Support NeoGAF

[Psycho_Mantis]

See, this I agree with. If we get a year into the system's life and it still isn't even hitting triple digits during the holidays, yes then I seriously doubt Nintendo will have the ability to turn it around. But right now, in the summer, with no new releases of mention hitting the shelves? Really? That's the best time to assess ANY system's health?

WiiU's not the only system thats experienced summer low sales.

I don't think there has ever been a successful system that has had a lack of third party support. Thats what I judge the systems future on and its not looking good at all.

 

[d[-_-]b]

Well, Capcom turned all GCN exclusive games (Killer7, Viewtiful Joe) into multiplattform titles because Capcom wasn't happy with the sales on the GCN.

P.N.03 was the only game of the Capcom Five that stayed an exclusive game and the sales were dissapointed.

Yep really paid off for them... sales data for Viewtiful Joe..

Worldwide, sales of the game reached 275,000 copies on the GameCube and 46,000 on the PlayStation 2.[54] Sales of the game in both North America and Europe were lower than what Capcom had predicted, but due to its small budget, the game was considered by Inaba to be relatively successful commercially.

 

[PdotMichael]

Yep really paid off for them... sales data for Viewtiful Joe..

Sounds pretty okayish for a port that was released one year later than the original game.
The second part (multiplattform from the beginning) sold significantly better afaik.

The difference is that Capcom wasn't happy with the GCN sales of pretty much all titles while they were very succesful on the PS2 (DMC, the difference Resident Evil spinoffs), so it was a logicial decision to put the entire lineup on the PS2.

 

[Pie and Beans]

riiiiiighhhtt... except:


umm, the Wii had a SHITTON of third party support. Was a lot of it shovelware? Yes. Were the ports massively downscaled or entirely different games? Yes. Was it lacking in support? hahahahahaha. No.

This is where all of your "it's too underpowered for developers" thing falls apart. Yes Wii was a fluke. Yes its success caught everyone off guard. But more importantly than anything, it PROVED that, no matter those power of a system, if there is potential to make money off of it developers with support it. End of story.

PUBLISHERS don't see that potential on Wii U (I don't get why you guys keep saying developers. Unless they're indies, the developers and team leads are far removed from the people actually making those decisions). It has nothing to do with being "excited" or finding the system "sexy". This is all shit that's made up on fucking internet forums. You know why developers develop for a system? Because a VP of sales comes and says "Hey, so System X sold xxx,000 units last month and had a total of x,xxx,000 software sales according to NPD. How much was our portion of that? Oh zero? Well I guess we better do something about that then. Don't you agree?" At which point a team lead is like "fuuuckk....... Alright guys, what do we have?"

So let's talk about developers who actually make those decisions.. aka indies. Oh wait, the indie scene on Wii U is actually.. good? Wow. So let me get this straight. If a developer has to make a choice and has a modest budget, they choose to develop for the Wii U (along with like every other platform), but if a publisher (aka suits) have to make a choice and have budgets in the tens of millions, they choose not to.

That last paragraph is THE reality as it currently exists. And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with system power. Come the fuck on now.

So will Wii U sales turn around on their own? Not without some serious work by Nintendo of course. But at 8 months out from a company like Nintendo who is almost legendary for turning around slow sales, it is utterly silly to write it off. We get out to a year and it's struggling? Yeah, not good. 18 months and struggling? I would expect to see some drastic action.. because that would be epicly bad. But 8 months during the slowest time of the year and with a somewhat stronger lineup this fall? Yeah, reports of its death are being greatly exaggerated at this moment.

The Wii did not have a "shit-ton" of third party support. It had fairly average support. You never saw Rockstar take the system seriously, Bethesda, and EA certainly wasn't bringing its full brunt behind the box. Even on the Japanese side Square never bothered with the thing, and Konami pulled a face at it also.

As for "going with sexy power", developers at AAA studios and big companies want to push the envelope. Thats how those studios think and work, and in turn they push the marketing agenda and more to the outside world that bigger and flashier is better and it in turns drives consoles. WiiU has no displayable jump to that degree and thats why its not being taken seriously as a next gen platform.

The indie line of reasoning is terrible because you're dealing with a group living hand to mouth on whatever positive buzz or exposure they can get, and on as many platforms as they can afford. I feel theyre being lead up the garden path a fair bit with regards to COME TO WIIU, PLATFORM OF DREAMS when we all know the install base is shite compared to other platforms. But since people at Nintendo have worked hard to make it a non painful process to just plop things across that arent power demanding and based on Web technologies or Unity, why wouldnt they do it? Unfortunately for retail pushing studios, it takes a hell of a lot more work and money to get their games across and the sales arent there to support it.

At this point, the system isn't dead, but it is just as good as for third parties. Watch_dogs is out in November before Mario arrives to even push systems, and the attention for that game is going to be in Xbone and PS4 land. Same with any of that cross-gen stuff. All thats left for the console is an exercise in if Nintendo can beat the Gamecube's lifetime by 2016 or not, and that'll stand as how far a Nintendo only box can get in the modern age of multiple avenues of more successful competition.

 

[D.Lo]

Well, Capcom turned all GCN exclusive games (Killer7, Viewtiful Joe) into multiplattform titles because Capcom wasn't happy with the sales on the GCN.

P.N.03 was the only game of the Capcom Five that stayed an exclusive game and the sales were dissapointed.

Killer 7 was released on both consoles simultaneously, sold more on Gamecube than PS2 (20k to 5k or something, I don't have the figures on me).

Viewtiful Joe was ported to PS2, where it sold far worse,

Viewtiful Joe
Gamecube 275,000
Playstation 2 46,000 (Capcom figures)

VJ2 was released on both consoles. It looked worse than VJ1 on GCN because the PS2 was the main development platform. Despite being gimped by this, the GCN version outsold the PS2 version again.

Viewtiful Joe 2
Gamecube 61,000
Playstation 2 18,000 (Capcom figures)

Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble was released on GCN and PSP because Capcom was evidently obsessed with trying again on Sony platforms. All versions sold pitifully, but once again GCN sold the best.

Resident Evil 4 was announced for PS2 with 'exclusive extra levels' before the GCN version was released. Capcom also sabotaged themselves by missing Christmas with RE4, and released it in early January, the worst sales month of the year. The 'Exclusive extra levels' PS2 version was then released in a great game sales month (October) with great fanfare and advertising - basically treated as a re-launch. It sold far less to start with, (320k first month GCN, 40k PS2 - NPD, US sales only) but with a quick price drop (in November!) and through a budget re-print it eventually outsold the GCN version.

--------

Nintendo paid big bucks for the Capcom 'Five'. They ended up with an RE1 remake, the tepid RE0, the tiny budget niche shooter PN03, and a bunch of knives in their back.

 

[PdotMichael]

Killer 7 was released on both consoles simultaneously, sold more on Gamecube than PS2 (20k to 5k or something, I don't have the figures on me).

Viewtiful Joe was quickly ported to PS2, where it sold worse,

Viewtiful Joe
Gamecube 275,000
Playstation 2 46,000 (Capcom figures)

VJ2 was released on both consoles. It looked worse than VJ1 on GCN because the PS2 was the main development platform. Despite being gimped by this, the GCN version outsold the PS2 version again.

Viewtiful Joe 2
Gamecube 61,000
Playstation 2 18,000 (Capcom figures)

Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble was released on GCN, PSP and PS2 because Capcom was evidently obsessed with trying again on Sony platforms. All versions sold pitifully, but once again GCN sold the best.

Resident Evil 4 was announced for PS2 with 'exclusive extra levels' before the GCN version was released. Capcom also sabotaged themselves by missing Christmas with RE4, and released it in early January, the worst sales month of the year. The 'Exclusive extra levels' PS2 version was then released in a great game sales month (October) with great fanfare and advertising - basically treated as a re-launch. It sold far less to start with, (320k first month GCN, 40k PS2 - NPD, US sales only) but with a quick price drop (in November!) and through a budget re-print it eventually outsold the GCN version.

--------

Nintendo paid big bucks for the Capcom 'Five'. They ended up with an RE1 remake, the tepid RE0, the tiny budget niche shooter PN03, and a bunch of knives in their back.

Interesting, the Capcom's annual report talks about 350k units.
http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/data/pdf/2005annual/Annual2005e.pdf

And it also doesn't work as proof that thrid parties hate Nintendo for some reason.
The GamceCube got more Viewtiful Joe games because of the relative good sales.

 

[D.Lo]

Interesting, the Capcom's annual report talks about 350k units.
http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/data/pdf/2005annual/Annual2005e.pdf

Those figures were from February 2005 (got them from an IGN article), but at least show the platform discrepancy. Extrapolate from there I guess, Capcom never broke it down by platform again AFAIK.

And it also doesn't work as proof that thrid parties hate Nintendo for some reason.
The GamceCube got more Viewtiful Joe games because of the relative good sales.

Well Nintendo paid for them...

I think it proves a point in the opposite direction actually - the PS2 was 'treated badly' in this scenario with the late port of VJ. As such, the VJ audience was now on GCN. Irrespective of install base, the GCN games sold better because 'the house was built there'. It makes perfect sense.

Wii U (and to a large extent Wii before it), were/are getting these late, poor ports, and they sell poorly for the same reason as VJ PS2 did. Nobody is building an audience on Wii U, all they're doing is throwing the odd late, poor port at it. And VJ shows that even on the most successful console of all time this doesn't work.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

The biggest test won't be the inevitable holiday bump, but those first few early months with the PS4 and Xbox One out. Was the holidays a temporary boost for the Wii-U, or will it continue to sell strongly? And how many releases could it have in those early months before Mario Kart launches in April(rumor)? With all the Xbone/PS4's first party and third party efforts and various console nuances and benefits, will the Wii-U still be competitive in 2014?

 

[tassletine]

No. But people don't like to adapt as it takes effort. Also some big companies are loathe to adapt as it means they effectively sucking Nintendo's dick and they are too proud to do that.

 

[PdotMichael]

and talking about Resident Evil 4.

The PS2 part was:

- late port
- technical way inferior
- expensive compared to the GCN version

And it sold significantly better than the GCN version, worldwide. It says a lot about the state of the GCN at the end of its lifetime.

Wii U (and to a large extent Wii before it), were/are getting these late, poor ports, and they sell poorly for the same reason as VJ PS2 did. Nobody is building an audience on Wii U, all they're doing is throwing the odd late, poor port at it. And VJ shows that even on the most successful console of all time this doesn't work.

You would expect that succesful game series like Fifa or Need for Speed would sell decent for a fresh console at least. And, yes, Need for Speed came some months later but it was also the best looking version.

 

[SolidSnakex]

riiiiiighhhtt... except:


umm, the Wii had a SHITTON of third party support. Was a lot of it shovelware? Yes. Were the ports massively downscaled or entirely different games? Yes. Was it lacking in support? hahahahahaha. No.

This is where all of your "it's too underpowered for developers" thing falls apart. Yes Wii was a fluke. Yes its success caught everyone off guard. But more importantly than anything, it PROVED that, no matter those power of a system, if there is potential to make money off of it developers with support it. End of story.

It doesn't fall apart because i'm pretty certain that most people and possibly everyone in this thread is referring to major support. No one really cares about the shovelware titles that are put on a console. The reality is that when you get right to the heart of the Wii's third party support it was decent. It certainly didn't compare to the PS3 or 360's third party support. When you look at the majority of the great third party titles released this gen they're on those two consoles and not the Wii.

The major reason for that is the power gap. Games like Skyrim, GTA, RDR, MGS4, Bioshock, Dragon's Dogma etc. were never even in consideration for the Wii because of that. Nintendo handicapped the console out the gate because of its performance, and because of that many developers didn't even look at the platform as a serious target for their games.

 

[onipex]

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

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.

Nintendo designs their consoles to be for video games and not to be PC lite or living room media boxes. Each of those examples was proven to be able to play traditional games of their time if developers took the effort to make the game for the console.

Nintendo has been at odds with the industry since the NES where developers complained about having to make games for once it got popular. This gen gen they have been more open than I ever remember them being. With their indie efforts they are contacting them , supplying free engines , allowing self publishing , removed the office restriction, free patching, a lower platform holder take, and providing cheap or free development paths. I would argue their indie efforts are above Sony's. With mid to larger devs I think they started out with more third party partner ships and deals than I've ever seen them do before.

 

[Dave Long]

What is interesting about Nintendo's independent developer stance is they are giving a lot of those games front and center space in their eShop. Nintendo isn't hiding them as Microsoft tends to do. Today's indie dev is tomorrow's potential huge software house. Nintendo may be finding that a lot easier to deal with than the people with 500 person teams who want to sell 20 million with every game they make...

 

[KageMaru]

Nintendo designs their consoles to be for video games and not to be PC lite or living room media boxes. Each of those examples was proven to be able to play traditional games of their time if developers took the effort to make the game for the console.

Nintendo has been at odds with the industry since the NES where developers complained about having to make games for once it got popular. This gen gen they have been more open than I ever remember them being. With their indie efforts they are contacting them , supplying free engines , allowing self publishing , removed the office restriction, free patching, a lower platform holder take, and providing cheap or free development paths. I would argue their indie efforts are above Sony's. With mid to larger devs I think they started out with more third party partner ships and deals than I've ever seen them do before.

You guys really will excuse Nintendo for anything, won't you? What kind of point is it to even describe the PS4/Xbone as 'PC lite'? They are consoles that offer a new leap in performance for games. Who cares what the multi-media features are? That doesn't apply to this conversation since Nintendo could have also provided a console with more power and still ignored the multi-media functions, but they chose not to.

It also doesn't matter how open Nintendo is with developers (major or indie) if games don't sell on their system. This thread is full of logical, well thought out posts over why support for the Wii-U is lacking and you choose to ignore it all to defend Nintendo.

 

[Sami+]

Still catching up to the thread here, so forgive me for giving a really late response here -

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.

You do realize this is literally the exact same shit Miksar is saying, but from a different perspective and better wording?

Don't tell me what video games are about, and don't tell me why I should like them. Comes off as rather arrogant, if I may say so.

For the record, the games you call "mindless shit" happen to be games I very much enjoy, and far prefer over the comparatively simplistic (dare I say "mindless"?) games Nintendo has been providing for so many years and refusing to diverge from.

8-bit gaming has aged. Significantly. Legend of Zelda is unrefined and frustrating compared to A Link to the Past. The same applies to Metroid when put up against Super Metroid. 8-bit games were amazing at the time because that was the best that could be provided in that era. 16-bit gaming completely blew it out of the water and was just as amazing because that was the best that could be provided in that era.

Have you played any PS1 games recenty? Many of them haven't aged well at all. Look at Final Fantasy VII, for the sake of example. Astounding and industry-defining at the time for a variety of reasons. Now? The translation is awful, the graphics are horrendous, the pre-rendered backgrounds can be difficult to navigate, and so forth. But these problems didn't matter at the time because the game was still far above the standard of other games from its era.

Games evolve. That's not to undermine the significance of what's already come out in the past, either. I quite enjoyed Ocarina of Time 3D when I played it two years ago, in fact, despite it being more or less the exact same game. One of my favorite games of all time is Shadow of the Colossus (one of the games you'd call "mindless", I'm guessing? I'd consider it very mature and cinematic, so I would assume so), and that came out about a decade ago, I believe.

Fighting against and undermining what is undeniably evolution of the medium in a direction you're not fond of isn't fair, and it's ridiculous for the same reason Miksar's post is.

If you don't like what other developers are doing now, don't buy their shit. If you see Nintendo as the savior of gaming as you like it, and the only one providing the games you want, then by all means, buy their systems. That being said, abysmal sales numbers seem to indicate you're not in a majority by any means.

 

[Of All Trades]

What is interesting about Nintendo's independent developer stance is they are giving a lot of those games front and center space in their eShop. Nintendo isn't hiding them as Microsoft tends to do. Today's indie dev is tomorrow's potential huge software house. Nintendo may be finding that a lot easier to deal with than the people with 500 person teams who want to sell 20 million with every game they make...

Meanwhile State of Decay probably sold more copies in June than the entirety of the WiiU catalog combined. That wacky MS, hiding those indie games from view!

 

[borghe]

It doesn't fall apart because i'm pretty certain that most people and possibly everyone in this thread is referring to major support. No one really cares about the shovelware titles that are put on a console. The reality is that when you get right to the heart of the Wii's third party support it was decent. It certainly didn't compare to the PS3 or 360's third party support. When you look at the majority of the great third party titles released this gen they're on those two consoles and not the Wii.

The major reason for that is the power gap. Games like Skyrim, GTA, RDR, MGS4, Bioshock, Dragon's Dogma etc. were never even in consideration for the Wii because of that. Nintendo handicapped the console out the gate because of its performance, and because of that many developers didn't even look at the platform as a serious target for their games.

but again, you guys are talking about a VERY specific style of game (i.e. lush, highly cinematic, AAAA level games). And that was exactly my point. The industry does NOT live and die by those games. Well, it didn't always live and die by them, and now that there HAS become such a large dependecy on them we are starting to see the problems from that manifest (i.e. insane budgets, minimum sales to break even, development teams being disbanded or merged, companies going bankrupt, etc) We all love to play them, to the tune of sales in the millions each. But for 20+ years those games didn't solely define the industry, and you can already tell that the manufacturers are very interested in hedging their bets against it as well with the massive indie push. The games you guys are saying drives the industry are at the same time the same games that are slowly killing the industry. There's got to be a happy medium setup in between. The Wii hit that medium fairly well, and if Nintendo can actually turn the Wii U around, it will be situated to hit that medium ground pretty well also. About the biggest complaint outside of all of that is pricing... but I honestly suspect that Nintendo is seeing a very nice profit on every unit sold currently. Once the $400 PS4 hits, they could very well be in a position to market the Wii U against it as a less expensive alternative. Not it won't have Second Son levels of visuals on it, but again those aren't the ONLY games in the industry. It WILL be very well positioned for those OTHER types of games also. As for Second Son and the like "selling systems". I disagree. The games that sell the systems are the ones that all of your other friends are playing. If all of your friends are playing Mario Kart U, you are more compelled to by a Wii U with Mario Kart U. This is the EXACT sort of thing that happened with.. oh I don't know...

Super Mario Bros
Sonic
Tetris
Super Mario World
Resident Evil
Mario 64
Halo
etc

It also doesn't matter how open Nintendo is with developers (major or indie) if games don't sell on their system. This thread is full of logical, well thought out posts over why support for the Wii-U is lacking and you choose to ignore it all to defend Nintendo.

eh, bullshit. The only argument coming from the anti-Wii U sentiment is "too weak!!!". Yes there are well thought out posts on why support is lacking, and hell knows there are TONS of reasons why that support is lacking. But a certain contingent in here doesn't really care about any of those reasons when it's so fun to just pile on the "hahahaha Nintendo makes weak systems!!" dogpile. And honestly, as the anti-Wii U sentiment, why WOULD they care about those other reasons. I mean those other reasons can be FIXED.. but the "hahaha the system sucks" argument will never change for them, because Nintendo can't alter the hardware. So they can sit tight behind that and just keep wailing away.

 

[qko]

I don't think there is a conspiracy as much as failure of Nintendo to inform devs of where this console is going. I'd also like to say that "developers" should be differentiated from "publishers" I always go back to that one Vigil dev that talked so much crap on the Wii U as an employee of THQ making AAA games, until he began to look at their new dev policies as an indie dev and fell in love with the system.

I think as AAA publishers, those companies see the benefits of systems like the XBone and PS4 since Sony and Microsoft work closely with them to strike advertising deals and in some cases, moneyhats. Nintendo probably feels that those publishers make enough money to cover those costs and maybe they have poisoned the well beyond no return? I don't know? It seems they are creating good faith on the indie side of things doing a lot of good moves that indies want, but if Microsoft and Sony ever get to the point of treating indies like AAA publishers and the indie devs begin to see themselves as equals, we might see Nintendo get behind in attracting those devs as well. Yet seeing how Microsoft is treating indies I wouldn't bet on that anytime soon.

 

[Of All Trades]

About the biggest complaint outside of all of that is pricing... but I honestly suspect that Nintendo is seeing a very nice profit on every unit sold currently.

That would be a distinct change from what Nintendo has said: that takes multiple software sales to break even.

Once the $400 PS4 hits, they could very well be in a position to market the Wii U against it as a less expensive alternative.

Where it slams into the PS360... which is where everyone's friends are. Where the competition is currently outselling it by a combined 6:1. This is a major component of the analysis by people who think the WiiU is in a lot of trouble.

The only argument coming from the anti-Wii U sentiment is "too weak!!!". Yes there are well thought out posts on why support is lacking, and hell knows there are TONS of reasons why that support is lacking. But a certain contingent in here doesn't really care about any of those reasons when it's so fun to just pile on the "hahahaha Nintendo makes weak systems!!" dogpile.

So the only argument being made is that "it's too weak" except for all those many other people posting reasons that aren't "it's too weak"?

 

[onipex]

You guys really will excuse Nintendo for anything, won't you? What kind of point is it to even describe the PS4/Xbone as 'PC lite'? They are consoles that offer a new leap in performance for games. Who cares what the multi-media features are? That doesn't apply to this conversation since Nintendo could have also provided a console with more power and still ignored the multi-media functions, but they chose not to.

It also doesn't matter how open Nintendo is with developers (major or indie) if games don't sell on their system. This thread is full of logical, well thought out posts over why support for the Wii-U is lacking and you choose to ignore it all to defend Nintendo.

You sound upset. What did I excuse Nintendo for? I didn't disagree with any of logs points in fact I agreed that Nintendo does its own thing and has always been at odds with the industry. Its amazing how pointing out any good thing Nintendo does is just seen as excusing them for anything. How Nintendo treats third party developers is certainly a part of a discussion of how much support Nintendo gets. If they always at odds with the industry with hardware specs than having a good relationship with third parties is vital for continued support. Sales are important too but it's not like we haven't seen continued support on consoles after games failed to sell.

Edit: What guys are you talking about anyway? Who are you trying to group me in with?

 

[KageMaru]

but again, you guys are talking about a VERY specific style of game (i.e. lush, highly cinematic, AAAA level games). And that was exactly my point. The industry does NOT live and die by those games. Well, it didn't always live and die by them, and now that there HAS become such a large dependecy on them we are starting to see the problems from that manifest (i.e. insane budgets, minimum sales to break even, development teams being disbanded or merged, companies going bankrupt, etc) We all love to play them, to the tune of sales in the millions each. But for 20+ years those games didn't solely define the industry, and you can already tell that the manufacturers are very interested in hedging their bets against it as well with the massive indie push. The games you guys are saying drives the industry are at the same time the same games that are slowly killing the industry. There's got to be a happy medium setup in between. The Wii hit that medium fairly well, and if Nintendo can actually turn the Wii U around, it will be situated to hit that medium ground pretty well also. About the biggest complaint outside of all of that is pricing... but I honestly suspect that Nintendo is seeing a very nice profit on every unit sold currently. Once the $400 PS4 hits, they could very well be in a position to market the Wii U against it as a less expensive alternative. Not it won't have Second Son levels of visuals on it, but again those aren't the ONLY games in the industry. It WILL be very well positioned for those OTHER types of games also. As for Second Son and the like "selling systems". I disagree. The games that sell the systems are the ones that all of your other friends are playing. If all of your friends are playing Mario Kart U, you are more compelled to by a Wii U with Mario Kart U. This is the EXACT sort of thing that happened with.. oh I don't know...

Super Mario Bros
Sonic
Tetris
Super Mario World
Resident Evil
Mario 64
Halo
etc

I'm not disagreeing all of this, I'm not a fan of what CoD/Uncharted has done to the industry even though I enjoy both franchises, but the bolded could be an issue for Nintendo. While it's true they can market the Wii-U as a low cost alternative, MS and Sony will be doing the exact same thing with an even lower cost of entry and an already full library of games.

Sadly, Nintendo really isn't in an easy spot no matter which way they try to market the Wii-U.

eh, bullshit. The only argument coming from the anti-Wii U sentiment is "too weak!!!". Yes there are well thought out posts on why support is lacking, and hell knows there are TONS of reasons why that support is lacking. But a certain contingent in here doesn't really care about any of those reasons when it's so fun to just pile on the "hahahaha Nintendo makes weak systems!!" dogpile. And honestly, as the anti-Wii U sentiment, why WOULD they care about those other reasons. I mean those other reasons can be FIXED.. but the "hahaha the system sucks" argument will never change for them, because Nintendo can't alter the hardware. So they can sit tight behind that and just keep wailing away.

I see more people pointing to the lack of software sales than people who are laughing at the system's power. Don't get me wrong, the lack of performance is an issue and you're only fooling yourself if you think otherwise. However none of that changes the fact that these people I'm quoting directly refuse to listen to reason and instead insist the industry has an agenda against Nintendo.

Also, I don't agree that most of their other problems will be fixed either. The marketing can be fixed, sure. The price of the system can be lowered, but Nintendo would need to be willing to lose money per unit again. However I'm not convinced third party support or the lacking sales will be fixed. Sales can, and likely will, improve but I'm not sure if they will improve enough for third parties to consider the Wii-U again.

 

[borghe]

I'm not disagreeing all of this, I'm not a fan of what CoD/Uncharted has done to the industry even though I enjoy both franchises, but the bolded could be an issue for Nintendo. While it's true they can market the Wii-U as a low cost alternative, MS and Sony will be doing the exact same thing with an even lower cost of entry and an already full library of games.

Sadly, Nintendo really isn't in an easy spot no matter which way they try to market the Wii-U.

these are all great points. Yeah Wii U is in an awkward spot, and that is a real issue Nintendo needs to address. I genuinely think the place to address that is pricing parity with PS360. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that whatever decisions they make, they are going to be TOUGH ones. Well, that is a tough decision. When you price your system at a level of the (half-) previous gen, and you have games that DO look better (Rayman Legends, NFSMW, etc) it becomes a much better value proposition. Of course those other systems still have their massive libraries and user bases, but just like you have to get a PS3 to play uncharted, you will have to get a Wii U to play SSBU.

I see more people pointing to the lack of software sales than people who are laughing at the system's power. Don't get me wrong, the lack of performance is an issue and you're only fooling yourself if you think otherwise. However none of that changes the fact that these people I'm quoting directly refuse to listen to reason and instead insist the industry has an agenda against Nintendo.

Also, I don't agree that most of their other problems will be fixed either. The marketing can be fixed, sure. The price of the system can be lowered, but Nintendo would need to be willing to lose money per unit again. However I'm not convinced third party support or the lacking sales will be fixed. Sales can, and likely will, improve but I'm not sure if they will improve enough for third parties to consider the Wii-U again.

On third party support, the BEST I am arguing is "who knows!?!" If (let's just say) they do a DS-level turn around, it goes without saying that EA would come back to the fold. If on the other hand they can at least show niche titles will sell, it's not unreasonable to expect especially some of the japanese publishers to come back. But yeah... if they can't even hit triple digits in each territory during the holiday period. sigh...

One thing I just realized... they do actually have a valuable barometer in their back pocket. In previous generations it was way too easy to write off "well no shit Nintendo games sell. But what about OUR games" for third parties. But with Nintendo publishing a number of third party developed games, if those games actually sell well it could potentially be a much better barometer for how third parties can sell on the system without any third parties actually needing to take any of the risk as a litmus test. Of course we are hearing grumblings from Kamiya on how he feels Wonderful 101 is being handled. Hopefully Nintendo takes those grumblings to heart. IMHO a game like that and Bayonetta both have a better chance of bringing third parties back in than say Sonic (as awesome as Lost Worlds actually looks)

 

[KageMaru]

You sound upset. What did I excuse Nintendo for? I didn't disagree with any of logs points in fact I agreed that Nintendo does its own thing and has always been at odds with the industry. Its amazing how pointing out any good thing Nintendo does is just seen as excusing them for anything. How Nintendo treats third party developers is certainly a part of a discussion of how much support Nintendo gets. If they always at odds with the industry with hardware specs than having a good relationship with third parties is vital for continued support. Sales are important too but it's not like we haven't seen continued support on consoles after games failed to sell.

Edit: What guys are you talking about anyway? Who are you trying to group me in with?

Nope, not upset at all, more like confused =p IMO you’re excusing Nintendo design choices with the Wii-U which, undoubtedly, are contributing to Nintendo’s issues of developer support.

I don’t have an issue with the good you said about Nintendo, they do seem to be trying harder now than they have with the GC and Wii, but we still don’t know what they are doing exactly. They made similar promises with the Wii and that never materialized into anything. I’m happy as hell that they revived Bayonetta 2 and plan to get a Wii-U for that game alone, but we don’t know what they have done to work with 3rd party publishers. We can see they put out the hardware they wanted, regardless for the request of more power. When you make it harder to work on your system, that isn’t going to help your 3rd party relations. Sales are very important, probably the most important factor in all of this. We see the PS360 enjoying support because of the sales they bring in, there’s no reason why the Wii-U wouldn’t enjoy similar support if it provided similar sales. I understand the install base is much smaller, but that’s something Nintendo should have considered when designing the platform. They should have made a system that’s easy to port to, minimizing development cost, and that would have likely helped with the ROI concerns for the publishers. I know other systems have seen continued support after games fail to sell, but this has already been addressed plenty of times to understand why.

I was thinking of you and TreasureHunterG when referring to you guys. It seems like you both are emotionally invested in Nintendo or their platforms and it’s clouding your judgement or reasoning.

 

[Sami+]

I don't even know where to begin with this. So, essentially, Nintendo needs to make a clone of the PS4 and Xbone in order to remain "in touch" with the gamers? I mean, doesn't it speak volumes about how "out of touch" Sony, Microsoft, and most third parties were with consumers when the Wii was a smashing success right out of the gate?

I'd more so argue they knew their audience and catered to them accordingly, something the Wii U is very clearly failing at.

Game enthusiasts spilled the extra money on a PS3 or Xbox because that's what catered to them. It's also why Nintendo is seen as so out of touch now, because the only people they know how to cater to are their hardcore fans.

The Wii U isn't going to capture the attention of casuals, because their attention is on Apple and Google right now. It's not going to win any converts from the 360 or PS3 camps, because what those people are looking for is being offered by the PS4 and Xbone, not the Wii U.

It's not selling because it doesn't have any value to anyone who isn't a Nintendo fan. It's not going to be anything more than a "secondary" system in the eyes of enthusiasts, and that's Nintendo's own fault.

 

[RobFox64tm]

I honestly think the biggest mistake Nintendo made with Wii U, was not showing their own major software titles until AFTER the system released. This is what get's people excited for Nintendo consoles, and Nintendo, through two E3s, did nothing to help that. Completely unprecedented for a Nintendo console unveiling. Not the only thing, mind you, but a huge reason Nintendo didn't pick up much momentum with this system.

 

[KageMaru]

these are all great points. Yeah Wii U is in an awkward spot, and that is a real issue Nintendo needs to address. I genuinely think the place to address that is pricing parity with PS360. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that whatever decisions they make, they are going to be TOUGH ones. Well, that is a tough decision. When you price your system at a level of the (half-) previous gen, and you have games that DO look better (Rayman Legends, NFSMW, etc) it becomes a much better value proposition. Of course those other systems still have their massive libraries and user bases, but just like you have to get a PS3 to play uncharted, you will have to get a Wii U to play SSBU.


On third party support, the BEST I am arguing is "who knows!?!" If (let's just say) they do a DS-level turn around, it goes without saying that EA would come back to the fold. If on the other hand they can at least show niche titles will sell, it's not unreasonable to expect especially some of the japanese publishers to come back. But yeah... if they can't even hit triple digits in each territory during the holiday period. sigh...

Yeah I definitely agree here. If they want to be a cheaper alternative, they really need to be at price parity with MS and Sony on the PS360. There is little they can do to address the larger library of these older systems, but they can push for enough exclusives to make up for it IMO.

As for 3rd party support coming back, I hope it happens, but i have my doubts. I fear that by the time sales do pick up, development for the PS4/xbone will be at full throttle and publishers will still see little reason to downport or even try to downport games to the Wii-U. The niche sales could be interesting though. I do hope we see more studios like Frozenbyte support the platform.

I want the Wii-U to do well. I don't agree with many of Nintendo's choices, but the same can be said for MS on the Xbone and I want them to do well too. I plan to own all 3 this coming generation, so any of them dying doesn't make me happy. I just don't see it turning around for the Wii-U unfortunately. We'll have to see...

 

[borghe]

I also agree that for the meantime Nintendo has to abandon the casual market. They absolutely HAVE moved on to phones and tablets and Facebook, and likely will never come back. If they can do Wii Fit U to give something to people who still use their balance boards, fine. But I would say time is almost up even on franchises like Just Dance..

Hopefully we can take them killing Vitality Sensor as a sign that this is happening.

Let the developers chase the casual market. That isn't something the manufacturers need to concern themselves with.

 

[SolidSnakex]

but again, you guys are talking about a VERY specific style of game (i.e. lush, highly cinematic, AAAA level games). And that was exactly my point. The industry does NOT live and die by those games.

Well, in many ways consoles do live and die on major AAA titles. I'd certainly put Nintendo's big console drivers in that category. Mid-tier and indie games aren't going to really push consoles in significant quantities. You need those major brands to really push consoles. And then what those games end up doing is bringing in those mid-tier and indie games because the console base is so large and diverse.

Once the $400 PS4 hits, they could very well be in a position to market the Wii U against it as a less expensive alternative.

But why would someone take a Wii U over a PS3 or 360 if they're simply looking for a cheaper alternative? Those consoles still have multiple pricedrops that they can go through, which would make them even cheaper than the Wii U, plus they have giant back catalogs with futures that are almost guaranteed to have better third party support than the Wii U. See, that's the problem that Nintendo is currently facing. They aren't simply going against the PS4 or Xbox One. On one hand they do have those consoles, but on the other hand they have the current-gen platforms that publishers are still investing in because they still make them so much money.

 

[Jonm1010]

Those figures were from February 2005 (got them from an IGN article), but at least show the platform discrepancy. Extrapolate from there I guess, Capcom never broke it down by platform again AFAIK.

Well Nintendo paid for them...

I think it proves a point in the opposite direction actually - the PS2 was 'treated badly' in this scenario with the late port of VJ. As such, the VJ audience was now on GCN. Irrespective of install base, the GCN games sold better because 'the house was built there'. It makes perfect sense.

Wii U (and to a large extent Wii before it), were/are getting these late, poor ports, and they sell poorly for the same reason as VJ PS2 did. Nobody is building an audience on Wii U, all they're doing is throwing the odd late, poor port at it. And VJ shows that even on the most successful console of all time this doesn't work.

But then games like injustice comes out across all platforms and it still sells like shit on wiiU.

The thing with viewtiful joe is it was an exception to the rule with gamecube. Not the norm. Just like tiger woods initially selling better on wii then ps/360(which changed down the line). It was the exception as all other sports titles didnt.

WiiU also has the issue of the low install base. Realistic max possible sales for a wiiU version of any game are much, much, much, much smaller then that same game on ps/360. And since most companies have tied their anchor around the ps4/xbone boat, it will take at least a year or more of utterly poor sales of those consoles IMO before any of those companies really reevaluate their decisions to ignore wiiU.

 

[bart64]

You do realize this is literally the exact same shit Miksar is saying, but from a different perspective and better wording?

Don't tell me what video games are about, and don't tell me why I should like them. Comes off as rather arrogant, if I may say so.

For the record, the games you call "mindless shit" happen to be games I very much enjoy, and far prefer over the comparatively simplistic (dare I say "mindless"?) games Nintendo has been providing for so many years and refusing to diverge from.

8-bit gaming has aged. Significantly. Legend of Zelda is unrefined and frustrating compared to A Link to the Past. The same applies to Metroid when put up against Super Metroid. 8-bit games were amazing at the time because that was the best that could be provided in that era. 16-bit gaming completely blew it out of the water and was just as amazing because that was the best that could be provided in that era.

Have you played any PS1 games recenty? Many of them haven't aged well at all. Look at Final Fantasy VII, for the sake of example. Astounding and industry-defining at the time for a variety of reasons. Now? The translation is awful, the graphics are horrendous, the pre-rendered backgrounds can be difficult to navigate, and so forth. But these problems didn't matter at the time because the game was still far above the standard of other games from its era.

Games evolve. That's not to undermine the significance of what's already come out in the past, either. I quite enjoyed Ocarina of Time 3D when I played it two years ago, in fact, despite it being more or less the exact same game. One of my favorite games of all time is Shadow of the Colossus (one of the games you'd call "mindless", I'm guessing? I'd consider it very mature and cinematic, so I would assume so), and that came out about a decade ago, I believe.

Fighting against and undermining what is undeniably evolution of the medium in a direction you're not fond of isn't fair, and it's ridiculous for the same reason Miksar's post is.

If you don't like what other developers are doing now, don't buy their shit. If you see Nintendo as the savior of gaming as you like it, and the only one providing the games you want, then by all means, buy their systems. That being said, abysmal sales numbers seem to indicate you're not in a majority by any means.

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, and being polite will not get you very far in this corner of the internet.

I have a PS3 and XBOX360 and was recently blown away by TLOU, so I can appreciate their contribution. My point was that their approach to hardware is unsustainable, and that the console industry would be in disastrous shape without Nintendo there to bring in kids and casuals with entry-level pricing and accessible games. Just giving credit where it's due.

 

[Sami+]

I honestly think the biggest mistake Nintendo made with Wii U, was not showing their own major software titles until AFTER the system released. This is what get's people excited for Nintendo consoles, and Nintendo, through two E3s, did nothing to help that. Completely unprecedented for a Nintendo console unveiling. Not the only thing, mind you, but a huge reason Nintendo didn't pick up much momentum with this system.

Even then, what they've shown isn't all that impressive anyway, with Mario Kart being the only exception.

While I don't enjoy the mainline Mario games very much (feel free to throw tomatoes), I've always held a great deal of respect for them, and was always wowed by what I saw. Back in 2011, when the Wii U leaks were first coming out, I was crazy hyped to see the new HD Mario. The next step from Mario Galaxy - something with the same jaw-dropping scale, atmosphere, music, and visuals. Fast forward two years and after all the wait we get... Mario 3D World. Will it be a solid game? Oh, I'm sure. Is it impressive or eye-catching at all, or even in the same league as Galaxy or 64 when it comes to significance? Not in my opinion, no. Not even close.

The new Zelda game, then? That tech demo looked pretty awesome. Anything like that? Nope.

Pikmin is Pikmin. Donkey Kong is Donkey Kong. Smash Bros is Smash Bros.

Maybe I'm not a good judge seeing as how I'm not a Nintendo fan anymore, and their output isn't as exciting as it used to be for me. Maybe I'm just cynical.

But honestly, all I'm seeing is the same stuff they had on the Wii, but with a new coat of paint. New game mechanics are a given, and something I take for granted. Sequels need that. It doesn't make me drop everything and say "okay, this is way better than what we had before. I NEED this".

InFAMOUS Second Son has a new main character, a new overworld, new powers, a new story, far more impressive visuals, and so forth. I didn't care much for inFAMOUS 2 (never finished it), but I'm really pumped for Second Son.

Mario 3D World has transparent tubes and a cat suit. Whooohooooo...

To tie this back to the thread and keep myself from going off topic, this is a big reason why the Wii U isn't selling - their first party captures their core audience's attention, and nobody else. With nobody else buying, the userbase stays exclusive to Nintendo die-hards. Historically, these are the people who don't buy third party games. You can see this trend in this very thread. Small install base of people who won't care about your games anyway? Yeah, I don't blame third parties for ignoring Nintendo.

 

[Wiktor]

Yes and their purpose is - not waste money on system with crappy hardware sales and absymal software ones.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

Nintendo doesn't give two shits about third party. They structured themselves so that they make a profit everytime a nintendo product gets sold.

3rd parties see Nintendo as the odd man out and fruitless drain on resources except Ubi who has found success with their dance games.

 

[RobFox64tm]

Even then, what they've shown isn't all that impressive anyway, with Mario Kart being the only exception.

While I don't enjoy the mainline Mario games very much (feel free to throw tomatoes), I've always held a great deal of respect for them, and was always wowed by what I saw. Back in 2011, when the Wii U leaks were first coming out, I was crazy hyped to see the new HD Mario. The next step from Mario Galaxy - something with the same jaw-dropping scale, atmosphere, music, and visuals. Fast forward two years and after all the wait we get... Mario 3D World. Will it be a solid game? Oh, I'm sure. Is it impressive or eye-catching at all, or even in the same league as Galaxy or 64 when it comes to significance? Not in my opinion, no. Not even close.

The new Zelda game, then? That tech demo looked pretty awesome. Anything like that? Nope.

Pikmin is Pikmin. Donkey Kong is Donkey Kong. Smash Bros is Smash Bros.

Maybe I'm not a good judge seeing as how I'm not a Nintendo fan anymore, and their output isn't as exciting as it used to be for me. Maybe I'm just cynical.

But honestly, all I'm seeing is the same stuff they had on the Wii, but with a new coat of paint. New game mechanics are a given, and something I take for granted. Sequels need that. It doesn't make me drop everything and say "okay, this is way better than what we had before. I NEED this".

InFAMOUS Second Son has a new main character, a new overworld, new powers, a new story, far more impressive visuals, and so forth. I didn't care much for inFAMOUS 2 (never finished it), but I'm really pumped for Second Son.

Mario 3D World has transparent tubes and a cat suit. Whooohooooo...

To tie this back to the thread and keep myself from going off topic, this is a big reason why the Wii U isn't selling - their first party captures their core audience's attention, and nobody else. With nobody else buying, the userbase stays exclusive to Nintendo die-hards. Historically, these are the people who don't buy third party games. You can see this trend in this very thread. Small install base of people who won't care about your games anyway? Yeah, I don't blame third parties for ignoring Nintendo.

Bullshit. Mario Kart Wii and New Super Mario Bros. Wii wouldn't have found the success they had if this was true. The fact that they are also very well recieved on the 3DS completely undermines your point as well, even if it did take a price cut to get people to notice them. The fact is, people still eat these games up, but only if it is convenient for them to do so. Wii U's current price and udder lack of promotion is the barrier here, not the software. You could argue that these games won't get people to buy a $350 machine, but that doesn't mean they aren't interested in them.

 

[Sami+]

Bullshit. Mario Kart Wii and New Super Mario Bros. Wii wouldn't have found the success they had if this was true. The fact that they are also very well recieved on the 3DS completely undermines your point as well, even if it did take a price cut to get people to notice them. The fact is, people still eat these games up, but only if it is convenient for them to do so. Wii U's current price and udder lack of promotion is the barrier here, not the software. You could argue that these games won't get people to buy a $350 machine, but that doesn't mean they aren't interested in them.

Not interested enough to buy the Wii U, which is exactly what I'm saying. I'm well aware that Nintendo's core franchises have a ton of casual appeal, I'm just saying that in the case of the Wii U, that doesn't amount to much at all.

Hell, maybe everyone is going to flock to a Wii U for Donkey Kong and Mario and I'll be forced to eat crow. Maybe. I just don't see it happening. Definitely not at this price, anyway.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Well, Capcom turned all GCN exclusive games (Killer7, Viewtiful Joe) into multiplattform titles because Capcom wasn't happy with the sales on the GCN.

P.N.03 was the only game of the Capcom Five that stayed an exclusive game and the sales were dissapointed.

Maybe those were the games whose sales Capcom wasn't happy about that I was confusing with RE4. Whatever the case I know it was the shareholders who demanded these games be put on PS2 so they could enjoy better sales.

 

[SmokedMeat]

What is interesting about Nintendo's independent developer stance is they are giving a lot of those games front and center space in their eShop. Nintendo isn't hiding them as Microsoft tends to do. Today's indie dev is tomorrow's potential huge software house. Nintendo may be finding that a lot easier to deal with than the people with 500 person teams who want to sell 20 million with every game they make...

Which indie game is getting front and center space? Last I checked Luigi was getting the spotlight.
I agree though that Microsoft tends to hide them unless it's something pretty big.

Edit: Or were you talking 3DS? That e-shop is just too sloppy imo.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

eh, bullshit. The only argument coming from the anti-Wii U sentiment is "too weak!!!". Yes there are well thought out posts on why support is lacking, and hell knows there are TONS of reasons why that support is lacking. But a certain contingent in here doesn't really care about any of those reasons when it's so fun to just pile on the "hahahaha Nintendo makes weak systems!!" dogpile. And honestly, as the anti-Wii U sentiment, why WOULD they care about those other reasons. I mean those other reasons can be FIXED.. but the "hahaha the system sucks" argument will never change for them, because Nintendo can't alter the hardware. So they can sit tight behind that and just keep wailing away.

Well said, totally agree on the bolded. This anti-WiiU sentiment can't accept an argument defending WiiU and try to pose you as emotionally invested in Nintendo as excuse to discredit your opinion as some of them are doing with me here because of my position regarding it and anyone else doing the same, like onipex above. This is just ridiculous.

I also agree that for the meantime Nintendo has to abandon the casual market. They absolutely HAVE moved on to phones and tablets and Facebook, and likely will never come back. If they can do Wii Fit U to give something to people who still use their balance boards, fine. But I would say time is almost up even on franchises like Just Dance..

Hopefully we can take them killing Vitality Sensor as a sign that this is happening.

Let the developers chase the casual market. That isn't something the manufacturers need to concern themselves with.

these are all great points. Yeah Wii U is in an awkward spot, and that is a real issue Nintendo needs to address. I genuinely think the place to address that is pricing parity with PS360. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that whatever decisions they make, they are going to be TOUGH ones. Well, that is a tough decision. When you price your system at a level of the (half-) previous gen, and you have games that DO look better (Rayman Legends, NFSMW, etc) it becomes a much better value proposition. Of course those other systems still have their massive libraries and user bases, but just like you have to get a PS3 to play uncharted, you will have to get a Wii U to play SSBU.

On third party support, the BEST I am arguing is "who knows!?!" If (let's just say) they do a DS-level turn around, it goes without saying that EA would come back to the fold. If on the other hand they can at least show niche titles will sell, it's not unreasonable to expect especially some of the japanese publishers to come back. But yeah... if they can't even hit triple digits in each territory during the holiday period. sigh...

One thing I just realized... they do actually have a valuable barometer in their back pocket. In previous generations it was way too easy to write off "well no shit Nintendo games sell. But what about OUR games" for third parties. But with Nintendo publishing a number of third party developed games, if those games actually sell well it could potentially be a much better barometer for how third parties can sell on the system without any third parties actually needing to take any of the risk as a litmus test. Of course we are hearing grumblings from Kamiya on how he feels Wonderful 101 is being handled. Hopefully Nintendo takes those grumblings to heart. IMHO a game like that and Bayonetta both have a better chance of bringing third parties back in than say Sonic (as awesome as Lost Worlds actually looks)

Agree with these too.

 

[Metallix87]

It was mind boggling at the time that Capcom wanted to move the entire mainline Resident Evil series onto Gamecube, when the series had a strong audience and tremendous success on Playstation, where it all began.

After seeing the sales of RE4, the shareholders as I recall, demanded they bring the game over to PS2 so it could enjoy better sales. .

Wrong. RE4 for PS2 was announced weeks before the launch of the GC version.

Also, the reason Capcom wanted to move the series to GC was because SCEA treated them like shit the previous Gen.

 

[KageMaru]

Well said, totally agree on the bolded. This anti-WiiU sentiment can't accept an argument defending WiiU and try to pose you as emotionally invested in Nintendo as excuse to discredit your opinion as some of them are doing with me here because of my position regarding it and anyone else doing the same, like onipex above. This is just ridiculous.

What you fail to realize is that I'm not anti-Wii-U at all. You are emotionally invested with Nintendo though, to the point where logical answers needs to be repeated multiple times.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

What you fail to realize is that I'm not anti-Wii-U at all. You are emotionally invested with Nintendo though, to the point where logical answers needs to be repeated multiple times.

For the same reason you try to point me as emotionally invested with Nintendo, I can deduce from your posts you're part of the anti-WiiU sentiment borghe was talking about, your posts matches the description he gave.

Yes, because I've been posting a bunch of "hahahaha Nintendo makes weak systems!!" posts in this thread, right?

You are making absolutely no sense here.

Yes, you do. That's why you aren't in position to call anyone names.

I'm done with you.

 

[KageMaru]

For the same reason you try to point me as emotionally invested with Nintendo, I can deduce from your posts you're part of the anti-WiiU sentiment borghe was talking about, your posts matches the description he gave.

Yes, because I've been posting a bunch of "hahahaha Nintendo makes weak systems!!" posts in this thread, right?

You are making absolutely no sense here.

 

[shinra-bansho]

This anti-WiiU sentiment can't accept an argument defending WiiU and try to pose you as emotionally invested in Nintendo as excuse to discredit your opinion as some of them are doing with me here because of my position regarding it and anyone else doing the same, like onipex above. This is just ridiculous.

You can like your Wii U. You can defend its honor all you want. But when your arguments are flawed, people are going to point it out. And when your arguments seem based on things other than sound reasoning then, again, people are going to point it out.

And frankly, as a poster said above, your posts are all over the place.

You and other people tried to make out as if the PS3 and Wii U situations are similar, when they are only so at a most cursory glance, to try and spin a tale of third parties are somehow deliberately sabotaging Nintendo's platforms, as if the decisions were not driven by commercial motivation. People, including myself, including M°°nblade, point out the many and varied differences between the situations. You ignore those differences in people's replies and again pretend the situations are analogous and the anthropomorphized collective third party industry is somehow being hypocritical in their lack of faith in the Wii U and are undermining Nintendo's platforms. People again point out differences, you dispute again. Rinse and repeat.

Then M°°nblade again spells out the differences in situation and suddenly you agree with said post? Nonsensical.

Now you're acting as if anyone pointing out the flaws in your flawed arguments about a conspiracy have some sort of vendetta and have only been posting about how weak the hardware is, when (while the hardware itself being less powerful, is a major part of why the product is failing to perform saleswise) it is one of many arguments as to why the Wii U is not resonating with the market.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

You can like your Wii U. You can defend its honor all you want. But when your arguments are flawed, people are going to point it out. And when your arguments seem based on things other than sound reasoning then, again, people are going to point it out.

And frankly, as a poster said above, your posts are all over the place.

You and other people tried to make out as if the PS3 and Wii U situations are similar, when they are only so at a most cursory glance, to try and spin a tale of third parties are somehow deliberately sabotaging Nintendo's platforms, as if the decisions were not driven by commercial motivation. People, including myself, including M°°nblade, point out the many and varied differences between the situations. You ignore those differences in people's replies and again pretend the situations are analogous and the anthropomorphized collective third party industry is somehow being hypocritical in their lack of faith in the Wii U. People again point out differences, you dispute. Then M°°nblade again spells out the differences in situation and suddenly you agree with said post?

Because he actually brought consistent points which I agree, unlike you which went psychotherapist wannabe as a way to discredit me. I didn't agree with what you said, but agreed with M°°nblade. If that upsets you, there's nothing I can do for you.

By the look of your reaction, you took this discussion way too personal and, henceforth, needed to pose me as emotionally invested with Nintendo. Yes, my arguments trying to make a comparison between PS3/WiiU performance might had been flawed, but I had a point. If I didn't manage to proper bring it to you, my bad. But your need to point me as emotionally invested with someone for detracting my point is just ridiculous.

Our discussion is over.

 

[KageMaru]

I'm done with you.

Our discussion is over.

lol What do you do when someone makes a point that you can't debate or refute? You close the discussion off. Real nice.

M°°nblade, shinra-bansho, and I have all been very consistent of our points and we all are pretty much making the same point in the end. However you only agree with one of us three?

 

[shinra-bansho]

I didn't agree with what you said, but agreed with M°°nblade.

That's nonsensical, his points and mine were in agreement, and in opposition to your premise.

If that upsets you, there's nothing I can do for you.

It doesn't upset me remotely, it's simply doesn't logically follow.

By the look of your reaction, you took this discussion way too personal and, henceforth, needed to pose me as emotionally invested with Nintendo.

I don't see how my post indicates some sort of personal reaction. I'm just trying to decipher what exactly your string of posts is trying to convey if you somehow agree with one of several people pointing out the flawed premise of your argument.

Yes, my arguments trying to make a comparison between PS3/WiiU performance might had been flawed, but I had a point. If I didn't manage to proper bring it to you, my bad.

If the point being made is based on a wholly flawed premise, I really don't see the validity of it.

But your need to point me as emotionally invested with someone for detracting my point is just ridiculous.

I don't see how the ascribing of conspiratorial malice to the actions of the collective third party industry can really be anything but the result of emotional rather than dispassionate examination of the situations at hand. I wasn't pointing, I was simply suggesting that if you took a step back from viewing the actions of third parties through an emotive lens, you may see the differences being clearly spelled out to you, rather than glossing over them.

Our discussion is over.

Alrighty then...

 

[onipex]

Nope, not upset at all, more like confused =p IMO you’re excusing Nintendo design choices with the Wii-U which, undoubtedly, are contributing to Nintendo’s issues of developer support.

I don’t have an issue with the good you said about Nintendo, they do seem to be trying harder now than they have with the GC and Wii, but we still don’t know what they are doing exactly. They made similar promises with the Wii and that never materialized into anything. I’m happy as hell that they revived Bayonetta 2 and plan to get a Wii-U for that game alone, but we don’t know what they have done to work with 3rd party publishers. We can see they put out the hardware they wanted, regardless for the request of more power. When you make it harder to work on your system, that isn’t going to help your 3rd party relations. Sales are very important, probably the most important factor in all of this. We see the PS360 enjoying support because of the sales they bring in, there’s no reason why the Wii-U wouldn’t enjoy similar support if it provided similar sales. I understand the install base is much smaller, but that’s something Nintendo should have considered when designing the platform. They should have made a system that’s easy to port to, minimizing development cost, and that would have likely helped with the ROI concerns for the publishers. I know other systems have seen continued support after games fail to sell, but this has already been addressed plenty of times to understand why.

I was thinking of you and TreasureHunterG when referring to you guys. It seems like you both are emotionally invested in Nintendo or their platforms and it’s clouding your judgement or reasoning.

How have I excused Nintendo's design choices? I never said they were good choices or bad. I agreed that their design choices always go against industry trends, but the consoles can still play traditional games.You trying to lable me as emotionally invested is pretty weak.

What I disagree with are the people that keep arguing that if Nintendo made stronger or similar hardware they would better support. There is just no proof of that. IMO there is nothing Nintendo could have done to get better third party support than what was on its last 3 home consoles. The Wii U's support is actually a little better than I expected. I don't think there is some their is some conspiracy , but I paid attention long enough to know what to expect. If the hardware was the same than it would be less support because the controller was different. If the controller was the same too than it would be less support because the demographics are not there. If its not that it would be because Nintendo games sell so much more that there is a perception that third party games just don't sell.

That's not an argrument as to why its on shaky ground with third parties now, because that reason is clear. If the hardware was about the same as PS4/X1 I think third parties would be just as unhappy with current sales and would have made the same moves. That goes without saying though.

 

[borghe]

Well, in many ways consoles do live and die on major AAA titles. I'd certainly put Nintendo's big console drivers in that category. Mid-tier and indie games aren't going to really push consoles in significant quantities. You need those major brands to really push consoles. And then what those games end up doing is bringing in those mid-tier and indie games because the console base is so large and diverse.

I have a lot of contention with what you're saying here, and honestly see a similar sort of contention in the industry currently. That AAA titles have become so symbiotic to the industry I don't think is a stretch to say symbolizes everything that is WRONG with the industry. Not saying they are horrible.. but the industry has become so intertwined with them that it can't afford to stop producing them yet at the same time, really can't afford to KEEP producing them. Basically it's just getting to the point where it's fucked. And you're right. Indies and mid-tier games won't magically save the industry later today. But at some point, the industry HAS TO shift back to less of a focus on AAA titles, and a more balanced focus on AAA titles combined with indie and mid-tier games. It's at this point where Wii U is nicely settled. If what I'm saying doesn't happen (that balance shift), look for the closures and bankruptcies this past gen to just be the tip of the iceberg. I mean you are even still today seeing massive industry shakeups at companies that can't compete in the AAA landscape. That is fucked the hell up.

But why would someone take a Wii U over a PS3 or 360 if they're simply looking for a cheaper alternative? Those consoles still have multiple pricedrops that they can go through, which would make them even cheaper than the Wii U, plus they have giant back catalogs with futures that are almost guaranteed to have better third party support than the Wii U. See, that's the problem that Nintendo is currently facing. They aren't simply going against the PS4 or Xbox One. On one hand they do have those consoles, but on the other hand they have the current-gen platforms that publishers are still investing in because they still make them so much money.

Well yeah, but this is Nintendo's problem not mine All absolutely fair points, and ones nintendo has to figure out to not be utterly fucked. As I said to KageMaru, the best bet seems to be going toe to toe with PS360 instead of PS4BONE. Yes you'll still have price drops and massive catalogs to compete with, but at least at that point Nintendo DOES have exclusive desirable content AND room to still grow from a quality standpoint. Also while the indie scene will likely exist on PS3 for a little while yet, how long before sony starts "suggesting" indies start moving off of PS3 and to PS4 instead? and indies and Microsoft (either generation) are like peanut butter and gasoline. Not much competition there for ANY of the indie-supporting consoles.

So we'll have to see. There's not a clear cut or easy answer. You're absolutely right. The only viable answers it seems are going to be tough choices. Either go toe to toe with next gen and face death if you can't convince 3rd parties to come back, or angle yourself more favorably against the current gen and be viewed as a budget platform with some Nintendo IPs on it. Although FWIW I genuinely feel that's what Wii was last gen anyway.

 

[Log4Girlz]

What I disagree with are the people that keep arguing that if Nintendo made stronger or similar hardware they would better support.

Its the entire ecosystem. Designing lackluster hardware supports a philosophy of catering to casuals and Nintendo fans who do not need greater hardware power. Videogame enthusiasts who are lapping up Call of Duty, Skyrim, GTA's etc do care about power.

If the Wii U as is was far more powerful, no, it would not have gained more support. It would still have that stupid name and design. Console power alone is not what's going to attract more support but it is a very major, key factor. If the Wii U stuck to motion controls, had greater power and overall specs, looked slick and Nintendo hyped up its power and the launch ports were easily the best version of said games by a large margin...things would have turned out much better. The Wii U would be selling much better and third parties would be more willing to put software out instead of just showing token support to try to maintain at least some relationship with Nintendo.

 

[borghe]

Its the entire ecosystem. Designing lackluster hardware supports a philosophy of catering to casuals and Nintendo fans who do not need greater hardware power. Videogame enthusiasts who are lapping up Call of Duty, Skyrim, GTA's etc do care about power.

The problem is, it's these types of games and the industry's current favoring of them that have put the industry into it's current catch-22. The industry can't afford to lower the output of these games, but can't continue the current output of them either. You are seeing one or two AAA bombs literally killing development teams AND even their publishers. Capcom just had massive layoffs, unquestionably the result of having a hard time competing in the AAA landscape. While the call of duties of the industry are bringing in record revenue, they are doing so to ever shrinking margins, and at the expense of previously viable tiers of budgets.

Everyone is pointing out Wii U not getting the biggest new AAA releases.. but I think the bigger issue in the room is... there's not much more out there besides those AAA releases and first party exclusives. Without that changing, the whole industry is in for bleak days, not just Wii U.

Me personally I see the more likely scenario of a shift of focus back to a more balanced release list. With indies and mid-tiers in a more balanced position with AAA's. It's the only way the industry will survive. And in that situation, Wii U isn't really in a bad spot. Just that the majority of AAA gaming on the system will likely come from Nintendo.