Support NeoGAF

[Log4Girlz]

Same thing has been said for Nintendo consoles for years and I'm still not sure what it means.

Its simple really. Developers want machines designed for them. Nintendo does not design their consoles for developers.

From generation to generation developers have a path they follow towards ever more sophisticated game engines and game designs. This necessitates a certain level of performance increase. Developers expect and at times demand consoles to deliver on certain performance metrics from a hardware manufacturer.

In the 32/64 bit age optical media was the future. It allowed larger assets to be stored AND far cheaper prices for publishers having to buy the storage mediums.

Nintendo gave a big middle finger to developers by sticking with very pricey carts

In the 6th generation again, advances in optical storage allowed for larger storage capacity for ever more sophisticated games.

Nintendo gave developers a big middle finger by creating an odd, proprietary optical medium far smaller than a DVD's 4.7GB at the time

Now, each one of these generations saw huge increases in computational ability. Nintendo at the time was keeping up with the Jones'.

In the 7th generation, DVD capacity was enough and like usual there was an expectation of a huge leap in computational ability.

Nintendo gave developers a middle finger by creating an overclocked gamecube. This took the world by storm though and caught developers off guard. But it was still a hassle as it necessitated custom development as their efforts were geared more towards the 360/PS3 in terms of power.

In the 8th generation Blu-Ray tech how now become necessary and all three manufacturers have offered this level of storage capacity. But the computational leap expected by developers is once again not being provided by Nintendo. They don't want to deal with custom porting or content creation. the Wii U is underpowered compared to the Xbone and PS4. They are skipping it and don't give a shit.

Each generation there's always been notable third parties giving Nintendo the finger right back and not developing on their system. Well, it seems now just about everyone is joining in.

 

[bart64]

How can developers be blamed at this point when Nintendo made the same mistake they've been doing since the N64? Making hardware that excludes third parties.

This point always bothers me. Nintendo's hardware is the best thing that happened to videogames, and has grown the industry despite huge software and entertainment companies almost cannibalizing it with every generation. Without Nintendo hardware there would be no profits in videogames, no incentive for innovation unless to capture an audience for a complimentary product.

Videogames aren't supposed to be about best graphics and story. They were just fine in the 8-bit era, even more so if you value imagination. Don't let a stereo maker and shitty OS monopoly hijack this industry and run it into the ground.

You loved Nintendo games as a kid because they were great games--don't let a marketer's clever adaptation of words like "mature" and "cinematic" fool you into buying mindless shit.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

This point always bothers me. Nintendo's hardware is the best thing that happened to videogames, and has grown the industry despite huge software and entertainment companies almost cannibalizing it with every generation. Without Nintendo hardware there would be no profits in videogames, no incentive for innovation unless to capture an audience for a complimentary product.

Videogames aren't supposed to be about best graphics and story. They were just fine in the 8-bit era, even more so if you value imagination. Don't let a stereo maker and shitty OS monopoly hijack this industry and run it into the ground.

You loved Nintendo games as a kid because they were great games--don't let a marketer's clever adaptation of words like "mature" and "cinematic" fool you into buying mindless shit.

No, I didn't. I liked third party games on the NES and SNES more than what Nintendo was offering.

And I liked, and still like, Sonic 1 and 2 waaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than any Nintendo game I've ever played.

 

[JordanN]

This point always bothers me. Nintendo's hardware is the best thing that happened to videogames, and has grown the industry despite huge software and entertainment companies almost cannibalizing it with every generation. Without Nintendo hardware there would be no profits in videogames, no incentive for innovation unless to capture an audience for a complimentary product.

Videogames aren't supposed to be about best graphics and story. They were just fine in the 8-bit era, even more so if you value imagination. Don't let a stereo maker and shitty OS monopoly hijack this industry and run it into the ground.

You loved Nintendo games as a kid because they were great games--don't let a marketer's clever adaptation of words like "mature" and "cinematic" fool you into buying mindless shit.

I'm not sure what this post has to do with what I said.

I'm just saying Nintendo's decision to make their hardware as exclusionary to third parties, has consequences.

 

[NewGame]

You still make no sense.

Sure he does,

You see back in the 80s he was a kid and the whole world was designed specifically for him and his needs and that perception has carried on to 2010 in which he got to play Last Of Us and suddenly decided 'wow, the industry changed for me and my demographic!' with swearing, violence, grit and angst.

 

[The Hermit]

Well they certainly aren't not developing for it on accident so...

 

[borghe]

They don't want to deal with custom porting or content creation. the Wii U is underpowered compared to the Xbone and PS4. They are skipping it and don't give a shit.

And here's where your entire point falls apart.

Devs didn't want to deal with cartridges because it was a hassle. But while the install base was there and buying 200K copies of Madden 64, they dealt with it for the money.

It was a hassle dealing with 2GB of data on the GOD, but as long as Sega, Capcom, and EA games were selling on it and it was selling consoles, they put up with it.

Wii same story. DS same story before it became a phenomenon. 3DS same story before it picked up.

Wii U, if the sales on it turn around (which there is truly no reason to think one way or the other at this second despite the doom and gloom and circle jerk posts. It's been out for 8 months.) 3rd parties will output for it.. Even if it is EA/Activision throw away trash.

Devs avoid places they can't make money. Likewise they gravitate towards places they can make money. Your assessment of how much power or the quality of what they can do is meaningless. If/when they can make money on it, they will start supporting it. Trying to explain it any other way than that pretty much requires icompletely gnoring how the fucking industry works.

There are many reasons it's failing, and many places they can look to fix. Look at Japan.. They actually started advertising the thing and sales have gone up like 20% two weeks in a row. We'll see what Pikmin 3 does as well. I'm not saying it will hit playstation or Xbox numbers, but again... That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about making money.. And devs release shit iPhone apps for 99¢ just to make some. Certainly if they can shit out a $60 game and make a little bit more, not being as powerful as systems not even out surely isn't going to be a trivial fact that sands in their way.

Your impression and feelings of the system are hardly what drives EA and Activision decision making. Your assessment of industry workings is hilariously flawed.

 

[Log4Girlz]

And here's where your entire point falls apart.

Devs didn't want to deal with cartridges because it was a hassle. But while the install base was there and buying 200K copies of Madden 64, they dealt with it for the money.

It was a hassle dealing with 2GB of data on the GOD, but as long as Sega, Capcom, and EA games were selling on it and it was selling consoles, they put up with it.

Wii same story. DS same story before it became a phenomenon. 3DS same story before it picked up.

Wii U, if the sales on it turn around (which there is truly no reason to think one way or the other at this second despite the doom and gloom and circle jerk posts. It's been out for 8 months.) 3rd parties will output for it.. Even if it is EA/Activision throw away trash.

Devs avoid places they can't make money. Likewise they gravitate towards places they can make money. Your assessment of how much power or the quality of what they can do is meaningless. If/when they can make money on it, they will start supporting it. Trying to explain it any other way than that pretty much requires icompletely gnoring how the fucking industry works.

Wii U is struggling to get anything partially due to its weak nature. If it was closer in power to say, PS4/XB1, it would be in line with next-gen game development and see more support. It could have generated far more hype and sold more units if handled correctly in that scenario.

If it had stuck to the Wii-motes and used the money saved to put in a dramatically more powerful CPU, GPU and more RAM for the same BOM and had designed a console that looked different from its predecessor it would have sold far better, gotten more support...it would have been a positive feedback loop.

 

[borghe]

Wii U is struggling to get anything partially due to its weak nature. If it was closer in power to say, PS4/XB1, it would be in line with next-gen game development and see more support. It could have generated far more hype and sold more units if handled correctly in that scenario.

The fact that it hasn't sold a 3rd party game in excess of 150K units has 10,000 times more significance to lack of support than your insistent lack of power. I guarantee had ZombiU sold 2M units 3rd parties would be flocking to the system left and right. The fact that it didn't (nor did any title) is much much more a marketing and perception problem than the public saying "lulz no powerz". The fact that Nintendo itself has published very few games, and zero system sellers. The fact that the system has been marketed confusingly. The fact that the past 4-6 months the software on the shelf is the same software for PS3 and 360 but two to three times more expensive (Lego Batman, Darksiders 2, TTT2, Mass Effect 3, and the list can really go on). The fact that at stores there are practically no kiosks where you can actually use and play the systems. Most you just use the Gamepade like a tablet to view game info and movies.

I mean I could keep going on forever. System power is like issue number 37 on a list of 50 things wrong with the system that need fixing. Placing it any higher than that really misses all of the other much more important issues that need fixing first. I guarantee you.. If they fix even half of the more pressing issues they currently have, sales will go up and 3rd parties will still increase output despite your all important architecture power claims. Like I already said.. Two weeks of actual advertising in Japan and the system has seen 20% WoW increases two weeks in a row. Without any software. Whodda thunk it.. And now this week it actually HAS software coming.

Bitching about lack of power can be a real thing if/when they fix the other more pressing issues. Until then it's like complaining about the small engine in your car that currently has no wheels and is submerged underwater.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The fact that it hasn't sold a 3rd party game in excess of 150K units has 10,000 times more significance to lack of support than your insistent lack of power..

The power of the system is a result of a philosophy that has failed to excite anyone, gamers or developers.

The low third party sales IMO is linked to the "type" of machine Nintendo put out. Another low-power, gimmick centered device vs. a system designed to excite the young male demographic which is impressed by graphics and not gimmicks. I understand how and why Nintendo was trying to replicate the success of the Wii, but they failed and was predictable to many.

If they had a more powerful system designed to impress this demographic, third parties would have supported it with more software early on, it would have sold much better than it is currently and there would be far more hype for the system.

Nintendo absolutely destroyed any hype for this system.

 

[shinra-bansho]

There is no ridiculous conspiracy.

The average LTD sales for 3rd party games in the US is ~40K, based on revenue figures.

People who keep crying "but but but PS3 was failing" should realise it was 1) selling better, selling software better (based on tie ratios it had sold ~0.5 million+ more units of software in the equivalent period) and selling third party software better, 2) had an obvious albatross around its neck in the $599 price tag that would be alleviated over time, and 3) was in a very different position development wise as an actual generational leap in hardware alongside the 360, with a lot of investment in HD development having been made.

These were the best selling games in the US after 3 months on the market, bolded third parties.
Resistance (Sony Computer Entertainment) - 440K
Madden NFL 07 (Electronic Arts) - 264K
Call of Duty 3 (Activision) - 164K
Need for Speed: Carbon (Electronic Arts) - 147K
Fight Night Round 3 (Electronic Arts) - 121K
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 (Activision) - 120K

After 7 months on the market the best selling title on the Wii U is NSMBU, the second best is Lego City at 150K and also published by Nintendo.

That is why you did not see an exodus of development.

 

[Starphoenix]

Can we stop with the conspiracy theories? It's called Nintendo fumbled by releasing their console too soon with few games and did not market their product correctly -- which even then would have been the same for either company since the Wii U concept is best understood hands on. There's no mystery here. No install base = no support right now. Let's come back to this discussion after this year.

 

[Metallix87]

Can we stop with the conspiracy theories? It's called Nintendo fumbled by releasing their console too soon with few games and did not market their product correctly -- which even then would have been the same for either company since the Wii U concept is best understood hands on. There's no mystery here. No install base = no support right now. Let's come back to this discussion after this year.

The example of the PS3 is still relevant, though.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

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 sentiment DISGUSTS me. Welcome to my ignore corner.

 

[royalan]

The example of the PS3 is still relevant, though.

No it's not. At all.

The PS3 was NEVER selling as poorly as the Wii U. Nor was it ever in any danger of a mass exodus of 3rd party support, because even in its worst moments it "Playstation" remained a proven platform where devs could make money selling the kinds of games they specialized in.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The example of the PS3 is still relevant, though.

It's not. People need to stop pretending it is.

• The PS3 at its worst was selling 2.5x what the Wii U is selling at a hardware level, despite a competing high end system in the 360, despite a strongly competing low end mass market system in the Wii, and despite a $599 price point.
• The PS3 was selling more software, and more third party software, despite the high cost of entry.
• The PS3 had an obvious rate limiting step in its price point being absurd, an addressable concern; the Wii U is not exorbitantly priced.
• The PS3 came off a still popular PS2, that hadn't been left to languish for years.
• The PS3 came off the back of a system that had provided a haven for 3rd party software sales to their traditional 16-35 male demographics. Sony have spent two decades cultivating such an audience on their platforms.
• The PS3 was sold on a traditional transition selling point - hardware power - it had a tangible incentive for upgrade. The Wii U does not have this, as the tablet is not resonating with the marketplace.
• Publishers had invested heavily in HD development, not just PS3 development, and needed the PS3 to recover to provide a larger addressable audience than the 360 would alone; the Wii U is not proving to provide any substantial increase in addressable audience for the types of games that publishers like Bethesda make.

 

[xValentine]

It's not. People need to stop pretending it is.

• The PS3 at its worst was selling 2.5x what the Wii U is selling at a hardware level, despite a competing high end system in the 360, despite a strongly competing low end mass market system in the Wii, and despite a $599 price point.
• The PS3 was selling more software, and more third party software, despite the high cost of entry.
• The PS3 had an obvious rate limiting step in its price point being absurd, an addressable concern; the Wii U is not exorbitantly priced.
• The PS3 came off a still popular PS2, that hadn't been left to languish for years.
• The PS3 came off the back of a system that had provided a haven for 3rd party software sales to their traditional 16-35 male demographics. Sony have spent two decades cultivating such an audience on their platforms.
• The PS3 was sold on a traditional transition selling point - hardware power - it had a tangible incentive for upgrade. The Wii U does not have this, as the tablet is not resonating with the marketplace.
• Publishers had invested heavily in HD development, not just PS3 development, and needed the PS3 to recover to provide a larger addressable audience than the 360 would alone; the Wii U is not proving to provide any substantial increase in addressable audience for the types of games that publishers like Bethesda make.

This.

Some people here are delusional thinking that the WiiU is like the PS3 on it's first year.

 

[StevieP]

The power of the system is a result of a philosophy that has failed to excite anyone, gamers or developers.

The low third party sales IMO is linked to the "type" of machine Nintendo put out. Another low-power, gimmick centered device vs. a system designed to excite the young male demographic which is impressed by graphics and not gimmicks. I understand how and why Nintendo was trying to replicate the success of the Wii, but they failed and was predictable to many.

If they had a more powerful system designed to impress this demographic, third parties would have supported it with more software early on, it would have sold much better than it is currently and there would be far more hype for the system.

Nintendo absolutely destroyed any hype for this system.

Power has almost nothing to do with it. It's at the bottom of the list. I mean... Where are the massive amounts of ps360 software? It's not getting ported and it has zero to do with power. Witcher is on which platforms again?

Also, the ps3 was the name of developers' existence at the beginning of the generation. It still received support. Take that as you will.

 

[jrDev]

I still don't understand why simple stuff like plant vs. zombies isn't on the Nintendo eShop.

Err...

 

[Darmik]

The power of the system is a result of a philosophy that has failed to excite anyone, gamers or developers.

The low third party sales IMO is linked to the "type" of machine Nintendo put out. Another low-power, gimmick centered device vs. a system designed to excite the young male demographic which is impressed by graphics and not gimmicks. I understand how and why Nintendo was trying to replicate the success of the Wii, but they failed and was predictable to many.

If they had a more powerful system designed to impress this demographic, third parties would have supported it with more software early on, it would have sold much better than it is currently and there would be far more hype for the system.

Nintendo absolutely destroyed any hype for this system.

I just don't see the point of every console being tailored for the AAA blockbuster demographic. Nintendo should have made the console easier to develop for, they should be more aggressive with getting games on the system but I honestly don't think power has anything to do with it. It's always about the games. The Xbox had a pretty decent lead on the PS2 but it didn't matter. People flocked to the games.

Nintendo need to change up a lot with what they're doing but I really don't think being the same as the competition is the answer. Lower the price on the hardware and the software. Bring out the games that show off that the WiiU can do things with games that the others can't. Show third parties that they can create succesful games on their system with less of a budget than the other two. They're doing a pretty decent job with the indies but there needs to be more. Bring out a subscription for the WiiU that allows you to access the catalogue of their Virtual Console. It's a shame because the Gamepad has a lot of potential and it's being wasted right now. Nintendo need to be more willing to take risks and create a new space in the gaming arena. Not trying to cram themselves in with the other two.

 

[Biker19]

Its simple really. Developers want machines designed for them. Nintendo does not design their consoles for developers.

From generation to generation developers have a path they follow towards ever more sophisticated game engines and game designs. This necessitates a certain level of performance increase. Developers expect and at times demand consoles to deliver on certain performance metrics from a hardware manufacturer.

In the 32/64 bit age optical media was the future. It allowed larger assets to be stored AND far cheaper prices for publishers having to buy the storage mediums.

Nintendo gave a big middle finger to developers by sticking with very pricey carts

In the 6th generation again, advances in optical storage allowed for larger storage capacity for ever more sophisticated games.

Nintendo gave developers a big middle finger by creating an odd, proprietary optical medium far smaller than a DVD's 4.7GB at the time

Now, each one of these generations saw huge increases in computational ability. Nintendo at the time was keeping up with the Jones'.

In the 7th generation, DVD capacity was enough and like usual there was an expectation of a huge leap in computational ability.

Nintendo gave developers a middle finger by creating an overclocked gamecube. This took the world by storm though and caught developers off guard. But it was still a hassle as it necessitated custom development as their efforts were geared more towards the 360/PS3 in terms of power.

In the 8th generation Blu-Ray tech how now become necessary and all three manufacturers have offered this level of storage capacity. But the computational leap expected by developers is once again not being provided by Nintendo. They don't want to deal with custom porting or content creation. the Wii U is underpowered compared to the Xbone and PS4. They are skipping it and don't give a shit.

Each generation there's always been notable third parties giving Nintendo the finger right back and not developing on their system. Well, it seems now just about everyone is joining in.

I don't even think that Nintendo gives a damn about 3rd party publishers/developers when it comes to their consoles, to be honest.

 

[ShadyJ]

Its simple economics, once the install base gets high then people will develop.

Its that simple

 

[Biker19]

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.

LMAO, you can't be serious.

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!

I agree. Why spend $350 for a Wii U when you can get a console that's $50 more in which it's even more powerful than the Wii U, & is guaranteed to receive 3rd party support?

 

[Of All Trades]

I mean I could keep going on forever. System power is like issue number 37 on a list of 50 things wrong with the system that need fixing. Placing it any higher than that really misses all of the other much more important issues that need fixing first. I guarantee you.. If they fix even half of the more pressing issues they currently have, sales will go up and 3rd parties will still increase output despite your all important architecture power claims. Like I already said.. Two weeks of actual advertising in Japan and the system has seen 20% WoW increases two weeks in a row. Without any software. Whodda thunk it.. And now this week it actually HAS software coming.

Sales need to massively increase, like literally by an order of magnitude, in the next 6 months for there to be a barely meaningful turnaround from 3rd parties. That "rise" in Japan barely escapes statistical noise given how low the sales are. The WW install base is only, what, 2.5 million? Unless the WiiU starts setting all-time records for tie ratio on every 3rd party game coming out between now and January publishers are just going to not bother with WiiU ports. Their development teams will be better spent either on big AAA titles, small-mid range titles that can be easily developed on PC/XB1/PS4 because the power lets them just brute force their way to acceptability, or tablet/phone apps for actual tablets/phones that can leave the house.

 

[Interceptor]

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.

Really sad contribution. But I am pretty sure this is a mindset shared by many gaming "journalists". Grow some self confidence! You can play Nintendo games AND be socially accepted! The struggle is only in your mind! You can do it!

 

[AOC83]

Wii U, if the sales on it turn around (which there is truly no reason to think one way or the other at this second despite the doom and gloom and circle jerk posts. It's been out for 8 months.) 3rd parties will output for it.. Even if it is EA/Activision throw away trash.

Nope. If WiiU sales pick up it will be because auf Nintendo games and exclusives and there will still be no reason for anybody to buy the multiplatform games.

 

[M°°nblade]

Power has almost nothing to do with it. It's at the bottom of the list. I mean... Where are the massive amounts of ps360 software? It's not getting ported and it has zero to do with power. Witcher is on which platforms again?

You're making it sound more complex than it really it.

Power is the foundation of a new gaming system.
Without power, you can't deliver a next-gen experience.
If you can't deliver a next-gen experience, you can't impress gamers.
I f you can't impress gamers, they won't buy your new system.
If they don't buy your system, they can't buy your software either.
If they don't buy software, publishers abandon the system.

This is a simple explanation which perfectly describes the situation the Wii U is in right now.

 

[zoukka]

I don't even think that Nintendo gives a damn about 3rd party publishers/developers when it comes to their consoles, to be honest.

Yes they do. They can survive longer than the competition with just their own IP's, but not any more. Gamers have officially jumped to the online gaming/3rd party wagon during last gen and missing that will be the downfall of nintendo. Hardcore gamers abandoned Wii U and soccer moms abandoned Wii U. There is only the core nintendo fanbase left that buys whatever a new mario and zelda are on.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Power has almost nothing to do with it. It's at the bottom of the list. I mean... Where are the massive amounts of ps360 software? It's not getting ported and it has zero to do with power. Witcher is on which platforms again?

If it were more powerful, there would be greater hype, Wii U would have sold better and would receive more ports which would be even easier to bring over as there wouldn't be too much worry about whether it can handle every aspect of the game.

Also, the ps3 was the name of developers' existence at the beginning of the generation. It still received support. Take that as you will.

Developers were on track to create HD games. They needed a healthy PS3 to spread costs and from their perspective there was always a chance it could turn around. The PS3 is also roughly comparable to its main competitor technologically (though somewhat inferior)

Just dismissing the power issue under the rug and claiming it doesn't matter at all is losing sight of the bigger picture. The low, unimpressive performance is apart of Nintendo's strategy to create relatively cheap hardware "just powerful enough" so that Nintendo games can shine and the BOM savings can be allocated to a gimmick to appeal to casuals.

This strategy is not appealing to a major demographic...the videogame enthusiast. Yes, casuals are a market demographic but their attentions change. They are focused on tablets and phones. They've moved on from Wii. Videogame enthusiasts are the only ones left to buy consoles in numbers...and they want power. Third parties know their audience, they are targeting the enthusiast and they knew they would avoid Nintendo's hardware.

 

[Speevy]

If anything, developers are just holding back the kind of token support that the Gamecube never deserved in the first place.

 

[metalslimer]

If anything, developers are just holding back the kind of token support that the Gamecube never deserved in the first place.

Eh...Soul Calibur andRE4 sold damn well for the userbase. So did Crystal Chronicles and Tales of Symphonia. Gamecube was such a well put together console that its a shame that it failed

 

[Log4Girlz]

Eh...Soul Calibur andRE4 sold damn well for the userbase. So did Crystal Chronicles and Tales of Symphonia. Gamecube was such a well put together console that its a shame that it failed

The gamecube was garbage. It could have easily been great though.

 

[mrklaw]

Nintendo need to provide reasons to make titles available. Right now they apparently have shit tools, shit documentation, shit sales. If a third party doesn't want to publish on wiiU that's hardly them being deliberately vindictive towards Nintendo is it? Sounds like common sense to me.

Improve the tools, price cut and first party software to increase sales, and incentivise third party ports through lower platform fees or whatever it takes.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

It's not. People need to stop pretending it is.

• The PS3 at its worst was selling 2.5x what the Wii U is selling at a hardware level, despite a competing high end system in the 360, despite a strongly competing low end mass market system in the Wii, and despite a $599 price point.
• The PS3 was selling more software, and more third party software, despite the high cost of entry.
• The PS3 had an obvious rate limiting step in its price point being absurd, an addressable concern; the Wii U is not exorbitantly priced.
• The PS3 came off a still popular PS2, that hadn't been left to languish for years.
• The PS3 came off the back of a system that had provided a haven for 3rd party software sales to their traditional 16-35 male demographics. Sony have spent two decades cultivating such an audience on their platforms.
• The PS3 was sold on a traditional transition selling point - hardware power - it had a tangible incentive for upgrade. The Wii U does not have this, as the tablet is not resonating with the marketplace.
  [*]Publishers had invested heavily in HD development, not just PS3 development, and needed the PS3 to recover to provide a larger addressable audience than the 360 would alone; the Wii U is not proving to provide any substantial increase in addressable audience for the types of games that publishers like Bethesda make.

Bold was the key reason for why PS3 had a better sales performance than WiiU and made everything above possible.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy if you ask me. Pretty much, third-parties wanted Sony to recover. On the other hand, they want to shaft Nintendo.

Something isn't right here.

Ok... "Good business", "risky" talk in 3... 2... 1...

No it's not. At all.

The PS3 was NEVER selling as poorly as the Wii U. Nor was it ever in any danger of a mass exodus of 3rd party support, because even in its worst moments it "Playstation" remained a proven platform where devs could make money selling the kinds of games they specialized in.

As I already posted a link in this thread, in it's first years, PS3 wasn't really that big deal. It was the platform which EA made less money in the time, even mobiles were more profitable. Third-parties didn't bothered about that at all and keep supporting at full strenght. In July 2009, Activision threatened to stop making games for the PlayStation 3 platform if Sony did not cut the price of the console.

It's odd, because, even when Wii had record-breaking sales and was very profitable, third-parties weren't supporting it on the same level they were supporting the PS3, which was selling far less. We're on the "good business" talk right here, not about the tech and whatever, so if we follow the logic WiiU's detractors like to use to defend third-parties's position to shaft it, it makes no sense for why third-parties ignored Wii they way the did under a record-breaking sales circunstances and gave better support for a platform selling considerably below in it's first years. Yeah, yeah, someone will say Wii's hardware couldn't handle their games, but that'll lead to the self-fulfilling prophecy situation.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Bold was the key reason for why PS3 had a better sales performance than WiiU and made everything above possible.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy if you ask me. Pretty much, third-parties wanted Sony to recover. On the other hand, they want to shaft Nintendo.

Something isn't right here.

Ok... "Good business", "risky" talk in 3... 2... 1...

Developers do not have a personal vendetta against Nintendo. Remember there are many developers through the world. They did not have a summit and decide they need to fuck over Nintendo.

 

[zoukka]

The gamecube was garbage. It could have easily been great though.

It was superior to PS2 and in many ways the xbox.

 

[Log4Girlz]

It was superior to PS2 and in many ways the xbox.

In what ways? Power? Yes. Developer friendliness? No, shitty mini-discs. Image? No. Purple purse with a handle. Over-all it was a terrible console and sold less than 30 million units. I mean, sure if you're a Nintendo fan it was great. There were less than 30 million Nintendo fans.

 

[Metallix87]

Developers do not have a personal vendetta against Nintendo. Remember there are many developers through the world. They did not have a summit and decide they need to fuck over Nintendo.

They don't need to. They've decided supporting PC and two consoles is enough, and they're intent to let Nintendo twist in the wind. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy alright.

 

[Log4Girlz]

They don't need to. They've decided supporting PC and two consoles is enough, and they're intent to let Nintendo twist in the wind. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy alright.

This is not the logic they've used to decide on what to develop for or not. They didn't simply decide "Oh well, let's just support PC and two consoles, three is certainly too many".

 

[Fistwell]

Na, real question is, did nintendo intentionally stretch the OS load times to artificially increase average use time of the system. THINK ABOUT IT.

 

[M°°nblade]

Bold was the key reason for why PS3 had a better sales performance than WiiU and made everything above possible.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy if you ask me. Pretty much, third-parties wanted Sony to recover. On the other hand, they want to shaft Nintendo.

What third parties want, is to make money.

With the PS3, they were confident that:
- it's main problem was it's initial high price
- this problem was fixable
- Sony would make the commitment to fix this problem and make the PS3 sell better so they could sell more of their games. And they turned out to be right.

With the Wii U, they don't have this confidence.

 

[zoukka]

In what ways? Power? Yes. Developer friendliness? No, shitty mini-discs. Image? No. Purple purse with a handle. Over-all it was a terrible console and sold less than 30 million units. I mean, sure if you're a Nintendo fan it was great. There were less than 30 million Nintendo fans.

Developer friendliness really? Most multiplatform games looked better on GC that I remember, the exclusives certainly looked and performed better. And you bring up sales lol, might as well just stop discussing matters because obviously the most popular consoles are the best built ones.

Na, real question is, did nintendo intentionally stretch the OS load times to artificially increase average use time of the system. THINK ABOUT IT.

Well that's the only logical reason for having the slowest home console OS of all time with 1GB of memory behind it.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Bold was the key reason for why PS3 had a better sales performance than WiiU and made everything above possible.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy if you ask me. Pretty much, third-parties wanted Sony to recover. On the other hand, they want to shaft Nintendo.

Something isn't right here.

Ok... "Good business", "risky" talk in 3... 2... 1...

You can try to deflect with sarcasm, but there is no grand conspiracy to "shaft Nintendo." Not putting games on the platform to lose money on is not "shafting Nintendo."

The bold was one of several reasons why the PS3 had better sales performance than the Wii U, despite its high price and own dearth of software. The PS3 gave people a reason to buy it, it was an actual upgrade to their current systems. It was a product with actual appeal to a target audience. The Wii U is a confused product that seems like its makers didn't know who they wanted to sell to.

These decisions are business decisions. They are made on the basis of what key decision makers think will make the most money. Whether they end up retrospectively being good decisions is another matter.

The Wii was a risky and untested proposition relative to the safe traditional consoles that were the PS3 and 360, offering the normal sell of better hardware. The Wii U was similarly a risky, untested proposition - it is at its core a system with similar performance to machines already on the market, a touch screen and Nintendo games. It would be wholly reasonable to sit on the fence with such a device if one didn't believe the touch screen would resonate with the marketplace -as it hasn't.

And if it is a "self-fulfilling prophecy" as you describe it, there is still no onus on third parties to change that. It is not their platform. It is not even positioned in the market as something targeting their core demographics. Nintendo is doing nothing to attract an audience for their titles. Audience issues are of Nintendo's own making and the onus is wholly on Nintendo to create a hospitable ecosystem for the titles they want on their platform.

Third parties simply do not need Nintendo as much as Nintendo needs third parties. They have viable alternatives.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Developer friendliness really? Most multiplatform games looked better on GC that I remember, the exclusives certainly looked and performed better. And you bring up sales lol, might as well just stop discussing matters because obviously the most popular consoles are the best built ones.
.

The gamecube was a miserable failure. Its design was a disaster, its storage medium burned relationships with several developers and its sales tanked as a result. Again, it is garbage.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

Isn't the answer that most of Nintendo fans don't buy their games?

 

[Metallix87]

The gamecube was a miserable failure. Its design was a disaster, its storage medium burned relationships with several developers and its sales tanked as a result. Again, it is garbage.

I disagree. The system was more powerful and the discs loaded much faster. I'll admit the purple lunchbox look, as everyone refers to it as, was definitely off-putting for some, but I thought the logical way to fight that was to focus on the black, silver, and orange systems.

Isn't the answer that most of Nintendo fans don't buy their games?

Ask yourself why, though. Could it be because Nintendo's systems usually get spin-offs and shovelware from them?

 

[test_account]

The gamecube was a miserable failure. Its design was a disaster, its storage medium burned relationships with several developers and its sales tanked as a result. Again, it is garbage.

Does anyone know why Nintendo went with those mini DVDs? The Gamecube can easily read DVDs after doing some lighter modification.

 

[zoukka]

The gamecube was a miserable failure. Its design was a disaster, its storage medium burned relationships with several developers and its sales tanked as a result. Again, it is garbage.

We have different perspectives it seems. You seem to care more about the well being of publishers than the actual gameplay experience the platform offered. From value point of view, all "flopped" consoles were bad, but I would still say that from pure tech point the PS2 was the garbage platform of its gen.

 

[M°°nblade]

I disagree. The system was more powerful and the discs loaded much faster.

Not that I agree with GC's design being shit. But you could use the same arguments for N64 cartridges.

Every decision had 'pro's' and 'con's'. Good design is about weighting them properly.

 

[zoukka]

Not that I agree with GC's design being shit. But you could use the same arguments for N64 cartridges.

Every decision had 'pro's' and 'con's'. Good design is about weighting them properly.

Financially PS2 as a DVD player succeeded and Gamecube didn't. But as a gamer, the mini DVD's were infinitely superior.