Analyst on Wii U: "Competitive position has deteriorated", "No Activision support".

I hope people in the audience at e3 stay silent or even boo Nintendo at the appropriate times. WiiU is a hardware turd and Nintendo needs to know that instead of splashing fanboy jizz their way.

I doubt they'll do that since the people there will more than likely be grown ups.
 
So this guy is just an analyst who got his info from all the WiiU "news" going about right? Why does gaf over blow everything?

gaf only over blows negative Nintendo related news, just see that the 6670 card on ps4 isnt getting any negative press...
 
Analysis still come out and claim Nintendo doom fail suck etc.... Even after being proved wrong again and again and again....
 
I doubt they'll do that since the people there will more than likely be grown ups.

People have boo'd Sony when they fuck up but for some reason Nintendo gets a pass. The willingness of people to praise garbage at e3 has been discussed before. Companies take the show as a way to judge consumer reaction, they need to know when they're on the wrong track.
 
Analysis still come out and claim Nintendo doom fail suck etc.... Even after being proved wrong again and again and again....
Truth be told, everyone could be right here.

The Wii U could be underpowered with gimped online, no achievements and largely unsupported by 3rd parties yet still prosper and become the best-selling console for the next 10 years due in large part to Nintendo's own IPs, branding and the fact that struggling Japanese developers may actually be capable of producing software for it.

All of the hardcore fans looking to the Wii U as a Durango/Orbis equivalent that was getting a year start out of the gates with always left me scratching my head seeing how that's never been Nintendo's methodology and frankly it hasn't mattered. Wii U will print money just like most other Nintendo systems even if it's the worst piece of outdated crap imaginable.
 
People have boo'd Sony when they fuck up but for some reason Nintendo gets a pass. The willingness of people to praise garbage at e3 has been discussed before. Companies take the show as a way to judge consumer reaction, they need to know when they're on the wrong track.

Sony got booed over announcing AT&T for the Vita, but that was it. Nintendo likely won't give themselves the opportunity to show off anything particularly foolhardy or embarrassing, unless you somehow think the audience do instantaneous pixel counts on demo footage and have aneurysms because they think there's baked lighting.
 
We understand that Activision has no plans to support Wii U, which means the biggest selling title of Call of Duty will be missing

Good riddance.

The Konami comment I'd actually be bummed out about, but they've been such a colossal mess as of late.
 
Y'all aren't sick of Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, Pokemon yet? Nintendo will always sell to the faithful but how many of them are really out there outside of boards like this.

Not sick of Pokemon but they haven't had any substantial console support for Pokemon since the N64.

Pokemon Stadium 3 would make me buy the Wii-U. Nothing else would.
 
People have boo'd Sony when they fuck up but for some reason Nintendo gets a pass. The willingness of people to praise garbage at e3 has been discussed before. Companies take the show as a way to judge consumer reaction, they need to know when they're on the wrong track.

People booed AT&T.

What is the right track and who decides it? Profitability? Market share? What you personally want?

For clarification, I don't think the audience should cheer or boo since they're supposed to be professionals.
 
While I am not supporting what big_z said mostly because of how he said it he does have a point that crowd reaction at e3 when overly positive can lead to bad things. Just look at why the 3DS was priced as it was at launch to see why.

Back on topic:

So you guys don't think there's any possibility now that Nintendo has let EA handle a big portion of their online, possibly putting off companies like Activision from wanting to support the system?
 
So you guys don't think there's any possibility now that Nintendo has let EA handle a big portion of their online, possibly putting off companies like Activision from wanting to support the system?
Why would Activation care who adviced Nintendo on the implementations as long as it serves their purposes too?

Also, E3 doesn't even allow the public to attent anymore, I doubt the pricing plan was based on "journalists" wooing or booing...
 
I realize you were trying to be clever or something, but that's a pretty stupid answer to the question.

Which is why I've seen you post in every negative Nintendo thread with the same exact posts. Hell, after you were proven wrong with the quotes in the other topic, I figured you'd just stop.
 
So you guys don't think there's any possibility now that Nintendo has let EA handle a big portion of their online, possibly putting off companies like Activision from wanting to support the system?
No, I don't think so. Nintendo will not want to alienate the other major publishers. There was talk last E3 about the system integrating with Uplay for Ubisoft titles.
 
Why would Activation care who adviced Nintendo on the implementations as long as it serves their purposes too?

Also, E3 doesn't even allow the public to attent anymore, I doubt the pricing plan was based on "journalists" wooing or booing...

I'm not talking about EA adviceding them, I'm talking about EA actually handling the online. As in when you start up your WiiU you see a Nintendo Network logo with a little thing that says something like "Powered by EA Origin".

There are companies I'm sure who would rather not be giving EA a slice of any of their DLC profits or any other type of online profits, Activation is certainly one of them.

No, I don't think so. Nintendo will not want to alienate the other major publishers. They've already spoken about allowing the system to integrate with Uplay.

Does Ubi already have games on Origin? I don't use Origin myself so I don't know. Edit- just scanned through the Origin store and I do not see any Ubisoft games. That doesn't mean much to the overall question though.
 
Which is why I've seen you post in every negative Nintendo thread with the same exact posts. Hell, after you were proven wrong with the quotes in the other topic, I figured you'd just stop.

What kind of posts? And why would being proven wrong stop a person from posting?
 
I'm not talking about EA adviceding them, I'm talking about EA actually handling the online. As in when you start up your WiiU you see a Nintendo Network logo with a little thing that says something like "Powered by EA Origin".
So when was it confirmed this will happen?

Activision doesn't have an Origin competitor either at this point anyway though.
 
Another "Nintendo should go iOS" hawk. And the fact that he thinks Activision isn't supporting the Wii U shows just how much he knows about the system. We're talking about a publisher that went through the trouble of implementing their own patching system for Wii CoDs.
 
I still can't believe they are banking on a touchscreen on the controller as the main feature. It just seems redundant, and I don't think it will be popular. I hope that at E3 they'll announce something else and scrap this touchscreen controller idea. It's unlikely but one can hope.

The way it's currently set up there is no way the masses will embrace it. I was a champion of the Wii remote, but this WiiU is absolutely insane. It will be so divisive, there is no way this horrendous idea can be popular, I just don't see it at all.
 
Gibson assigned a target price of ¥10,000 and noted that "if Nintendo went iOS/Android with games we think the stock could be worth ¥20,000+, but in our view that's not going to happen."
Yeah. And just think how much more Apple would be worth if they opened up their App Store to Android phones...

But really, I don't understand how these guys get paid to be analysts without having some basic understanding of how strong, exclusive content sells hardware. Or why providing that "whole widget" of hardware/OS/software is important to a vertically-integrated company like Nintendo.
 
They probably called Activision and got the standard "We have nothing to announce at this time" which was then translated to "no support". Even the DS and Wii gets CoD. There's no way they won't be porting this fall's entry.
 
This is a perfect example of circular news sourcing:

- gamesindustry.biz reports unnamed devs claiming Wii U to be sub-par to current gen...
»»»
- Industry Analyst reads gamesindustry.biz report
»»»
- Industry Analyst cites this as a reason to be bearish on 'U'.
»»»
gamesindustry.biz reports that Analyst says "Wii U GPU is less powerful than Xbox360/PS3"


A longer version would probably have neoGAF in between each of those steps.
 
Does Ubi already have games on Origin? I don't use Origin myself so I don't know. Edit- just scanned through the Origin store and I do not see any Ubisoft games. That doesn't mean much to the overall question though.
It would be suicide to base your console's online strategy around a platform that Ubisoft and Activision actively want to fail.
Ubisoft got as much attention from Nintendo last E3 as EA. I think you're really grasping at straws with this Origin thing.
 
Are you seriously that spiteful and short sighted?


A) This gen has given us no shortage of bland FPS clones. If things shift in another direction next-gen, I wouldn't complain to say the least.

B) 1st-party Nintendo games are the core-selling-point of Nintendo machines. 3rd party support is fantastic, but if it's missing from a Nintendo console, I'm not gonna feel its absence too much. Especially support from a trite publisher like Activision.
 
I don't understand why any analyst with a functioning brain keeps saying that Nintendo should go full hog on android/iOS. Given Nintendo's long-term drive, their outright refusal in general to deal with other people's systems, and the low-ass profit margins on iOS... goddamnit.
They're all commenting on markets they don't have even the slightest understanding of. It's really sad when the average forum goer knows far more than these people who are paid to do it.
 
This is a perfect example of circular news sourcing:

- gamesindustry.biz reports unnamed devs claiming Wii U to be sub-par to current gen...
»»»
- Industry Analyst reads gamesindustry.biz report
»»»
- Industry Analyst cites this as a reason to be bullish on 'U'.
»»»
gamesindustry.biz reports that Analyst says "Wii U GPU is less powerful than Xbox360/PS3"


A longer version would probably have neoGAF in between each of those steps.

I've got a better example of circular news. I read your posts in the Wii specs reveal thread from 2005. Circular news indeed.

It would be suicide to base your console's online strategy around a platform that Ubisoft and Activision actively want to fail.
Ubisoft got as much attention from Nintendo last E3 as EA. I think you're really grasping at straws with this Origin thing.

You're probably right. I just can't think of any type of rationale for Activision to not support the WiiU unless it's because Origin though. Most likely the articles author is talking out of his ass. It'll be exposed soon one way or another.
 
I still can't believe they are banking on a touchscreen on the controller as the main feature. It just seems redundant, and I don't think it will be popular. I hope that at E3 they'll announce something else and scrap this touchscreen controller idea. It's unlikely but one can hope.

The way it's currently set up there is no way the masses will embrace it. I was a champion of the Wii remote, but this WiiU is absolutely insane. It will be so divisive, there is no way this horrendous idea can be popular, I just don't see it at all.

I do think Nintendo can do some creative things with the tablet controller than can draw attention from the mainstream. However, I do agree that the tablet controller won't be nearly as popular as the Wiimote was. The Wiimote and how it functions was something most people never seen or experienced before. One the other hand, the tablet controller is coming into a marketplace where tablets are very common and very popular. The tablet controller, I feel, just don't have that attractive "mystique" that the Wiimote enjoyed.
 
Sony got booed over announcing AT&T for the Vita, but that was it. Nintendo likely won't give themselves the opportunity to show off anything particularly foolhardy or embarrassing, unless you somehow think the audience do instantaneous pixel counts on demo footage and have aneurysms because they think there's baked lighting.

I really hope you're not referring to anything in particular.
 
I still can't believe they are banking on a touchscreen on the controller as the main feature. It just seems redundant, and I don't think it will be popular. I hope that at E3 they'll announce something else and scrap this touchscreen controller idea. It's unlikely but one can hope.

The way it's currently set up there is no way the masses will embrace it. I was a champion of the Wii remote, but this WiiU is absolutely insane. It will be so divisive, there is no way this horrendous idea can be popular, I just don't see it at all.

In my discussions with people the ability to stream the game lag-free to the controller far, far outweighs the touchscreen in affecting their desire to purchase the system.

That said, people do love their tablets something fierce.
 
Didn't Skylanders do best on Wii? Just like Guitar Hero III? And haven't the COD Wii games and Goldeneye done over a million despite being the (graphically) gimped version? Activision is going to put their games on any platform possible.
 
Top Bottom