There's no way that arguably the most talened video game development teams in the world have been working on this console launch for the past 2 years and all they have to show for it is Wii Fit 2, a Kareoke game, a 2D Mario sidescoller, and Nintendo Universe.
That said, with the money they're sitting on top of they could just have a massive marketing campaign - bigger than the Wii even - and try to drum up excitement and sales that way.
There's also the argument that, given their massive war chest, they could just bite the bullet and try to make a console that's truly amazing.
Believe it or not, I want to like Nintendo. I've liked them for years. But this nickle-and-dime shit is aggravating.
Video games (and their consoles) are a lot like drugs. You don't sell drugs. Drugs sell themselves. They're a product that's already in demand. All you have to do as seller is maintain a product of consistent quality. If I see a game with mind-blowing graphics and a radical-yet-intuitive gameplay dynamic, I'm going to find a way to shut up and have them take my money. Nintendo just isn't doing that, and now they can't even hide behind their caveat of "we're not making those kinds of games."
Games aren't some magical consumer product that sells themselves. They're largely luxury entertainment, and they're affected by the same forces as any other product (current shitty economy being a big thing). Sony's learned that lesson the hard way when it released a console at $600. They're learning it again with the relative failure of the Vita.
There is interesting stuff being worked on for the WiiU, especially by Nintendo, but they're obviously not showing it yet. I'm worried that Nintendo is trying to go the 3DS route again of holding off from dropping major titles early on in order to give third parties a chance to gobble up the early-adopter market. Ubisoft supporting the WiiU with some cool looking games early on is cool, but Ubisoft is the very definition of platform-agnostic, and they do amazingly at console launches because they always make an effort to have decent-to-good games available when the competition is necessarily thin. I'm interested in their stuff, but them jumping in early doesn't inspire confidence the same way that other developers releasing more than ports of year-old games would.
And they still haven't addressed the main issue everyone has with their online strategy - platform agnosticism.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
you can use it on any web connected device as well
And they still haven't addressed the main issue everyone has with their online strategy - platform agnosticism.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
No see because it isn't a carbon copy of Live it's not what people wanted.
Never mind it has all the stuff they wanted. It's not packaged right.
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
And they still haven't addressed the main issue everyone has with their online strategy - platform agnosticism.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
The social aspect is only a small part of those services. The portable identity aspect is much larger and important, especially in a multi-device environment.
unfortunately there are 3 drug dealers on the block
And I've already got one who I have no beef with.
Nintendo is trying to start a turf war, bringing a Swiss Army Knife to a machete fight.
I feel like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't you know? I 100% agree that what they are doing is not really going to satisfy anybody. But the Wii couldn't handle these ports and people hated that. now they can but not well enough or something so we hate it again. a couple of generations ago they weren't the weakest system and they still didn't get all the 3rd party games/sell them as well as the other consoles.
I can see where you might think that, but like I responded to Ultimanecat, Nintendo could just bear down and sink some of that 44" DD-Cup War Chest into developing an actually awesome console.
So far, the Wii-U looks to just be repeating the same mistakes of the Wii, just bigger and louder. At E3 next year, I could bet you money that Sony or Microsoft one (of not both) will have something to offer the crowd for the next-gen consoles, and it's going to make that brand new port of Arkham City look like a platter of hot shit.
In the meantime, no AAA developer is going to develop a tentpole title for only the Wii-U, so very few people are going to buy into Nintendo's machine when the next (actually) big thing is only maybe a few months out.
And they still haven't addressed the main issue everyone has with their online strategy - platform agnosticism.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
No see because it isn't a carbon copy of Live it's not what people wanted.
Never mind it has all the stuff they wanted. It's not packaged right.
No, it doesn't have all the stuff I want. I rarely use the social aspects of the services, but I use the hell out of the the portable identity aspect.
unfortunately there are 3 drug dealers on the block
And I've already got one who I have no beef with.
Nintendo is trying to start a turf war, bringing a Swiss Army Knife to a machete fight.
I feel like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't you know? I 100% agree that what they are doing is not really going to satisfy anybody. But the Wii couldn't handle these ports and people hated that. now they can but not well enough or something so we hate it again. a couple of generations ago they weren't the weakest system and they still didn't get all the 3rd party games/sell them as well as the other consoles.
I can see where you might think that, but like I responded to Ultimanecat, Nintendo could just bear down and sink some of that 44" DD-Cup War Chest into developing an actually awesome console.
So far, the Wii-U looks to just be repeating the same mistakes of the Wii, just bigger and louder. At E3 next year, I could bet you money that Sony or Microsoft one (of not both) will have something to offer the crowd for the next-gen consoles, and it's going to make that brand new port of Arkham City look like a platter of hot shit.
In the meantime, no AAA developer is going to develop a tentpole title for only the Wii-U, so very few people are going to buy into Nintendo's machine when the next (actually) big thing is only maybe a few months out.
but I mean, they've had the better graphical system in the past (gamecube) and that didn't do anything for them. they still didn't get third party games on the level of the other systems.
so instead they go in a different direction. I get what you're saying and I'm sure it would get folks excited but a really powerful console doesn't seem like the entire answer for how they can attract the players and companies they've been missing.
And they still haven't addressed the main issue everyone has with their online strategy - platform agnosticism.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
The social aspect is only a small part of those services. The portable identity aspect is much larger and important, especially in a multi-device environment.
I'm afraid I don't follow. What does XBL/PSN/Steam have that Miiverse doesn't that apparently makes it gooseshit?
I mean, if you're talking about "portable identities" Nintendo said they'll have a Miiverse app for smartphones.
And they still haven't addressed the main issue everyone has with their online strategy - platform agnosticism.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
The social aspect is only a small part of those services. The portable identity aspect is much larger and important, especially in a multi-device environment.
I'm afraid I don't follow. What does XBL/PSN/Steam have that Miiverse doesn't that apparently makes it gooseshit?
I mean, if you're talking about "portable identities" Nintendo said they'll have a Miiverse app for smartphones.
I have a desktop and a laptop. With Steam, I can easily play my library on either.
unfortunately there are 3 drug dealers on the block
And I've already got one who I have no beef with.
Nintendo is trying to start a turf war, bringing a Swiss Army Knife to a machete fight.
I feel like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't you know? I 100% agree that what they are doing is not really going to satisfy anybody. But the Wii couldn't handle these ports and people hated that. now they can but not well enough or something so we hate it again. a couple of generations ago they weren't the weakest system and they still didn't get all the 3rd party games/sell them as well as the other consoles.
I can see where you might think that, but like I responded to Ultimanecat, Nintendo could just bear down and sink some of that 44" DD-Cup War Chest into developing an actually awesome console.
So far, the Wii-U looks to just be repeating the same mistakes of the Wii, just bigger and louder. At E3 next year, I could bet you money that Sony or Microsoft one (of not both) will have something to offer the crowd for the next-gen consoles, and it's going to make that brand new port of Arkham City look like a platter of hot shit.
In the meantime, no AAA developer is going to develop a tentpole title for only the Wii-U, so very few people are going to buy into Nintendo's machine when the next (actually) big thing is only maybe a few months out.
but I mean, they've had the better graphical system in the past (gamecube) and that didn't do anything for them. they still didn't get third party games on the level of the other systems.
so instead they go in a different direction. I get what you're saying and I'm sure it would get folks excited but a really powerful console doesn't seem like the entire answer for how they can attract the players and companies they've been missing.
There is almost ALWAYS something off about the Nintendo systems, since the n64, that keeps them from being easy to develop multiplatform games for.
On the n64, it was the cartridge.
On the Gamecube, it was a disc based medium with anywhere from 1/3 to 1/6th the size of the other two competitors.
On the Wii, it was a new control scheme, and a dramatically weaker set of specs.
There do not seem to be any glaring issues on the Wii U right now; the tablet controller has every button the 360/PS3 has, the Pro controller is p much a normal 360 pad, and they are really catering to 3rd party devs this goaround.
It just remains to be seen how long being able to get all the multiplatform releases for the 360 and ps3 can carry them, and how big of a change the actual next gen is going to bring.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
And they still haven't addressed the main issue everyone has with their online strategy - platform agnosticism.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
The social aspect is only a small part of those services. The portable identity aspect is much larger and important, especially in a multi-device environment.
I'm afraid I don't follow. What does XBL/PSN/Steam have that Miiverse doesn't that apparently makes it gooseshit?
I mean, if you're talking about "portable identities" Nintendo said they'll have a Miiverse app for smartphones.
I have a desktop and a laptop. With Steam, I can easily play my library on either.
Ah. So by those standards, XBL and PSN are also gooseshit.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
but I mean, they've had the better graphical system in the past (gamecube) and that didn't do anything for them. they still didn't get third party games on the level of the other systems.
It had the same problems that the Wii-U is going to face: it was too little an improvement over the current standard while still pushing Nintendo into the territory of questionable "improvements" with things like the control scheme and disc size.
For going on three or four generations now, Nintendo is front-loading consoles for locked-in playing experiences without asking themselves if it's what players even want. It's like a car manufacturer suddenly releasing cars with triangular steering wheels; it may not be measurably worse than the existing standard, and it may even be better in some ways, but it's different for no good reason.
so instead they go in a different direction. I get what you're saying and I'm sure it would get folks excited but a really powerful console doesn't seem like the entire answer for how they can attract the players and companies they've been missing.
Oh, I think so. I think if Nintendo took a minute to listen to people in the industry, both production side and consumers, they would see there's always a market for great graphics and immersive games, and a growing number of people want deep and varied online experiences.
The problem is that Nintendo is still not trying to appease the market; they're trying to direct the market, and trying by brute force in leveraging their brand. They're not showing people why they should buy Nintendo, they're insisting that people should buy Nintendo, and that's the kind of bullshit that sets off everyone's detectors.
For four generations now (not including handhelds), Nintendo has insisted that what gamers want is new WAYS of playing games. The market, however, has shown them time and time again that's not at all true. Yet they persist, and go back to the well.
but I mean, they've had the better graphical system in the past (gamecube) and that didn't do anything for them. they still didn't get third party games on the level of the other systems.
It had the same problems that the Wii-U is going to face: it was too little an improvement over the current standard while still pushing Nintendo into the territory of questionable "improvements" with things like the control scheme and disc size.
For going on three or four generations now, Nintendo is front-loading consoles for locked-in playing experiences without asking themselves if it's what players even want. It's like a car manufacturer suddenly releasing cars with triangular steering wheels; it may not be measurably worse than the existing standard, and it may even be better in some ways, but it's different for no good reason.
so instead they go in a different direction. I get what you're saying and I'm sure it would get folks excited but a really powerful console doesn't seem like the entire answer for how they can attract the players and companies they've been missing.
Oh, I think so. I think if Nintendo took a minute to listen to people in the industry, both production side and consumers, they would see there's always a market for great graphics and immersive games, and a growing number of people want deep and varied online experiences.
The problem is that Nintendo is still not trying to appease the market; they're trying to direct the market, and trying by brute force in leveraging their brand. They're not showing people why they should buy Nintendo, they're insisting that people should buy Nintendo, and that's the kind of bullshit that sets off everyone's detectors.
For four generations now (not including handhelds), Nintendo has insisted that what gamers want is new WAYS of playing games. The market, however, has shown them time and time again that's not at all true. Yet they persist, and go back to the well.
I think that's the common definition of insanity.
...you do remember that the underpowered Wii sold like gangbusters, right? So the market actually rewarded them this time.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It just remains to be seen how long being able to get all the multiplatform releases for the 360 and ps3 can carry them, and how big of a change the actual next gen is going to bring.
Honestly, the best thing for Nintendo right now is to hope that neither Sony nor Microsoft can successfully sell their next-gen box, and by default Nintendo sits back at the top of the heap.
The odds of that happening, however, are extremely low.
I guess I really don't have any problems with a company that is doing something besides "bigger stronger faster!" each generation. Is it necessarily better? No, but I like it more than three of the (more or less) same thing.
but I mean, they've had the better graphical system in the past (gamecube) and that didn't do anything for them. they still didn't get third party games on the level of the other systems.
It had the same problems that the Wii-U is going to face: it was too little an improvement over the current standard while still pushing Nintendo into the territory of questionable "improvements" with things like the control scheme and disc size.
For going on three or four generations now, Nintendo is front-loading consoles for locked-in playing experiences without asking themselves if it's what players even want. It's like a car manufacturer suddenly releasing cars with triangular steering wheels; it may not be measurably worse than the existing standard, and it may even be better in some ways, but it's different for no good reason.
so instead they go in a different direction. I get what you're saying and I'm sure it would get folks excited but a really powerful console doesn't seem like the entire answer for how they can attract the players and companies they've been missing.
Oh, I think so. I think if Nintendo took a minute to listen to people in the industry, both production side and consumers, they would see there's always a market for great graphics and immersive games, and a growing number of people want deep and varied online experiences.
The problem is that Nintendo is still not trying to appease the market; they're trying to direct the market, and trying by brute force in leveraging their brand. They're not showing people why they should buy Nintendo, they're insisting that people should buy Nintendo, and that's the kind of bullshit that sets off everyone's detectors.
For four generations now (not including handhelds), Nintendo has insisted that what gamers want is new WAYS of playing games. The market, however, has shown them time and time again that's not at all true. Yet they persist, and go back to the well.
I think that's the common definition of insanity.
...you do remember that the underpowered Wii sold like gangbusters, right? So the market actually rewarded them this time.
We've had this talk before, though.
If the Wii was doing its job, we wouldn't be talking about Nintendo's next-gen console for another two years. And I think we can all agree that Nintendo probably isn't going to hit the same price point that made the Wii so attractive. As well, the Wii's price was attractive because it existed in the context of two competing consoles that were selling for over $400 at the time; the Wii-U is basically going exist in a vacuum, with little to distinguish itself.
The Wii did unequivocally sell like gangbusters. But the games didn't, and the developers jumped ship, and now here we are with a console whose big sales pitch is telling everyone how great it can play ports of games everyone else has had for two years.
If Nintendo is just out to try the trick that worked with the Wii, i.e., repackage old tech with a new gimmick and make money off the high margins, I wish them good luck. Because they will need it.
but I mean, they've had the better graphical system in the past (gamecube) and that didn't do anything for them. they still didn't get third party games on the level of the other systems.
It had the same problems that the Wii-U is going to face: it was too little an improvement over the current standard while still pushing Nintendo into the territory of questionable "improvements" with things like the control scheme and disc size.
For going on three or four generations now, Nintendo is front-loading consoles for locked-in playing experiences without asking themselves if it's what players even want. It's like a car manufacturer suddenly releasing cars with triangular steering wheels; it may not be measurably worse than the existing standard, and it may even be better in some ways, but it's different for no good reason.
so instead they go in a different direction. I get what you're saying and I'm sure it would get folks excited but a really powerful console doesn't seem like the entire answer for how they can attract the players and companies they've been missing.
Oh, I think so. I think if Nintendo took a minute to listen to people in the industry, both production side and consumers, they would see there's always a market for great graphics and immersive games, and a growing number of people want deep and varied online experiences.
The problem is that Nintendo is still not trying to appease the market; they're trying to direct the market, and trying by brute force in leveraging their brand. They're not showing people why they should buy Nintendo, they're insisting that people should buy Nintendo, and that's the kind of bullshit that sets off everyone's detectors.
For four generations now (not including handhelds), Nintendo has insisted that what gamers want is new WAYS of playing games. The market, however, has shown them time and time again that's not at all true. Yet they persist, and go back to the well.
I think that's the common definition of insanity.
...you do remember that the underpowered Wii sold like gangbusters, right? So the market actually rewarded them this time.
We've had this talk before, though.
If the Wii was doing its job, we wouldn't be talking about Nintendo's next-gen console for another two years. And I think we can all agree that Nintendo probably isn't going to hit the same price point that made the Wii so attractive. As well, the Wii's price was attractive because it existed in the context of two competing consoles that were selling for over $400 at the time; the Wii-U is basically going exist in a vacuum, with little to distinguish itself.
The Wii did unequivocally sell like gangbusters. But the games didn't, and the developers jumped ship, and now here we are with a console whose big sales pitch is telling everyone how great it can play ports of games everyone else has had for two years.
If Nintendo is just out to try the trick that worked with the Wii, i.e., repackage old tech with a new gimmick and make money off the high margins, I wish them good luck. Because they will need it.
True, the Wii didn't do the best job of attracting third-party games. Yet the Wii U, at least on its face, seems to have less annoyances that would scare off third parties. It has the exact same controls as the other systems and it actually has a decent online system. The only issue that remains is just how far back the tech will be from the other guys, but that remains to be seen.
And if nothing else, the Wii U already has more ports of same-gen systems than the Wii ever got, even if they're late.
Oh, FYI... "44DD" is the bra size of a really fat woman. In bras, the number is the band size, which goes around the back. The measurement you want to go up is the cup size, indicated by the letter. :P
And they still haven't addressed the main issue everyone has with their online strategy - platform agnosticism.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
The social aspect is only a small part of those services. The portable identity aspect is much larger and important, especially in a multi-device environment.
I'm afraid I don't follow. What does XBL/PSN/Steam have that Miiverse doesn't that apparently makes it gooseshit?
I mean, if you're talking about "portable identities" Nintendo said they'll have a Miiverse app for smartphones.
I have a desktop and a laptop. With Steam, I can easily play my library on either.
Ah. So by those standards, XBL and PSN are also gooseshit.
Nope. I've transferred my XBL and PSN accounts quite easily between consoles.
Meanwhile, I have money sitting on both my 3DS and Wii that is not interchangeable.
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I don't totally understand what you mean with a locked in player experience as far as the gamecube and previous systems. syndalis cleared up for me why it wasn't good enough to compete with the ps2 even with better graphics so I get that.
but I don't like equating better graphics and more immersive games, or the suggestion that for whatever reason wii and wiiu are incapable of immersion. I think nintendo themselves are in a unique position with actual high high quality first party titles and I don't think it's disastrous or sets off flags or whatever language you want for them to put new ways of playing above graphical improvements.
I know handhelds are a different beast but the Vita is a monster compared to the DS, the DS uses a unique input (stylist), unique uhh... screen (it having 2) and it sells a billion times better than Vita and has better games and support. it's not implausible that taking a different route can be actually successful, not just the way the wii was successful.
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
Given that the industry outside of Nintendo is about losing billions of dollars as a hardware maker or going out of business as a developer, I dont think Nintendo should be asking the industry anything.
but I mean, they've had the better graphical system in the past (gamecube) and that didn't do anything for them. they still didn't get third party games on the level of the other systems.
It had the same problems that the Wii-U is going to face: it was too little an improvement over the current standard while still pushing Nintendo into the territory of questionable "improvements" with things like the control scheme and disc size.
For going on three or four generations now, Nintendo is front-loading consoles for locked-in playing experiences without asking themselves if it's what players even want. It's like a car manufacturer suddenly releasing cars with triangular steering wheels; it may not be measurably worse than the existing standard, and it may even be better in some ways, but it's different for no good reason.
so instead they go in a different direction. I get what you're saying and I'm sure it would get folks excited but a really powerful console doesn't seem like the entire answer for how they can attract the players and companies they've been missing.
Oh, I think so. I think if Nintendo took a minute to listen to people in the industry, both production side and consumers, they would see there's always a market for great graphics and immersive games, and a growing number of people want deep and varied online experiences.
The problem is that Nintendo is still not trying to appease the market; they're trying to direct the market, and trying by brute force in leveraging their brand. They're not showing people why they should buy Nintendo, they're insisting that people should buy Nintendo, and that's the kind of bullshit that sets off everyone's detectors.
For four generations now (not including handhelds), Nintendo has insisted that what gamers want is new WAYS of playing games. The market, however, has shown them time and time again that's not at all true. Yet they persist, and go back to the well.
I think that's the common definition of insanity.
...you do remember that the underpowered Wii sold like gangbusters, right? So the market actually rewarded them this time.
We've had this talk before, though.
If the Wii was doing its job, we wouldn't be talking about Nintendo's next-gen console for another two years. And I think we can all agree that Nintendo probably isn't going to hit the same price point that made the Wii so attractive. As well, the Wii's price was attractive because it existed in the context of two competing consoles that were selling for over $400 at the time; the Wii-U is basically going exist in a vacuum, with little to distinguish itself.
The Wii did unequivocally sell like gangbusters. But the games didn't, and the developers jumped ship, and now here we are with a console whose big sales pitch is telling everyone how great it can play ports of games everyone else has had for two years.
If Nintendo is just out to try the trick that worked with the Wii, i.e., repackage old tech with a new gimmick and make money off the high margins, I wish them good luck. Because they will need it.
Not to mention that Microsoft took a lot of the wind out of the Wii U's sails with Smart Glass, and Sony is moving to become THE Android game development platform.
And they still haven't addressed the main issue everyone has with their online strategy - platform agnosticism.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
The social aspect is only a small part of those services. The portable identity aspect is much larger and important, especially in a multi-device environment.
I'm afraid I don't follow. What does XBL/PSN/Steam have that Miiverse doesn't that apparently makes it gooseshit?
I mean, if you're talking about "portable identities" Nintendo said they'll have a Miiverse app for smartphones.
I have a desktop and a laptop. With Steam, I can easily play my library on either.
Ah. So by those standards, XBL and PSN are also gooseshit.
Nope. I've transferred my XBL and PSN accounts quite easily between consoles.
Meanwhile, I have money sitting on both my 3DS and Wii that is not interchangeable.
...how do we know that money won't be interchangable between the 3DS and Wii U? After all, Miiverse is.
And FYI, PlayStation Suite has been a horrible failure so far. The Xperia Play (the much-hyped "PlayStation phone") sold like crap, and Sony's been so slow to dribble out actually useful stuff to developers I can't imagine most of them wanting to bite, especially considering how fragmented the Android market already is before you add yet another specialized store to it.
Not sure about Smartglass. The features sound neat, but to implement Wii U-like stuff developers will again ram into an insanely fragmented market.
I think if developers are ready to jump on the Project Glass bandwagon, it may actually bode well for third party Wii U support. I'm thinking that Microsoft's design of the app should take care of fragmentation problems. If anyone has the resources to test on a ridiculous amount of devices, it's Microsoft.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited June 2012
At this rate, I am feeling like I should stick with my Wii and Gamecube library. I started gaming with the SNES, but to me the Wii U looks as exciting as the Vita right now.
And where the hell is Retro Studios?
I am not saying they should make games for me - if I am too picky and different from the mass market where the money is, fair enough. It just really sucks for me. I want to look forward to the Wii U, but I can't. Zombi U and Rayman doesn't sell it. I need to feel the machine won't gather dust after I've played the big hitters, like the Wii.
At this rate, I am feeling like I should stick with my Wii and Gamecube library. I started gaming with the SNES, but to me the Wii U looks as exciting as the Vita right now.
And where the hell is Retro Studios?
I am not saying they should make games for me - if I am too picky and different from the mass market where the money is, fair enough. It just really sucks. I don't feel like being a console gamer right now.
Retro is apparently working quietly on a future Wii U release that, as of last year, they said is "a project everyone wants us to do."
unfortunately there are 3 drug dealers on the block
And I've already got one who I have no beef with.
Nintendo is trying to start a turf war, bringing a Swiss Army Knife to a machete fight.
I feel like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't you know? I 100% agree that what they are doing is not really going to satisfy anybody. But the Wii couldn't handle these ports and people hated that. now they can but not well enough or something so we hate it again.
They could do well if they stopped, breathed, and wait to put a next gen console out with the other two. What I'm seeing them do right now is put out a console that's presumably better than the current two but likely won't have a chance of competing with their competition's next iterations. Having already owned a Dreamcast, and despite loving it, no thanks.
And they still haven't addressed the main issue everyone has with their online strategy - platform agnosticism.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
The social aspect is only a small part of those services. The portable identity aspect is much larger and important, especially in a multi-device environment.
I'm afraid I don't follow. What does XBL/PSN/Steam have that Miiverse doesn't that apparently makes it gooseshit?
I mean, if you're talking about "portable identities" Nintendo said they'll have a Miiverse app for smartphones.
I have a desktop and a laptop. With Steam, I can easily play my library on either.
Ah. So by those standards, XBL and PSN are also gooseshit.
Yeah I don't get what you want here. PC gaming is a wholly different beast.
Vavles little PS3 experiment aside( which near asOI can tell garnered nothing of note) nothing like what you want is happening anytime soon.
Even the Vita version of that functionality requires you buy a game twice.
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
Honestly, the best thing for Nintendo right now is to hope that neither Sony nor Microsoft can successfully sell their next-gen box, and by default Nintendo sits back at the top of the heap.
Maybe Google will buy them. Or Facebook. Ha.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
A spec list without hardware capabilities is like telling me how useful a lawnmower is by telling me how much it weighs.
And I loved this bit of flackery:
The Wii U GamePad™ controller removes the traditional barriers between games, players and the TV by creating a second window into the video game world.
It's the old "boast about solving a problem that didn't actually exist" routine.
Honestly, the best thing for Nintendo right now is to hope that neither Sony nor Microsoft can successfully sell their next-gen box, and by default Nintendo sits back at the top of the heap.
Maybe Google will buy them. Or Facebook. Ha.
Nintendo is a company that was founded in 1889, doing business long before video games were even on the horizon, and currently have billions of dollars in assets. If I recall correctly they've also sold almost all of their systems at a profit - barring the virtual boy. They are not a company that is going to sell itself to the highest bidder just because they're no longer the top dog in console gaming. People can bitch about how they approach gaming all they want, but they are nowhere near the circumstances that someone like sega was before they bowed out of hardware manufacturing.
Posts
There's no way that arguably the most talened video game development teams in the world have been working on this console launch for the past 2 years and all they have to show for it is Wii Fit 2, a Kareoke game, a 2D Mario sidescoller, and Nintendo Universe.
Let's not kid ourselves, barring Valve buying up Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that's never going to happen.
Games aren't some magical consumer product that sells themselves. They're largely luxury entertainment, and they're affected by the same forces as any other product (current shitty economy being a big thing). Sony's learned that lesson the hard way when it released a console at $600. They're learning it again with the relative failure of the Vita.
There is interesting stuff being worked on for the WiiU, especially by Nintendo, but they're obviously not showing it yet. I'm worried that Nintendo is trying to go the 3DS route again of holding off from dropping major titles early on in order to give third parties a chance to gobble up the early-adopter market. Ubisoft supporting the WiiU with some cool looking games early on is cool, but Ubisoft is the very definition of platform-agnostic, and they do amazingly at console launches because they always make an effort to have decent-to-good games available when the competition is necessarily thin. I'm interested in their stuff, but them jumping in early doesn't inspire confidence the same way that other developers releasing more than ports of year-old games would.
Good games don't even sell themselves. If it was true I'd still have job.
Let's amend that to at least Nintendo games having the ability to sell theirselves.
Somehow I have a feeling that statement won't be true this time around.
Well, I don't think that a Nintendo online platform encompassing all their current systems is unreasonable at all.
Oh, that's what you meant.
Well, Nintendo announced one -- Miiverse. Will be on the 3DS and Wii U.
No, what Miiverse is - is gooseshit. It's not the unified system like XBL/PSN/Steam.
Why isn't it? You've got friend lists, the ability to chat with them, the ability to see what they're playing and join in, etc. Sounds like XBL/PSN/Steam to me.
No see because it isn't a carbon copy of Live it's not what people wanted.
Never mind it has all the stuff they wanted. It's not packaged right.
The social aspect is only a small part of those services. The portable identity aspect is much larger and important, especially in a multi-device environment.
I can see where you might think that, but like I responded to Ultimanecat, Nintendo could just bear down and sink some of that 44" DD-Cup War Chest into developing an actually awesome console.
So far, the Wii-U looks to just be repeating the same mistakes of the Wii, just bigger and louder. At E3 next year, I could bet you money that Sony or Microsoft one (of not both) will have something to offer the crowd for the next-gen consoles, and it's going to make that brand new port of Arkham City look like a platter of hot shit.
In the meantime, no AAA developer is going to develop a tentpole title for only the Wii-U, so very few people are going to buy into Nintendo's machine when the next (actually) big thing is only maybe a few months out.
No, it doesn't have all the stuff I want. I rarely use the social aspects of the services, but I use the hell out of the the portable identity aspect.
but I mean, they've had the better graphical system in the past (gamecube) and that didn't do anything for them. they still didn't get third party games on the level of the other systems.
so instead they go in a different direction. I get what you're saying and I'm sure it would get folks excited but a really powerful console doesn't seem like the entire answer for how they can attract the players and companies they've been missing.
I'm afraid I don't follow. What does XBL/PSN/Steam have that Miiverse doesn't that apparently makes it gooseshit?
I mean, if you're talking about "portable identities" Nintendo said they'll have a Miiverse app for smartphones.
I have a desktop and a laptop. With Steam, I can easily play my library on either.
There is almost ALWAYS something off about the Nintendo systems, since the n64, that keeps them from being easy to develop multiplatform games for.
On the n64, it was the cartridge.
On the Gamecube, it was a disc based medium with anywhere from 1/3 to 1/6th the size of the other two competitors.
On the Wii, it was a new control scheme, and a dramatically weaker set of specs.
There do not seem to be any glaring issues on the Wii U right now; the tablet controller has every button the 360/PS3 has, the Pro controller is p much a normal 360 pad, and they are really catering to 3rd party devs this goaround.
It just remains to be seen how long being able to get all the multiplatform releases for the 360 and ps3 can carry them, and how big of a change the actual next gen is going to bring.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Ah. So by those standards, XBL and PSN are also gooseshit.
It had the same problems that the Wii-U is going to face: it was too little an improvement over the current standard while still pushing Nintendo into the territory of questionable "improvements" with things like the control scheme and disc size.
For going on three or four generations now, Nintendo is front-loading consoles for locked-in playing experiences without asking themselves if it's what players even want. It's like a car manufacturer suddenly releasing cars with triangular steering wheels; it may not be measurably worse than the existing standard, and it may even be better in some ways, but it's different for no good reason.
Oh, I think so. I think if Nintendo took a minute to listen to people in the industry, both production side and consumers, they would see there's always a market for great graphics and immersive games, and a growing number of people want deep and varied online experiences.
The problem is that Nintendo is still not trying to appease the market; they're trying to direct the market, and trying by brute force in leveraging their brand. They're not showing people why they should buy Nintendo, they're insisting that people should buy Nintendo, and that's the kind of bullshit that sets off everyone's detectors.
For four generations now (not including handhelds), Nintendo has insisted that what gamers want is new WAYS of playing games. The market, however, has shown them time and time again that's not at all true. Yet they persist, and go back to the well.
I think that's the common definition of insanity.
...you do remember that the underpowered Wii sold like gangbusters, right? So the market actually rewarded them this time.
Honestly, the best thing for Nintendo right now is to hope that neither Sony nor Microsoft can successfully sell their next-gen box, and by default Nintendo sits back at the top of the heap.
The odds of that happening, however, are extremely low.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
We've had this talk before, though.
If the Wii was doing its job, we wouldn't be talking about Nintendo's next-gen console for another two years. And I think we can all agree that Nintendo probably isn't going to hit the same price point that made the Wii so attractive. As well, the Wii's price was attractive because it existed in the context of two competing consoles that were selling for over $400 at the time; the Wii-U is basically going exist in a vacuum, with little to distinguish itself.
The Wii did unequivocally sell like gangbusters. But the games didn't, and the developers jumped ship, and now here we are with a console whose big sales pitch is telling everyone how great it can play ports of games everyone else has had for two years.
If Nintendo is just out to try the trick that worked with the Wii, i.e., repackage old tech with a new gimmick and make money off the high margins, I wish them good luck. Because they will need it.
True, the Wii didn't do the best job of attracting third-party games. Yet the Wii U, at least on its face, seems to have less annoyances that would scare off third parties. It has the exact same controls as the other systems and it actually has a decent online system. The only issue that remains is just how far back the tech will be from the other guys, but that remains to be seen.
And if nothing else, the Wii U already has more ports of same-gen systems than the Wii ever got, even if they're late.
Nope. I've transferred my XBL and PSN accounts quite easily between consoles.
Meanwhile, I have money sitting on both my 3DS and Wii that is not interchangeable.
but I don't like equating better graphics and more immersive games, or the suggestion that for whatever reason wii and wiiu are incapable of immersion. I think nintendo themselves are in a unique position with actual high high quality first party titles and I don't think it's disastrous or sets off flags or whatever language you want for them to put new ways of playing above graphical improvements.
I know handhelds are a different beast but the Vita is a monster compared to the DS, the DS uses a unique input (stylist), unique uhh... screen (it having 2) and it sells a billion times better than Vita and has better games and support. it's not implausible that taking a different route can be actually successful, not just the way the wii was successful.
Not to mention that Microsoft took a lot of the wind out of the Wii U's sails with Smart Glass, and Sony is moving to become THE Android game development platform.
...how do we know that money won't be interchangable between the 3DS and Wii U? After all, Miiverse is.
And FYI, PlayStation Suite has been a horrible failure so far. The Xperia Play (the much-hyped "PlayStation phone") sold like crap, and Sony's been so slow to dribble out actually useful stuff to developers I can't imagine most of them wanting to bite, especially considering how fragmented the Android market already is before you add yet another specialized store to it.
Not sure about Smartglass. The features sound neat, but to implement Wii U-like stuff developers will again ram into an insanely fragmented market.
And where the hell is Retro Studios?
I am not saying they should make games for me - if I am too picky and different from the mass market where the money is, fair enough. It just really sucks for me. I want to look forward to the Wii U, but I can't. Zombi U and Rayman doesn't sell it. I need to feel the machine won't gather dust after I've played the big hitters, like the Wii.
Retro is apparently working quietly on a future Wii U release that, as of last year, they said is "a project everyone wants us to do."
They could do well if they stopped, breathed, and wait to put a next gen console out with the other two. What I'm seeing them do right now is put out a console that's presumably better than the current two but likely won't have a chance of competing with their competition's next iterations. Having already owned a Dreamcast, and despite loving it, no thanks.
Yeah I don't get what you want here. PC gaming is a wholly different beast.
Vavles little PS3 experiment aside( which near asOI can tell garnered nothing of note) nothing like what you want is happening anytime soon.
Even the Vita version of that functionality requires you buy a game twice.
Maybe Google will buy them. Or Facebook. Ha.
specs, new afaik although not sure how in depth it really is
edit - and I'm sure this is a big deal to lots of people, myself included
http://mynintendonews.com/2012/06/06/nintendo-confirms-you-can-transfer-wii-virtual-games-to-wii-u/
A spec list without hardware capabilities is like telling me how useful a lawnmower is by telling me how much it weighs.
And I loved this bit of flackery:
It's the old "boast about solving a problem that didn't actually exist" routine.
Nintendo is a company that was founded in 1889, doing business long before video games were even on the horizon, and currently have billions of dollars in assets. If I recall correctly they've also sold almost all of their systems at a profit - barring the virtual boy. They are not a company that is going to sell itself to the highest bidder just because they're no longer the top dog in console gaming. People can bitch about how they approach gaming all they want, but they are nowhere near the circumstances that someone like sega was before they bowed out of hardware manufacturing.