Support NeoGAF

[BurntPork]

Wii is so dead that sales are reaching ps3 level.

My point exactly!

Spoiler

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

I don't think they blame 3DS bombing on price as much as they do on games and the lack of the eShop for the launch window.

The reasons are cumulative, and I think Nintendo knows that despite whatever line the PR pushes moment to moment. The only reason they even commented on software is that they just launched OOT and the eShop (ie: we're fixing "The Problem"). Price is a big factor though, there's really no escaping that, and if Nintendo had also pushed a price drop in June they'd be talking about that being at issue along with the software launches.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

who isn't really? they have 4000 employees, they can't even manage their current consoles, both needing much less resources to develop games for compared to Wii U or 3DS.

They really need to either expand RAPIDLY, or lure 3rd parties. If I were them, I'd go for the former option, I don't know why they haven't yet.

I terms of scale, their first party group is comparable to Sony and dwarfs Microsoft. Nintendo's fine in Japan, both in 1st party establishment and 3rd party relationships, where they need to do major work is everywhere else.

 

[walking fiend]

The reasons are cumulative, and I think Nintendo knows that despite whatever line the PR pushes moment to moment. The only reason they even commented on software is that they just launched OOT and the eShop (ie: we're fixing "The Problem"). Price is a big factor though, there's really no escaping that, and if Nintendo had also pushed a price drop in June they'd be talking about that being at issue along with the software launches.

for the masses price is really important, that is why DS is selling this much. But I believe they really need core gamers support at the moment to establish themselves among them before Vita hits the market, and for core gamers price isn't nearly as important as the potential, library and services of the system, unless you expect the 3DS to drop to DS level price category, namely 150$.

I terms of scale, their first party group is comparable to Sony and dwarfs Microsoft. Nintendo's fine in Japan, both in 1st party establishment and 3rd party relationships, where they need to do major work is everywhere else.

They are not really fine, they lack teams at the moment to work on Wii, DS, 3DS and Wii U. That is one of the reasons DS is selling so low in Japan and so is Wii. The problem is that even if they wanted, they couldn't continue support for all these 4 platforms, so they stopped developing for DS completely and Wii isn't in a better shape. And since they stopped supporting these two, 3rd parties followed.

and Making HD games requires much more resources. Even on 3DS, they said development of the Xevious took 20 times more than what they expected.

Sony and Microsoft rely mostly on 3rd parties for the games, and for services, such as Live, they are the ones that dwarf Nintendo.

 

[BurntPork]

Keep in mind that developing for too many platforms is part of why Sega collapsed. I'm sure they'll be fine with focusing on Wii U and 3DS, especially given how well DS is doing on cruise control.

 

[StreetsAhead]

They are not really fine, they lack teams at the moment to work on both Wii, DS, 3DS and Wii U. That is one of the reasons DS is selling so low in Japan and so is Wii. The problem is that even if they wanted, they couldn't continue support for all these 4 platforms, so they stopped developing for DS completely and Wii isn't in a better shape.

Two of those systems are dying.

Choosing to focus on your newer platforms is not about a lack of teams.

(I'll admit, though, that 1st party Wii support is low, maybe too low, but if it results in quality 1st party Wii U titles early on in the system's life cycle, all the better.)

 

[walking fiend]

Two of those systems are dying.

Choosing to focus on your newer platforms is not about a lack of teams.

(I'll admit, though, that 1st party Wii support is low, maybe too low, but if it results in quality 1st party Wii U titles early on in the system's life cycle, all the better.)

As i said, the point is that they couldn't do otherwise. And it hasn't done them good. In japan, not only 3DS isn't selling good and it doesn't have any games, but DS has almost stopped selling and doesn't have any games either; as a result, PSP is doing gangbusters.

They should only be happy, because unlike europe and us, there's no kinect there to rival the Wii, so their market for Wii should be fine for the moment until they release Wii. And in US and Europe they have both a very solid casual library and a very active 3rd party support to prevent that (Zumba and Just Dance actually, and that mainstream titles like lego games are almost always on Wii too).

Keep in mind that developing for too many platforms is part of why Sega collapsed. I'm sure they'll be fine with focusing on Wii U and 3DS, especially given how well DS is doing on cruise control.

not that they shouldn't focus, but they abruptly stopped the support for Wii and DS. It could have been a smoother transition, specially for DS. I think Wii will be OK, it is getting enough games to support it at least until early 2012.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Keep in mind that developing for too many platforms is part of why Sega collapsed.

No it isn't, not even close. In fact, Sega prematurely killing MD/GG development in 1995 probably hurt them more than helped them. Compare that to how Nintendo handled SNES/GB from 95 on and it's like night and day.

Now having too many platforms did hurt Sega in the early 90s, and was what likely helped lead to the erosion of consumer confidence their eventual downfall, but that was more due to the failed add-ons (Sega CD, 32X) that they failed to support well enough in the first place.

 

[Aaron Strife]

they expect to do gangbuster wiht Wii for the fall/holiday again, we can't be sure that they can't manage that. I am SHOCKED at how much DS is selling, I may be shocked again. Their holiday line up for Wii is pretty strong for the demographic that contributes the most to november/december sales as well.

Zelda alone could win over a lot of core gamers that have held out until now - it's the biggest franchise not to be on the system yet, save for TP which totally does not count.

Kirby probably won't move units alone but will probably sell to the same crowd that bought NSMBWii and DKCR, which is by no means insignificant.

Mario Party 9 and Rhythm Heaven will sell decently but like Kirby, not system sellers on their own.

So Wii sales in December will mainly be on the strengths of Zelda and existing first-party games (Mario, Mario Kart, Wii Fit).

That the Wii ship is sinking I feel is entirely a software problem, as it is with 3DS. But you can't expect Nintendo to put out a new AAA game every month, they needed help from third parties on that front and very rarely got it. It's unfortunate but hopefully a lesson for Wii U.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

They are not really fine, they lack teams at the moment to work on Wii, DS, 3DS and Wii U. That is one of the reasons DS is selling so low in Japan and so is Wii. The problem is that even if they wanted, they couldn't continue support for all these 4 platforms, so they stopped developing for DS completely and Wii isn't in a better shape. And since they stopped supporting these two, 3rd parties followed.

and Making HD games requires much more resources. Even on 3DS, they said development of the Xevious took 20 times more than what they expected.

Sony and Microsoft rely mostly on 3rd parties for the games, and for services, such as Live, they are the ones that dwarf Nintendo.

Nintendo wound down DS development awhile ago, and Wii more recently. 3rd parties never really got on Wii the way the should have though, that situation isn't anything new caused by Nintendo backing off the platform or anything.

Nintendo's Japanese studios and relationships are in great shape though (better than Sony/MS easily), and that's where the bulk of their software comes from. It's really more the west they need to invest in and court support from, and where they really lag the competition.

 

[BurntPork]

No it isn't, not even close. In fact, Sega prematurely killing MD/GG development in 1995 probably hurt them more than helped them. Compare that to how Nintendo handled SNES/GB from 95 on and it's like night and day.

Now having too many platforms did hurt Sega in the early 90s, and was what likely helped lead to the erosion of consumer confidence their eventual downfall, but that was more due to the failed add-ons (Sega CD, 32X) that they failed to support well enough in the first place.

I said "part." Sega's fall was the result of a very long chain of events.

 

[walking fiend]

Nintendo wound down DS development awhile ago, and Wii more recently. 3rd parties never really got on Wii the way the should have though, that situation isn't anything new caused by Nintendo backing off the platform or anything.

Nintendo's Japanese studios and relationships are in great shape though (better than Sony/MS easily), and that's where the bulk of their software comes from. It's really more the west they need to invest in and court support from, and where they really lag the competition.

of course DS was wounded a while ago, almost 10 1st party 3DS games will be released by the end of year, and they most probably started development even more than a year ago.

Wii lacks the casual 1st party support from Nintendo.

Zelda alone could win over a lot of core gamers that have held out until now - it's the biggest franchise not to be on the system yet, save for TP which totally does not count.

Kirby probably won't move units alone but will probably sell to the same crowd that bought NSMBWii and DKCR, which is by no means insignificant.

Mario Party 9 and Rhythm Heaven will sell decently but like Kirby, not system sellers on their own.

So Wii sales in December will mainly be on the strengths of Zelda and existing first-party games (Mario, Mario Kart, Wii Fit).

That the Wii ship is sinking I feel is entirely a software problem, as it is with 3DS. But you can't expect Nintendo to put out a new AAA game every month, they needed help from third parties on that front and very rarely got it. It's unfortunate but hopefully a lesson for Wii U.

I expected at games such Wii Play Motion, Mario Party, Rhyhm Heaven, etc; they couldn't even provide this. Or look at pilot wings for 3DS, it is obvious that it lacks content, of course it won't sell much or help the system sell, and it is not a bundle game as Wii Sports either.

edit: now that I think of it, I believe they will manage this fall as well; Just Dance 3, Zumba Fitness 2, Zelda will be more than enough I believe. Specially that the new bundle is priced at 150$ and i believe MK being bundled instead of Wii Sports will give it a better overall taste if bought along a party game such Just Dance, compared 2 motion dependent game (wii sports + just dance)

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

I said "part." Sega's fall was the result of a very long chain of events.

Having too many platforms was a problem, at one point Sega was supporting seven different machines simultaneously in various markets, plus PC and arcades. This isn't really comparable to the generational transition Nintendo's going through though (with a sum total of 4 platforms), which Sony is starting as well (also four platforms, plus PC via SOE and even Android) plus Microsoft's continued support of 3 platforms (360, PC, W7m).

Sega's downfall though, didn't really start in earnest until after they'd killed MD to focus on Saturn. Stuff like SCD and 32X might've impacted things going forward, but after the fact, and not so much due to their 1st party development being spread thin.

of course DS was wounded a while ago, almost 10 1st party 3DS games will be released by the end of year, and they most probably started development even more than a year ago.

Wii lacks the casual 1st party support from Nintendo.

I dunno, seems to me casual end is the only one that hasn't suffered in terms of Wii development. At least from an American perspective.

 

[walking fiend]

I dunno, seems to me casual end is the only one that hasn't suffered in terms of Wii development. At least from an American perspective.

they had uber support from just dance/zumba/disney games/lego games/. The only notable casual game they released recently (almost since last year) was Wii Play Motion which became dead on arrival, while I believe would have been able to perform a lot better if it was released last year or at least with the remote plus revision, instead of fling smash. It would have helped the Wii Play brand as well, and most importantly would have helped motion+ much more.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

they had uber support from just dance/zumba/disney games/lego games/. The only notable casual game they released recently (almost since last year) was Wii Play Motion which became dead on arrival, while I believe would have been able to perform a lot better if it was released last year or at least with the remote plus revision.

They also had Mario Sports Mix and Mystery Case Files this year. Coming up they have Mario Party 9, Fortune Street and (sort of) Rhythm Heaven.

Their "core" content amounts to Zelda and Kirby.

3rd parties are also still there. Wii's still getting big stuff like Lego, Zumba, Just Dance, etc. Some of the casual stuff even looks pretty decent, like Family Fishing or Go Vacation.

 

[60_gig_PS3]

Wii is my only system right now so Im familiar with the shortcomings. I really think the main problems are lack of HD graphics and too much shovelware on the store shelf.
There are plenty of good games but you need to dig through all of the Barbie and Spongebob crap to find them.


Wii U will solve both of these problems since itll probably end up getting ports of just about every mainstream X360/PS3 game.

 

[walking fiend]

They also had Mario Sports Mix and Mystery Case Files this year. Coming up they have Mario Party 9, Fortune Street and (sort of) Rhythm Heaven.

Their "core" content amounts to Zelda and Kirby.

3rd parties are also still there. Wii's still getting big stuff like Lego, Zumba, Just Dance, etc. Some of the casual stuff even looks pretty decent, like Family Fishing or Go Vacation.

although published by Nintendo, they were neither internal Nintendo games nor major games, not even 2nd party, even Wii play motion wasn't internal. Mario Party probably won't make it this year, and fortune street is only known among core gamers outside of Japan, not even well known among core gamers (unless they want to do heavy marketing which I doubt) and most probably will perform as good as mario sports mix. So their internal 1st party casual support basically boils down to Rhythm Heaven.

There are plenty of good games but you need to dig through all of the Barbie and Spongebob crap to find them.

I rarely shop at retail stores, but just looking at those craps piled upon crap makes me feel dizzy.

 

[AceBandage]

Iwata is definitely going to take a look at the Wii and 3DS launch and see what works and what doesn't.
I'm sure they have first party games that will be ready to go for launch this time so that they avoid a 3DS situation, but they won't be in the vein of Wii Sports, which basically destroys your future market.
I think launching with something like a Metroid or a Donkey Kong will be better. Save Mario for the Holidays.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Looking at the past 3 years respectively looking at all known net gains, it seems like Nintendo's been busy hoarding the Wii money away rather than using it. I suspect they will dedicate quite a large portion of that to HD in-house investments...Nintendo is famous for developing it's own in-house stuff and reusing/retooling it. Which makes the 3DS's launch lineup look even more crazy, my bet is Nintendo overestimated the selling/hype potential of 3D and is regreting it now, especially at a $250 entrance.

One thing Nintendo should do when launching the Wii U, is take a loss on hardware. Sell the damn thing with insane marketing (Kinect/Wii-type marketing) at $249-$279. And get third-parties onboard day 1, and keep it that way. I imagine within a year or two of success, they'd be making profit on the hardware, and have a more sustained/attractive price point and library in the long term. They would blow away the 360/PS3 with that price (granted the online is credible), as well as be able to keep multiplats in their corner after the dust settles. It's really only Nintendo's own greed that could hold back Wii U's sales and library potential.

 

[TheNatural]

Looking at the past 3 years respectively looking at all known net gains, it seems like Nintendo's been busy hoarding the Wii money away rather than using it. I suspect they will dedicate quite a large portion of that to HD in-house investments...Nintendo is famous for developing it's own in-house stuff and reusing/retooling it. Which makes the 3DS's launch lineup look even more crazy, my bet is Nintendo overestimated the selling/hype potential of 3D and is regreting it now, especially at a $250 entrance.

One thing Nintendo should do when launching the Wii U, is take a loss on hardware. Sell the damn thing with insane marketing (Kinect/Wii-type marketing) at $249-$279. And get third-parties onboard day 1, and keep it that way. I imagine within a year or two of success, they'd be making profit on the hardware, and have a more sustained/attractive price point and library in the long term. They would blow away the 360/PS3 with that price (granted the online is credible), as well as be able to keep multiplats in their corner after the dust settles. It's really only Nintendo's own greed that could hold back Wii U's sales and library potential.

Uh, no. They shouldn't do that at all.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

although published by Nintendo, they were neither internal Nintendo games nor major games, not even 2nd party, even Wii play motion wasn't internal. Mario Party probably won't make it this year, and fortune street is only known among core gamers outside of Japan, not even well known among core gamers (unless they want to do heavy marketing which I doubt) and most probably will perform as good as mario sports mix. So their internal 1st party casual support basically boils down to Rhythm Heaven.

Mario Sports Mix was considered a "major" title, a crossover game even actually (Reggie compared it to NSMB and Mario Kart at E3 2010). It did okayish, certainly better than Wii Play Motion, but probably not what Nintendo was expecting. It's still soon to write both off though, if history has proven anything it's that the long tail is key for games like these.

Wii Play Motion was produced internally (SPD1) and they also contributed one of the games to it. The other stuff was all 3rd party partners and few other 1st party (but not internal) studios.

Two 1st party developed casual games for 2011 isn't that bad though, I mean it's more than 2010 actually (just Wii Party via NdCube). Again, if anything it's the core titles that've declined versus 2010 (Mario Galaxy 2 via EAD Tokyo, DKCR via Retro, Other M via SPD1, Mario Collection via EAD).

 

[walking fiend]

Yamauchi is the third richest person in Japan, Nintendo employees in general have very good working conditions; now tell me where does the money go?

Again, if anything it's the core titles that've declined versus 2010 (Mario Galaxy 2 via EAD Tokyo, DKCR via Retro, Other M via SPD1, Mario Collection via EAD).

I believe that wasn't that much important for Nintendo, they lost most of the core market before than, losing few more millions wouldn't make a difference when HD consoles had sole like 100 million units.

 

[AceBandage]

Yamauchi is the third richest person in Japan, Nintendo employees in general have very good working conditions; now tell me where does the money go?

A lot goes into R&D, mostly for stuff that we don't see for years (if ever).
They also just bought a lot of prime relastate in Japan.

 

[TheNatural]

A lot goes into R&D, mostly for stuff that we don't see for years (if ever).
They also just bought a lot of prime relastate in Japan.

They also buy back their stock a lot, and are protective of it. They're a fundamentally sound business. And with the way the videogame business is, with good reason.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Uh, no. They shouldn't do that at all.

You have to understand, Nintendo needs to break into the house of third-party, they have to grab that support. Not to hope for it. My position is Nintendo cannot keep surviving on it's own brand alone indefinitely, considering the type of money being generated by CoD's/etc. They have to get a piece of that pie, otherwise we probably wouldn't be looking at the Wii U (spec wise) as it is now. But part of that struggle to get third-parties and keep them, is to generate HUGE support and FAST for Wii U among consumers and build the install base very quickly...and more importantly build of install base of a certain demographic i.e. CoD fans/Halo fans/"hardcore gamers".

The only way to do that, especially considering Nintendo's image at the moment is offer incentive by price point and by software lineup. Simply, from my perspective Nintendo must shoot low on price at launch, build a "core demographic" who will spend that money, or else third-parties will stay where they are.

 

[walking fiend]

A lot goes into R&D, mostly for stuff that we don't see for years (if ever).
They also just bought a lot of prime relastate in Japan.

I think R&D is like less than 500 million a year and yet they have been making billions of dollars 'profit' during last years.

the new facility won't cost much either, ~200 million $.

They also buy back their stock a lot, and are protective of it. They're a fundamentally sound business. And with the way the videogame business is, with good reason.

actually, I made a joke out of it: you know why Nintendo stock is falling but Iwata is still laughing? because Yamauchi is buying it back all.

 

[Hiltz]

Nintendo did spend $144.4 million on constructing a new R&D facility. It should be ready in 2013.

 

[walking fiend]

You have to understand, Nintendo needs to break into the house of third-party, they have to grab that support. Not to hope for it. My position is Nintendo cannot keep surviving on it's own brand alone indefinitely, considering the type of money being generated by CoD's/etc. They have to get a piece of that pie, otherwise we probably wouldn't be looking at the Wii U (spec wise) as it is now. But part of that struggle to get third-parties and keep them, is to generate HUGE support and FAST for Wii U among consumers and build the install base very quickly...and more importantly build of install base of a certain demographic i.e. CoD fans/Halo fans/"hardcore gamers".

The only way to do that, especially considering Nintendo's image at the moment is offer incentive by price point and by software lineup. Simply, from my perspective Nintendo must shoot low on price at launch, build a "core demographic" who will spend that money, or else third-parties will stay where they are.

that creeped me out, Iwata creeps me out! whenever I read him saying 'please understand' a Yakuza boss comes to my mind that really doesn't give shit whether you understand, you have to understand!

 

[AceBandage]

that creeped me out, Iwata creeps me out! whenever I read him saying 'please understand' a Yakuza boss comes to my mind that really doesn't give shit whether you understand, you have to understand!

He doesn't, particularly at that venue. He's talking to a bunch of idiots who happen to be share holders.

 

[TheNatural]

You have to understand, Nintendo needs to break into the house of third-party, they have to grab that support. Not to hope for it. My position is Nintendo cannot keep surviving on it's own brand alone indefinitely, considering the type of money being generated by CoD's/etc. They have to get a piece of that pie, otherwise we probably wouldn't be looking at the Wii U (spec wise) as it is now. But part of that struggle to get third-parties and keep them, is to generate HUGE support and FAST for Wii U among consumers and build the install base very quickly...and more importantly build of install base of a certain demographic i.e. CoD fans/Halo fans/"hardcore gamers".

The only way to do that, especially considering Nintendo's image at the moment is offer incentive by price point and by software lineup. Simply, from my perspective Nintendo must shoot low on price at launch, build a "core demographic" who will spend that money, or else third-parties will stay where they are.

Taking a loss doesn't guarantee anything. Making the platform easy to make the same versions PS3 and 360 are getting is what will get third party support. And maybe even investing in getting exclusives or versions of games above and beyond the other systems. Third parties don't hate Nintendo, if they can make a version of the game for Wii U they will, and that's what they're likely to do. At least until stronger systems come up, but even then, 360 and PS3 are going to get versions of things for a long time to come.

Heck, Gamecube's launch should prove exactly what I mean. It wasn't sold at a loss per se, but Nintendo had a huge price advantage. It didn't guarantee all kinds of third part support. Making it easy to make versions of games will guarantee support, which it looks like it's having. Then going out and picking the main titles and companies coming out in 2012 - like GTA V, Soul Caliber, stuff like that is something they need to do. And investing in a few exclusive games as well.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

that creeped me out, Iwata creeps me out! whenever I read him saying 'please understand' a Yakuza boss comes to my mind that really doesn't give shit whether you understand, you have to understand!

It kind of creeps me out my word choices mimic that of Iwata, but I guess that's just how it goes. Needless to say I don't follow Iwata's meetings very closely.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Taking a loss doesn't guarantee anything. Making the platform easy to make the same versions PS3 and 360 are getting is what will get third party support. And maybe even investing in getting exclusives or versions of games above and beyond the other systems. Third parties don't hate Nintendo, if they can make a version of the game for Wii U they will, and that's what they're likely to do. At least until stronger systems come up, but even then, 360 and PS3 are going to get versions of things for a long time to come.

Heck, Gamecube's launch should prove exactly what I mean. It wasn't sold at a loss per se, but Nintendo had a huge price advantage. It didn't guarantee all kinds of third part support. Making it easy to make versions of games will guarantee support, which it looks like it's having. Then going out and picking the main titles and companies coming out in 2012 - like GTA V, Soul Caliber, stuff like that is something they need to do. And investing in a few exclusive games as well.

You're correct, it doesn't guarantee anything. But it's a better bet than charging $299-$399 and expecting a world economy to eat primarily identical multiplat support and a perceptually weak visual/feature set upgrade vs. lower priced competitors. Already we've heard murmuring about Nintendo still not fully committed to a strong online presence vs. XBL/PSN. I don't know about your pocketbook, but looking at what we already know spec/features/games...$250-$280 seems a little more palatable. How do you think a "casual gamer" might view it on shelf, how you think a 360 owner will view it? How do think third-parties will view it as a profitable investment, especially considering their R&D for 720/PS4 will need to factor in in the future?

I could be wrong, maybe there's a magic feature that will "capture the public eye", and rationalize a $299-$399 investment. But looking at the market today, even with a outstanding first 6 months and Kinect-level marketing...I'm not seeing a massive move to Wii U for either third-parties and more importantly consumers. At $249, I think a bit more optimistically. That's all I'm saying.

 

[60_gig_PS3]

I think Nintendo can release at a high price point if they have a launch game that just flat out blows away anything else. Didnt they do that with the N64 and Mario?

If they have a major first party title plus all the 3rd party reqs like best console version of BF3. Id be willing to pay over 300

 

[TheNatural]

You're correct, it doesn't guarantee anything. But it's a better bet than charging $299-$399 and expecting a world economy to eat primarily identical multiplat support and a perceptually weak visual/feature set upgrade vs. lower priced competitors. Already we've heard murmuring about Nintendo still not fully committed to a strong online presence vs. XBL/PSN. I don't know about your pocketbook, but looking at what we already know spec/features/games...$250-$280 seems a little more palatable. How do you think a "casual gamer" might view it on shelf, how you think a 360 owner will view it? How do think third-parties will view it as a profitable investment, especially considering their R&D for 720/PS4 will need to factor in in the future?

I could be wrong, maybe there's a magic feature that will "capture the public eye", and rationalize a $299-$399 investment. But looking at the market today, even with a outstanding first 6 months and Kinect-level marketing...I'm not seeing a massive move to Wii U for either third-parties and more importantly consumers. At $249, I think a bit more optimistically. That's all I'm saying.

You're speculating on "weak visual/feature set." What was Wii's feature set vs. the 360 and PS3? Value is subjective. And you realize as well, that we're talking about Wii U coming out versus systems that will have been on the market for around 6 YEARS next year. I don't think competition with the 360 or PS3 will be a problem. It's about providing games that are valuable to the market, along with versions of third party games.

It's not like they have to entice third parties to do anything special, I mean a lot of PS3 third party games don't sell near as well as 360 games, but they're there. What reason is there NOT to make a Wii U version of a game? There isn't one. They just make another version of it, just like they do for PS3. And with how easily it supposedly is, with teams saying they only used a few people on weak development kits, to push things over it shouldn't be a problem.

The only potential problem is making sure Wii U gets out BEFORE the versions of these games come out. It may be a pretty big disincentive to port a game that's already been out 8 months or something because so many already own it, sure. But there's no reason why third parties aren't going to make Wii U versions of games when the release date is past the Wii U launch.

No one is going to say "OMG Wii U is launching at $300 instead of $250, forget us spending little resources to make a version of a game for it we have everything else made for 360 and PS3!"

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Wii U is not going to launch for more than Xbox 360 did 7 years earlier. $299 is the absolute ceiling of what's plausible.

 

[Poyunch]

Pikmin at launch is great. It keeps Nintendo fans happy and it's in a genre that doesn't get in the way of most third party games, especially the games that Nintendo wants for Wii U.

 

[60_gig_PS3]

Wii U is not going to launch for more than Xbox 360 did 7 years earlier. $299 is the absolute ceiling of what's plausible.

Id like to think that too but when I see that giant ipad-like controller. Im worried that Nintendo thinks they can get away with Apple pricing.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Wii U is not going to launch for more than Xbox 360 did 7 years earlier. $299 is the absolute ceiling of what's plausible.

I bet it will.

I think $350 is likely going to be the launch price.

Edit: Also, the non-dumb 360 SKU was $400.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

You're speculating on "weak visual/feature set." What was Wii's feature set vs. the 360 and PS3? Value is subjective. And you realize as well, that we're talking about Wii U coming out versus systems that will have been on the market for around 6 YEARS next year. I don't think competition with the 360 or PS3 will be a problem. It's about providing games that are valuable to the market, along with versions of third party games.

It's not like they have to entice third parties to do anything special, I mean a lot of PS3 third party games don't sell near as well as 360 games, but they're there. What reason is there NOT to make a Wii U version of a game? There isn't one. They just make another version of it, just like they do for PS3. And with how easily it supposedly is, with teams saying they only used a few people on weak development kits, to push things over it shouldn't be a problem.

The only potential problem is making sure Wii U gets out BEFORE the versions of these games come out. It may be a pretty big disincentive to port a game that's already been out 8 months or something because so many already own it, sure. But there's no reason why third parties aren't going to make Wii U versions of games when the release date is past the Wii U launch.

No one is going to say "OMG Wii U is launching at $300 instead of $250, forget us spending little resources to make a version of a game for it we have everything else made for 360 and PS3!"

First, value is perception, it's not always completely factual or even near accurate. There's still a VERY large segment of gamers and traditional spenders who argue up and down that the PS3 hardware is 100% superior to the 360 hardware...which is obviously false. But it's the perception, and what I'm referring to in that respect is features (online, multimedia, inputs, etc) and all the specifics of those and the "values" related to them. And of course the perception of a "visual upgrade" vs. 360/PS3, which we know won't be a level a magnitude significant certainly not at launch. Those perception go a long way, and often make or break a purchase decision (especially in this ecomony), even if those perceptions aren't always objective. And when it comes to price, and those perceptions will almost preemptively be slanted toward *barely more powerful than PS3, same games, why I am spending $299?*, than I think a initial loss on hardware would do good for gamers and Nintendo alike.

And sure there will obviously be a lot ports throughout the next generation to Wii U, but what I'm referring to is long term support built by strong early support and confidence. There's a reason that the PS3 gets those ports (and it wasn't always so especially in the $599-$499 days relating to ports, that happened in a bigger way AFTER it started building momentum in the market) is confidence in the platform, and confidence in the future of that platform. And that all stems from market standing, and really company relationships. And Nintendo does not have the best history of western relationships, but money can change that in a heartbeat. The problem with Wii third-party support was born out of initial lack of confidence in the platform, who the main demographic had become, and of course which games actually sold. So we can't just assume that because the hardware is technically sound, that third-parties will magically get super interested long term...look at your GC example.

So there's a lot of stuff, but I think a teeny tiny loss on initial HW sales along with a strong lineup could do a lot to shift momentum in Nintendo's favor.

 

[McHuj]

Wii U is not going to launch for more than Xbox 360 did 7 years earlier. $299 is the absolute ceiling of what's plausible.

If it launches for anything more than $299, it better have a killer launch line-up that looks and plays significantly better than the top xbox and ps3 games.

I expect both ps3 and xbox to be sub $199 (for the top SKU's) when the WiiU launches. It's going to be hard to justify $150+ price difference if the games are just ports.

 

[TheNatural]

Well the point is, Nintendo doesn't have the same games. That's why they can't do the 3DS launch again with basically nothing. Saying things like feature set and stuff doesn't matter though. The weakest systems won the last two console wars (Wii and PS2) and the weakest portable (DS) as well - and all three are 3 of the highest selling systems of all time.

Average Joe consumer doesn't go to game message boards and doesn't say 'hmm well Wii U doesn't have as much nurbs as I thought it would I'm going to stick with PS3.' The average consumer sees whats on there that isn't anywhere else, like if it launches with a New Super Mario Bros, that would be big for Nintendo's fanbase and people in general. The third party games are just in addition to that.

So really, it just comes down to what Nintendo is doing. I always say 'WTF is Nintendo working on' because they need a good launch. If they can start out with a Mario and some other solid games themselves, like Pikmin or something and then games out of third parties ready at launch - it should be perfectly fine. Price matters, I'm guessing it will launch at $300, but whether it's $250 or $300 probably won't matter much. And jeez, it's not like we're looking at a big difference between Microsoft or Sony by then anyway, at best there's going to be a price around $200 for the lead platform. But with Kinect bundles and just adding more GB's and junk to bundles, they rather keep it at $300 as long as possible. Wii U isn't going to be drastically different in price, Microsoft and Sony aren't going to have $100 360's and PS3's when it launches or anything.

First, value is perception, it's not always completely factual or even near accurate. There's still a VERY large segment of gamers and traditional spenders who argue up and down that the PS3 hardware is 100% superior to the 360 hardware...which is obviously false. But it's the perception, and what I'm referring to in that respect is features (online, multimedia, inputs, etc) and all the specifics of those and the "values" related to them. And of course the perception of a "visual upgrade" vs. 360/PS3, which we know won't be a level a magnitude significant certainly not at launch. Those perception go a long way, and often make or break a purchase decision (especially in this ecomony), even if those perceptions aren't always objective. And when it comes to price, and those perceptions will almost preemptively be slanted toward *barely more powerful than PS3, same games, why I am spending $299?*, than I think a initial loss on hardware would do good for gamers and Nintendo alike.

And sure there will obviously be a lot ports throughout the next generation to Wii U, but what I'm referring to is long term support built by strong early support and confidence. There's a reason that the PS3 gets those ports (and it wasn't always so especially in the $599-$499 days relating to ports, that happened in a bigger way AFTER it started building momentum in the market) is confidence in the platform, and confidence in the future of that platform. And that all stems from market standing, and really company relationships. And Nintendo does not have the best history of western relationships, but money can change that in a heartbeat. The problem with Wii third-party support was born out of initial lack of confidence in the platform, who the main demographic had become, and of course which games actually sold. So we can't just assume that because the hardware is technically sound, that third-parties will magically get super interested long term...look at your GC example.

So there's a lot of stuff, but I think a teeny tiny loss on initial HW sales along with a strong lineup could do a lot to shift momentum in Nintendo's favor.

 

[BurntPork]

First, value is perception, it's not always completely factual or even near accurate. There's still a VERY large segment of gamers and traditional spenders who argue up and down that the PS3 hardware is 100% superior to the 360 hardware...which is obviously false. But it's the perception, and what I'm referring to in that respect is features (online, multimedia, inputs, etc) and all the specifics of those and the "values" related to them. And of course the perception of a "visual upgrade" vs. 360/PS3, which we know won't be a level a magnitude significant certainly not at launch. Those perception go a long way, and often make or break a purchase decision (especially in this ecomony), even if those perceptions aren't always objective. And when it comes to price, and those perceptions will almost preemptively be slanted toward *barely more powerful than PS3, same games, why I am spending $299?*, than I think a initial loss on hardware would do good for gamers and Nintendo alike.

And sure there will obviously be a lot ports throughout the next generation to Wii U, but what I'm referring to is long term support built by strong early support and confidence. There's a reason that the PS3 gets those ports (and it wasn't always so especially in the $599-$499 days relating to ports, that happened in a bigger way AFTER it started building momentum in the market) is confidence in the platform, and confidence in the future of that platform. And that all stems from market standing, and really company relationships. And Nintendo does not have the best history of western relationships, but money can change that in a heartbeat. The problem with Wii third-party support was born out of initial lack of confidence in the platform, who the main demographic had become, and of course which games actually sold. So we can't just assume that because the hardware is technically sound, that third-parties will magically get super interested long term...look at your GC example.

So there's a lot of stuff, but I think a teeny tiny loss on initial HW sales along with a strong lineup could do a lot to shift momentum in Nintendo's favor.

And you think that cutting off $20 would be enough to change that? And you're assuming that something barely more powerful than PS3 would need to take a loss to get to $280?

 

[walking fiend]

I don't know about others, but if they start giving free 360s by the time Wii U comes out and if Wii U launches at a reasonable price, what I will do is getting both , if solely for three reasons:

- it will be the cheapest next gen system and I don't buy premium stuff
- it will have Nintendo games and Nintendo like games
- it is a Wii U.

Even if they started giving 360s free away from tomorrow and I wanted to buy a console, I would have bought a Wii as well, the exclusive library and wiimote+nunchuck are too good to disregard.

however, I have been a Wii only gamer this gen and probably part of the very minor demographic. (I had an almost gaming laptop till some months ago, however, really didn't like this gen games from the beginning))

Just how many wii only gamers are out there?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I buy every system so I'm kind of a shitty sample set for this discussion, but I do agree it is more about games than value propositions in the hardware.

I am very curious to see how Nintendo tries to tackle the crowd out/give space problem this generation. They struck out with the Wii in trying to tackle it, they struck out with the 3DS's first year in the way they tried to tackle it there, so if there is a middle ground that can be taken, they have to figure that out quickly.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

And you think that cutting off $20 would be enough to change that? And you're assuming that something barely more powerful than PS3 would need to take a loss to get to $280?

To be honest I think a $249-$279 baseline is about as low as Nintendo would be theoretically willing to stomach, if that. And yeah, I do believe a sub $300 price tag for brand new hardware is more appealing to every kind of consumer than a $300 or more price tag. Statistically, people are far more willing to pony up a deuce and a half vs. a full 3, on a whim. Especially if we're weighing the full scope of the competition against it.

Whether or not Nintendo does it is another story. Even with the 3DS sales Nintendo seems pretty determined to price as high as they can for as long as they can. Its good business in the short term only if the market responds, because if they don't you're playing catch up and trying to woo them back with a price drop, usually after the competition has responded. My position is destroy the competition from the get-go, leave absolutely no room for lost momentum and goad the competition into a place they'd rather not be. The Wii model won't work here I don't think, pricing high and barebones feature-wise for essentially a market trend won't happen again.

If they are attempting to sell me a "game console" that only plays games, has diminished online functionality and conservative specs comparatively. That's fine, I have no problem with that, just price it accordingly. I'll buy it either way, I'm just looking at it from a market perspective. If recent history says anything Nintendo will more than make it back in software and peripherals.

 

[walking fiend]

I am very curious to see how Nintendo tries to tackle the crowd out/give space problem this generation. They struck out with the Wii in trying to tackle it, they struck out with the 3DS's first year in the way they tried to tackle it there, so if there is a middle ground that can be taken, they have to figure that out quickly.

is this in simple English? will you paraphrase it/write it simpler? I suddenly felt my english isn't good.

 

[AceBandage]

is this in simple English? will you paraphrase it/write it simpler? I suddenly felt my english isn't good.

Basically, Nintendo can't launch with too big of software (Wii) or too light of software (3DS).
They need to launch with decent software that can still allow third parties to sell.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

is this in English? will you paraphrase it/write it simpler?

The crowd out problem is like this

1) Nintendo needs to develop big, evergreen titles to sell a system
2) Third parties feel they can not compete on a Nintendo system, regardless of the install base, if Nintendo's titles sell millions of copies for years and years
3) If Nintendo does not make these games, the system does not sell and third parties point out the small install base as reasons not to develop.

For the Wii, they made a series of evergreen titles that basically blotted out the sun in the NPDs. Third parties felt they could not compete with this, so they went with low-budget, casual games that did not incur much risk.

For the 3DS, Nintendo took the opposite approach. Launch small, hype up the hardware, and let the third parties have the reins. This worked equally poorly, as no one wants to buy a system without those Nintendo titles to bolster it. So third party sales are still pretty bad because no one has the system yet and are waiting for Nintendo to release, say, Mario Kart. At which point Mario Kart becomes the big seller and blots out the sun.

Nintendo has to find a way to navigate this problem for the Wii U.

 

[BurntPork]

To be honest I think a $249-$279 baseline is about as low as Nintendo would be theoretically willing to stomach, if that. And yeah, I do believe a sub $300 price tag for brand new hardware is more appealing to every kind of consumer than a $300 or more price tag. Statistically, people are far more willing to pony up a deuce and a half vs. a full 3, on a whim. Especially if we're weighing the full scope of the competition against it.

Whether or not Nintendo does it is another story. Even with the 3DS sales Nintendo seems pretty determined to price as high as they can for as long as they can. Its good business in the short term only if the market responds, because if they don't you're playing catch up and trying to woo them back with a price drop, usually after the competition has responded. My position is destroy the competition from the get-go, leave absolutely no room for lost momentum and goad the competition into a place they'd rather not be. The Wii model won't work here I don't think, pricing high and barebones feature-wise for essentially a market trend won't happen again.

If they are attempting to sell me a "game console" that only plays games, has diminished online functionality and conservative specs comparatively. That's fine, I have no problem with that, just price it accordingly. I'll buy it either way, I'm just looking at it from a market perspective. If recent history says anything Nintendo will more than make it back in software and peripherals.

Whatever the case, there's no chance of it launching at $250 at all. After seeing how fast the Wii was selling in it's first two years, it became obvious to Nintendo that Wii was actually priced too low and that it should have launch at $300 for the sake of greater profit and more controlled demand in relation to supply. Sorry, but $299 is without a doubt the minimum price they'll aim for. Besides, even at $249 they'd face the exact same problems you're worried about, just with a lower profit/larger loss. They'd have to launch at $149-199 to overcome the possible value issue, and even then the 360 still has an infinitely better library. Really, it's better just to deal with having a slow start, just like nearly every piece of hardware in the past decade.

 

[walking fiend]

I see, thanks for making it clear!

I think with 3DS, they should have released some very good games that doesn't sell gangbusters. Specifically, I believe they should have launched it with Zelda OoT and Starfox 64 remakes. They would have initiated the sell of the 3DS, would have developed a demographic that is more likely to buy core 3rd party games, and would have proved that making very good games on the system that use its capabilities without being crippled by its limitations, is possible.

I think with Wii U, they should do the same. Pikmin 3 and new Metroid can be very good launch software, and save the heavy hitters for holiday (someone else said the same thing, didn't?)