vast majority to just buy them on the system they already own.

As for price drops, Nintendo is screwed there. The tablet keeps them from doing so easily, and there are not one but two consoles with equivalent performance that will always be cheaper. If Nintendo dropped to 300, the ps3 or 360 can simply drop lower to $150 or $200, and Nintendo gains nothing. They can't price drop their way ahead of last gen, and can't perform on the level of next gen to justify cost. as it is, they're only 50 dollars cheaper than a ps4, which is really hard to justify.

 

[Angel Whispers]

Nintendo will price drop the machine, no doubt about it. Also, the lower price can be an advantage if Nintendo isn't stupid and don't advertise the hell of out of it. If they make a 100$ price drop, they'll have a $150 gap over the PS4, that's something. This fall's line up has some good titles too.



In it's first years? Not really. Madden 07 and COD 3 on Wii outsold the PS3 version, for example.

It's actually quite misleading to say that the PS4 is $50 more than the Deluxe Model ($349), because it's at least $100 more. As far as we know, that $399 doesn't include a game ($60), or a second control (perhaps $60 again). I don't know how much the New Eye Toy costs. But even if one leaves everything but a game out, it's still over $100 more than a Deluxe Wii U, which includes a game, and still, offers backwards compatibility with Wii games and peripherals and zero concerns over used games, etc.. Also, Nintendo don't charge you for playing online. That is why I would argue that they would do well to hold their nerve with regard to a price drop - the price must reflect the fact that it's far more powerful than the PS360 consoles, and it still offers by some distance the lowest point of entry to ownership of all the 8th Gen ones. I do, however, feel that instead, we could see more in the way of bundles - So, it could be a Super Mario 3D World or Wii Fit U bundle, or, to take other parties, a Sega (Sonic&ASRT and Lost World) or Disney bundle (Infinity and Planes) - there are lots of other possibilities for that. Its primary problems are perception and the lack of exclusives and retail games which aren't ports - If customers feel they can get the ports elsewhere, and often cheaper, then they don't have the incentive to bite on a new console. That's understandable. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be interested once other games are out for it, and it doesn't at all mean that the product is bad - it isn't, no matter how much some people want it to be. There are signs of these issues being addressed, and once they have played more of their cards, then customers will have sufficient reasons to bite.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I personally couldn't fathom why any dev/pub wouldn't want a console that costs less to develop for succeed.

The reality is sales numbers, online community, and other very real deterrents.

Yeah, publicly traded companies like EA aren't ignoring the WiiU out of spite, it's just horrible business right now. EA went from releasing 78 games on the wii to 4 on the WiiU with no further development planned, that's on Nintendo.

 

[KageMaru]

This excuse to not support Wii U because it's "good business" or it's "risky" is totally nonsense. How could Nintendo change this situation if third-parties aren't helping them under the argument that not supporting WiiU is "good business"? This "good business" decision will only negative affect Nintendo but also third-parties who'll fail to build ground for a potential userbase and consequently sales. Everyone's talking like WiiU's already dead and can't stand a chance to recover itself. Remember, they can still drop the price (which will give an upper hand against PS4/X1) and their fall line-up is coming.

I really don't get why some believe WiiU can make a comeback without third-party supporting it, unless they're fanboys or anti-Nintendo biased people posing themselves are pseudo-analysts and bringing arguments which will obvious negative for Nintendo. Nintendo games alone won't change the situation and won't make WiiU to become a groundbreaking success all of a sudden and they need third-party support to fill the gap on their schedule. Remember the PS3? What if third-parties decided that PS3 was "risky" and not supporting them was "good business", could Sony manage to recover it after the $599 flop? Third-parties left the building even after the fiasco? Nope. They kept their support and this was a key reason for Sony to "phoenix down" the PS3. Wii was kicking and Xbox 360 was outselling PS3 by far and no one came with the "risky", "it's good business to shaft PS3" talking. The only way for WiiU to make a comeback it's to get as many third-party games as they can. I do agree some of them are in the "lol Nintendo" team and the piss-poor sales of third-party games and hardware was the cover up story they needed to justify an already planned shafting of WiiU.

But really, this "good business" and "risky" excuses needs to stop, unless these people who defends this ideas wants WiiU to fail, and will, if everyone support this.

The risk reason is not nonsense, it's the truth. Otherwise publishers wouldn't be ignoring the platform left and right.

As for why didn't Sony experience these issues during the early PS3 days, that's easy. The ps1 and ps2 were monsters in the market. For the publishers back in 2004-2005, it was easy to assume that Sony would enjoy a good amount of success with the PS3, so at that point they already made the decision to support and develop on the platform. I don't think many publishers expected a $599 price tag, unfinished online infrastructure, and lower sales during the first year of the system being on the market. If you recall correctly, there were quite a few games originally thought to be PS3 exclusives but were then switched to multi-platform titles on both the PS3 and 360.

These publishers were never going to drop the PS3 after investing so much money into development already. They made their beds, so now they had to sleep in it. Same reason why they continued to support and lead on the PS2 after the - easier to develop for - GameCube and Xbox arrived. They already invested millions into development and wanted to take advantage of that investment in future titles. It's different now where many publishers didn't really bet on the Wii-U, instead they invested some and played the wait and see game. The investments clearly didn't turn out to be profitable, so future plans are reassessed and it looks like the Wii-U lost out on these plans.

 

[Reuenthal]

Consumers are 'phasing out' Wii U. Especially when it comes to third party software.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Sony did lose support. exclusives in the works turned into multi platform titles, and the 360 ended up as lead platform a lot more often.

It was nowhere as near as what's happening with WiiU. Third-parties are totally shafting it and some even laugh at the possibility to work on it.

As for price drops, Nintendo is screwed there. The tablet keeps them from doing so easily, and there are not one but two consoles with equivalent performance that will always be cheaper. If Nintendo dropped to 300, the ps3 or 360 can simply drop lower to $150 or $200, and Nintendo gains nothing. They can't price drop their way ahead of last gen, and can't perform on the level of next gen to justify cost. as it is, they're only 50 dollars cheaper than a ps4, which is really hard to justify.

Disagree. Wii was similar in performance to the PS2 and... they bought it, right? Sure, a price drop will hurt Nintendo financials, but if they want to boost WiiU, there's no other choice now. Which is funny, because some Nintendo fanboys praise how much money they have on the bank thanks to the DS/Wii success, it's time to make use of that money.

These publishers were never going to drop the PS3 after investing so much money into development already. They made their beds, so now they had to sleep in it.

In a short: definition of self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[DragonSworne]

Yeah, publicly traded companies like EA aren't ignoring the WiiU out of spite, it's just horrible business right now. EA went from releasing 78 games on the wii to 4 on the WiiU with no further development planned, that's on Nintendo.

I have to imagine Reggie's lack of understanding of the hardcore marker attributed to the awful titles third parties launched on Wii U.

Reggie must of went "wow, look at all these high selling franchises, Wii U is going to be a hit!" When he saw titles like "Darksiders", "Batman: Arkam City", "Mass Effect" and "Assassin's Creed" for launch.

He didn't associate those games as being old, stale, and quick cash-ins like the rest of the gaming world. He associated them with huge blockbuster sales and thus a quality lineup.

If only Reggie understood the hardcore market more, we would have gotten less "not the same game, not the same content" and more "have you seen titanfall?".

 

[roddur]

yes

 

[AppleSmack]

I think developers simply have given up on the console because they believe that the people who bought the system enjoy nothing but Nintendo-like games and 3rd parties don't seem to think that they can make a game that the Nintendo crowd likes and would buy over a similar Nintendo product. They are fighting an uphill battle. The rated M 3rd party games simply don't do well because the PS4/Xbone version will always be much better. The latter is Nintendo's fault for picking gimmick over power as the core selling feature of the system.

 

[KageMaru]

Disagree. Wii was similar in performance to the PS2 and... they bought it, right? Sure, a price drop will hurt Nintendo financials, but if they want to boost WiiU, there's no other choice now. Which is funny, because some Nintendo fanboys praise how much money they have on the bank thanks to the DS/Wii success, it's time to make use of that money.

They got a Wii, even with similar performance to the ps2, because many people were attracted to the potential that motion gaming could bring. There really wasn't anything like the Wii when it launched and that unique selling point quickly spread through word of mouth and great advertising.

The same cannot be said about the Wii-U which offers a touch screen. Hardly as unique now as the Wii was in 2006.

In a short: definition of self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's not this at all. When publishers know three new systems are coming up, they have to make the [sometimes] hard decision on where to put their investments. Considering everything that has happened with the Wii-U in the past year, and how much more excitement is surrounding the PS4 and even Xbone at this point, don't you think these publishers made the smart decision to put more investment in the Xbone/PS4 than the Wii-U?

Same can be said at the dawn of this generation. Sony enjoyed dominance of the game industry for two generations in a row, so it was only smart to invest early on the PS3. NO ONE saw the success of the Wii coming.

I have to imagine Reggie's lack of understanding of the hardcore marker attributed to the awful titles third parties launched on Wii U.

If this is even remotely true, he should be in the position he's in.

 

[Raist]

Point being that it took time to get to that point. The uptake was a lot lot slower this time around and while Sony and MS were losing money and PS3 sales at the time being seen as a disappointment for a while Nintendo were seeing huge growth and making the video game industry more attractive then it actually was.

See, I'm not even sure about this.
Nevertheless, Nintendo didn't help anything but themselves. They didn't expand the market in any stable, longstanding way. It's pretty damn clear by now.
And the "industry collapse" everyone has been talking about for the past couple of years is almost entirely due to one thing: Nintendo's collapse (Wii sales abruptly dieing and WiiU crashing out of the gate).

 

[casmith07]

I honestly think that some devs are in that boat.

Even if Nintendo made a console that had the exact same hardware, connectivity and input devices as Sony and/or MS at the same or better price point, had the same development rules/fee and royalty structure as Sony and/or MS, and had a similarly comprehensively documented development environment, I am sure many third parties would come up with many of the same reasons to not put their titles on Nintendo's consoles.

They'd say "the market wasn't there" or "the demographics aren't right" or "we didn't think we wanted to produce something that wasn't unique for the Nintendo experience" or something like that. It would imagine it makes good business sense, too - on a Nintendo, that $60 that you might buy Need for Speed with has to compete with some big-deal Nintendo titles, and it has to do so indefinitely since those titles are evergreen...so even if the titles have visual, feature, development and marketing parity with other versions of the same game, they might still sell less on the Nintendo platform.

You're operating under the assumption that all else would still be equal given those changes, which is disingenuous.

With all of those changes the installed base and Nintendo's entire philosophy would be different. The result would be better relationships with third party devs and publishers and increased probability of higher profits for those same devs/publishers.

 

[Turok_TTZ]

I swear I have seen this thread before.

and no.

 

[casmith07]

Consumers are 'phasing out' Wii U. Especially when it comes to third party software.

Pretty much exactly what's happening in a nutshell.

There is nothing compelling about the Wii U to entice consumers on a scale that would end up making projects lucrative on the platform for 3rd parties.

But we can beat this into the ground day in and day out - sales figures of the PS4 and Xbone will bear it out.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

They got a Wii, even with similar performance to the ps2, because many people were attracted to the potential that motion gaming could bring. There really wasn't anything like the Wii when it launched and that unique selling point quickly spread through word of mouth and great advertising.

The same cannot be said about the Wii-U which offers a touch screen. Hardly as unique now as the Wii was in 2006.

Sure, WiiU hardly will achieve Wii's numbers, not even close, realistically saying, but they can improve it.

WiiU has many issues. Terrible marketing, overpricing, bad current library, name confusion (some believe WiiU is a Wii revision rather than a brand new system) and doubts about it's hardware power. Nintendo can help to change some of these issues if they move quickly.

 

[KageMaru]

See, I'm not even sure about this.
Nevertheless, Nintendo didn't help anything but themselves. They didn't expand the market in any stable, longstanding way. It's pretty damn clear by now.
And the "industry collapse" everyone has been talking about for the past couple of years is almost entirely due to one thing: Nintendo's collapse (Wii sales abruptly dieing and WiiU crashing out of the gate).

I think it can be pointed to both the collapse of the Wii and music game markets actually, but you make a good point.

 

[AmFreak]

1) May I add that Sony was selling poorly while had competition already available on the market. 360 and Wii were kicking it's ass and if the "good business" used to not support Wii would be logical, then third-parties would shift support for 360 and Wii because they were selling far better. Yet, they didn't. They kept their support intact for PS3 despite the $599 fiasco.

I like that you write this shit again and in the same post quoting charts that show that this isn't true ...

You made an omission. Wii U is alone in the market, no next-gen competition yet released and they can have a price drop advantage by this year end. If they had piss poor sales and taking a beat from X1 and PS4 in sales if they were released, then yes, WiiU would be undoubtedly a failure.

No it isn't. There are other far better alternatives for publishers.

Those graphs just indicates Xbox 360 had a significant lead over the PS3 and Wii was kicking it's ass. Yes, PS3 sold better than WiiU now but was selling less than the competition and Xbox 360 had a bigger userbase at the time. If these "good business", "risky" arguments are logical, then they should shaft PS3 and support 360, this didn't happened. This is why third-parties's decision to shaft WiiU while they gave significant amount of support for PS3 even under a negative situation can be questioned.

No it's not logical. I already wrote why not. Developers could make money on the ps3 from day one, who made money on the WiiU?

 

[Sami+]

Actually, how easy is Nintendo to work with nowadays, anyway? I have to imagine their image of being arrogant fucks who outright bullied third parties ended with the death of the N64, but are there any other reasons now why everyone hesitates apart from it being financially risky?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Actually, how easy is Nintendo to work with nowadays, anyway? I have to imagine their image of being arrogant fucks who outright bullied third parties ended with the death of the N64, but are there any other reasons now why everyone hesitates apart from it being financially risky?

Avalanche mentioned that they had difficulties getting into contact with them until they started working with another publisher (i'd guess WB). Nintendo seems to be making a real effort with indies, but their relationships with the biggest developers still seems to be questionable.

 

[Arc Christelle]

Rightfully, if it is so. Nintendo is the biggest of the few companies that keep video games from becoming truly mature. If we ever want video games to grow, we should let Nintendo and their franchises go. Their continuing influence on gaming makes being a video game fan a struggle and makes it impossible for the industry to become something more than it is right now, something it should be.

It used to be okay when it was 1980s and no one cared that most games were for children.
But this year we saw Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us released, two games that transformed the idea of what video games could be. We see more and more of those kinds of games, but their efforts are nullified by companies like Nintendo, who just go on and release another Mario game as if it is still 1980s, without innovating in anything that matters, like storytelling and graphics. Video games will be accepted by everyone only if they become more movie-like.

This is like assuming whores won't fuck you because they want you to die a virgin.

That's not the case - they don't wanna fuck you because you don't got no money.

Oh... my sides..... GAF.... I can't breathe.... I can't......good bye GAF....... lol

 

[kuroshiki]

Sure, WiiU hardly will achieve Wii's numbers, not even close, realistically saying, but they can improve it.

WiiU has many issues. Terrible marketing, overpricing, bad current library, name confusion (some believe WiiU is a Wii revision rather than a brand new system) and doubts about it's hardware power. Nintendo can help to change some of these issues if they move quickly.

They don't have time. They really don't.

Next gen will arrive here within 4 months. After that, nintendo is facing nothing BUT huge uphill battle. People who think MK8 and Zelda can save the system, let alone put console into lead position in upcoming generation, I expect, will have some nasty eye-opening surprise.

 

[Amory]

Nintendo was always going to have to bring the first party games to make people buy into the Wii U, and they didn't. At least not fast enough.

They essentially did nothing with their year's head start and I guess hoped the Wii name would be enough to move hardware. Now consumers are saving their money for the XB1 and PS4 which are launching with more games that people want to play than the Wii U has after a year on shelves.

And the damn thing is still $350! You have to be kidding me!

 

[Holy Order Sol]

Rightfully, if it is so. Nintendo is the biggest of the few companies that keep video games from becoming truly mature. If we ever want video games to grow, we should let Nintendo and their franchises go. Their continuing influence on gaming makes being a video game fan a struggle and makes it impossible for the industry to become something more than it is right now, something it should be.

the fuck is this shit