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.
Absolutely. Nintendo can blow this whole thing and still walk away with a lot of cash in the till.
However, if Nintendo flubs the Wii-U, you can probably count them out of the console market for a long while, if not indefinitely.
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.
Absolutely. Nintendo can blow this whole thing and still walk away with a lot of cash in the till.
However, if Nintendo flubs the Wii-U, you can probably count them out of the console market for a long while, if not indefinitely.
...or maybe they'll pick themselves up and dust themselves off like when the N64 and Gamecube weren't ginormous hits.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
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.
Absolutely. Nintendo can blow this whole thing and still walk away with a lot of cash in the till.
However, if Nintendo flubs the Wii-U, you can probably count them out of the console market for a long while, if not indefinitely.
...or maybe they'll pick themselves up and dust themselves off like when the N64 and Gamecube weren't ginormous hits.
I have to wonder how many times you can remind the public that you're just not the console company they're looking for.
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.
Absolutely. Nintendo can blow this whole thing and still walk away with a lot of cash in the till.
However, if Nintendo flubs the Wii-U, you can probably count them out of the console market for a long while, if not indefinitely.
...or maybe they'll pick themselves up and dust themselves off like when the N64 and Gamecube weren't ginormous hits.
I have to wonder how many times you can remind the public that you're just not the console company they're looking for.
Well, they skipped a turn this generation, so it'll probably be easier in this hypothetical situation. :P
Again (if I recall correctly) nintendo has sold almost all of their consoles at a profit, and while the n64 and gcn periods saw them lose the top spot to sony these were not unsuccessful, or even unpopular, systems. What exactly is a "flub?" The Wii U would have to be a disaster equivalent to the virtual boy or worse for them to quit the console business. This is what nintendo literally does as a company - they're not just a gaming division of a technology giant that is still around only because of said tech giant. If there's one games company that I would bet on being successful in some way it's nintendo, and the wii u is hardly their first system that received lukewarm hype before it launched only to turn out selling like hotcakes.
Honestly the only worst-case scenario I can picture is nintendo fumbling with the launch 3ds style before picking things up again, and if the 720 and ps4 turn out to be god's greatest gift to entitled hobbyists everywhere then I guess they won't have a repeat of holding the largest amount of the market share again.
Also I'm personally not going to be getting this thing at launch, but that is mostly because I have stopped being an early adopter of consoles since the xbox 360 first came out. Anyone remember that? Outside of like a project gotham sequel and call of duty 2 the games ranged from overpriced mediocrity to crap.
...how do we know that money won't be interchangable between the 3DS and Wii U? After all, Miiverse is.
Because they didn't do it with the Wii and the DSi. Or the Wii and the 3DS. And it's not just money - for example, with PSN, all your purchases are linked to your PSN account, not the device itself. Which means that when you are dealing with multisystem compatable games (Minis/PS1 Titles/PSP Titles), all you need to do to get access is to link your system to your account.
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.
I take it you didn't see Sony's presentation, then. They've decided to rework the strategy completely, with a new name (PlayStation Mobile) and new partners (they lined up HTC behind this initiative so far). It looks like they're retooling it from the ground up, which is definitely needed.
...how do we know that money won't be interchangable between the 3DS and Wii U? After all, Miiverse is.
Because they didn't do it with the Wii and the DSi. Or the Wii and the 3DS. And it's not just money - for example, with PSN, all your purchases are linked to your PSN account, not the device itself. Which means that when you are dealing with multisystem compatable games (Minis/PS1 Titles/PSP Titles), all you need to do to get access is to link your system to your account.
I'm guessing you missed this:
During a developer roundtable discussion at E3 today, Nintendo said that it's currently working to figure out how Wii owners will be able to transfer their content to the Wii U. The fact that this is even a possibility is pretty amazing to us.
"We are readying the system, yes, to transfer saves and everything you've bought," designer Katsuya Eguchi. So it looks like the idea of transferring WiiWare, Virtual Console and save data content from the Wii to the Wii U is not the crazy pipe dream we once thought.
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.
I take it you didn't see Sony's presentation, then. They've decided to rework the strategy completely, with a new name (PlayStation Mobile) and new partners (they lined up HTC behind this initiative so far). It looks like they're retooling it from the ground up, which is definitely needed.
I saw it. I wasn't impressed. Sony's dropped the ball enough on PlayStation Suite that it'll take a miracle to get anyone to care again, plus fragmentation is already a horrible problem on Android. Why bother to make games for a store that'll be on a tiny fraction of Android devices when you can make the same ones that'll run on many more of them?
First off, cloud, what Nintendo is saying they may offer (and might I remind you that they are considering the possibility only) is a pale shadow of what XBL/PSN/Steam are able to happily do. When the Vita released earlier this year, any PSP title you owned on PSN that was marked as Vita-compatible was immediately available on the device for download. If you got a RROD on your 360,transferring your content was a simple matter of moving your content storage to the new system.
So yes, it's still gooseshit, because it's nowhere near where the competition is.
As for PS Mobile, it's looking like it's being rebuilt from the ground up. As for why devs will use it, if Sony provides a solid API through it that makes it easier to make Android games, and the number of PSM certified devices increases, then it will be a simple choice. Also, the idea of store fragmentation on Android is a laugh - there are only two storefronts that matter (Play, Amazon) and most devs release to both. Besides, the old PS games brought to Android were sold through Google, with the devices that could buy and download the games restricted.
Finally, might I remind you that MS created DirectX? Which is designed to allow devs to build to a stable API and not worry about the millions of PC hardware permutations out there? Something like SmartGlass is child's play in comparison.
First off, cloud, what Nintendo is saying they may offer (and might I remind you that they are considering the possibility only) is a pale shadow of what XBL/PSN/Steam are able to happily do. When the Vita released earlier this year, any PSP title you owned on PSN that was marked as Vita-compatible was immediately available on the device for download. If you got a RROD on your 360,transferring your content was a simple matter of moving your content storage to the new system.
So yes, it's still gooseshit, because it's nowhere near where the competition is.
Nintendo allows system transfers. I did it myself between 3DS systems... it's quick and painless. And again, Nintendo is working on having all your Wii stuff transfer over to the Wii U.
So, to sum up your position, when PSN/XBL/Steam lets you transfer stuff over, it's fine, but when Nintendo announces the exact same thing, it's gooseshit. Gotcha.
As for PS Mobile, it's looking like it's being rebuilt from the ground up. As for why devs will use it, if Sony provides a solid API through it that makes it easier to make Android games, and the number of PSM certified devices increases, then it will be a simple choice. Also, the idea of store fragmentation on Android is a laugh - there are only two storefronts that matter (Play, Amazon) and most devs release to both. Besides, the old PS games brought to Android were sold through Google, with the devices that could buy and download the games restricted.
But again, if developers just release stuff for the Sony store, they're missing out on the vast majority of the market. Why would they limit themselves in that way, especially on a service that has a year-long track record of being horribly mismanaged?
And no, the old PS games were originally sold through a specialized PlayStation store. I know, I used an Xperia Play. In fact I was excited for it, at least until I actually used it.
Finally, might I remind you that MS created DirectX? Which is designed to allow devs to build to a stable API and not worry about the millions of PC hardware permutations out there? Something like SmartGlass is child's play in comparison.
PC makers still have to bend over backwards to accommodate myriad device configurations, DirectX or no. I'm not sure why SmartGlass will be different.
You keep trying to say that apples and oranges are the same. Having a mechanism to transfer system-bound games to another system is a far cry from a system where purchases are bound to a portable account that can be moved from machine to machine as the account holder wishes.
Guess which is the better solution.
And no, the PS games are quite available on Google Play. While Sony may have set up a branded storefront as part of the PS branding, they also made the titles available on the Market as well. So devs building games using PSM won't be constrained to the Sony storefront.
Edit: I'm glad that you brought up the DSi /3DS transfer process, since it perfectly illustrates how Nintendo's solution is inferior gooseshit. To transfer the games, you have to have both systems in hand, download a transfer app to the DS, and the process is one way. In comparison, making any Minis/PSP games bought on the PSP available on the Vita is as simple as attaching your PSN account to the Vita. Plus, the games are still usable on the PSP as well.
You keep trying to say that apples and oranges are the same. Having a mechanism to transfer system-bound games to another system is a far cry from a system where purchases are bound to a portable account that can be moved from machine to machine as the account holder wishes.
Guess which is the better solution.
As I just said, Nintendo allows you to move stuff from machine to machine too. I recently did it myself. You keep trying to convince me that one of these two apples is, in fact, a sasquatch.
And no, the PS games are quite available on Google Play. While Sony may have set up a branded storefront as part of the PS branding, they also made the titles available on the Market as well. So devs building games using PSM won't be constrained to the Sony storefront.
That must be a recent change.
Still, that begs the question: why bother to use Sony's stuff at all, when you can just use your PC and put stuff on the market? As you said, since they're tuned to specific devices it still cuts the potential buyer base waaaaaaaaaay down.
No, you're the one who keeps trying to make the false equilvancy:
Nintendo: Destructive one way transfer process between two systems.
Microsoft/Sony/Valve: Purchases linked to a master account, which can be then associated to specific machines. The master account can be freely reassociated as per the holder's will, nondestructively.
No, you're the one who keeps trying to make the false equilvancy:
Nintendo: Destructive one way transfer process between two systems.
Microsoft/Sony/Valve: Purchases linked to a master account, which can be then associated to specific machines. The master account can be freely reassociated as per the holder's will, nondestructively.
Yet Nintendo just announced that.
Come to think of it, Nintendo has always had master accounts, it's just that they've started giving users the freedom to move stuff across devices.
No, they didn't. What they said is that they will try to have a system in place to transfer Wii content and saves to the Wii U. Which is a vast difference from having a unified identity system that is hardware independent.
Oh, and this brings up another bit of Wii gooseshit - machine locked saves.
No, they didn't. What they said is that they will try to have a system in place to transfer Wii content and saves to the Wii U. Which is a vast difference from having a unified identity system that is hardware independent.
Oh, and this brings up another bit of Wii gooseshit - machine locked saves.
...except that the announcement also covers transfers of saves from the Wii to the Wii U.
Two questions:
1. Why is there a vast difference? The end result is that stuff gets transferred.
2. Why are you just mentioning unified accounts now?
I've been talking about unified accounts all this time, you silly goose.
Two, process matters. What if you want to play a downloaded game (say, Skullgirls, for a good example) at your friend's place? Nintendo's solution doesn't let you do that, but the others do.
Three, saves, especially in this day and age, should never be machine locked. Transferring a save should be a matter of inserting removable storage, moving the save to it, then moving the storage to the new system. And yes, I'm pissed that the Vita fucked this up, though it's a bit more understandable there (the saves are recorded to the cartridge if you're playing a physical copy.)
I've been talking about unified accounts all this time, you silly goose.
No we haven't. The previous post is literally the first time you mentioned it.
Two, process matters. What if you want to play a downloaded game (say, Skullgirls, for a good example) at your friend's place? Nintendo's solution doesn't let you do that, but the others do.
Why would you want to do that? It sounds like you're trying to rip Steam/Microsoft/PSN out of money. Besides, that's a minor annoyance at worst. Hardly worthy of "gooseshit."
Three, saves, especially in this day and age, should never be machine locked. Transferring a save should be a matter of inserting removable storage, moving the save to it, then moving the storage to the new system. And yes, I'm pissed that the Vita fucked this up, though it's a bit more understandable there (the saves are recorded to the cartridge if you're playing a physical copy.)
No, that was the first time I used the term "unified account". The concept - that you have an identity within the infrastructure that is separate from the physical hardware - is what I have been discussing this whole time.
As for why I would want to do that, well, why can't I bring over a game I own to play with a friend? The copy is useless without me signed in.
And some Wii games have machine locked saves. Found that out when I tried to backup my Brawl save.
The fact is, Nintendo is years behind the offerings of their competition online, and yet they refuse to improve.
No, that was the first time I used the term "unified account". The concept - that you have an identity within the infrastructure that is separate from the physical hardware - is what I have been discussing this whole time.
Well, the point sure didn't get across.
As for why I would want to do that, well, why can't I bring over a game I own to play with a friend? The copy is useless without me signed in.
Well, why not just bring the console over? That's quicker than having to redownload the game and the saves.
And some Wii games have machine locked saves. Found that out when I tried to backup my Brawl save.
Yes. But I was able to transfer over my 3DS saves, and it looks like you can do the same on Wii U.
The fact is, Nintendo is years behind the offerings of their competition online, and yet they refuse to improve.
Never mind all the improvements they implemented into the 3DS and just announced for the Wii U.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Cloudeagle -
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the feature he is talking about is a really, REALLY good one that everyone but nintendo has, and the fact that you have to take your argument to the point where the person should just pack their 400 dollar console up and take it to a friends house if they want to play a WiiWare game because it is better than plugging in a username and password and playing on their system in minutes is just goosey.
Nintendo has historically been behind the times on networking their systems well. The gamecube was pretty much the only one out of the four in its generation (including the dreamcast even) to not have an online strategy of some sort. The Wii is the only one that made maintaining a group of friends to play games with a maddening affair that required external websites or emails between players. It looks like Wii U is launching with the level of online capability the xbox 360 had in 2006. Which is a damn fine level of capability that everyone was happy to have in 2006, but is still way behind the curve.
And it is funny, because there is no justifiable reason for them to be behind like this.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Wow I had no idea that this much hate revolved around nintendo. A company that has shown it will itself to be the most pro consumer of the whole console bunch. Unbranded SD cards, cross compatability between hand held generations, low costs on periperials etc...
I may not have played my Wii much but I do have to say that the games I enjoyed on the Wii rate as top this generation.
No, that was the first time I used the term "unified account". The concept - that you have an identity within the infrastructure that is separate from the physical hardware - is what I have been discussing this whole time.
Well, the point sure didn't get across.
As for why I would want to do that, well, why can't I bring over a game I own to play with a friend? The copy is useless without me signed in.
Well, why not just bring the console over? That's quicker than having to redownload the game and the saves.
And some Wii games have machine locked saves. Found that out when I tried to backup my Brawl save.
Yes. But I was able to transfer over my 3DS saves, and it looks like you can do the same on Wii U.
The fact is, Nintendo is years behind the offerings of their competition online, and yet they refuse to improve.
Never mind all the improvements they implemented into the 3DS and just announced for the Wii U.
I had to sell my 360 a few years ago. I had a ton of RB purchases, arcade game purchases, ext ext. So I wiped the HD and backed up all the important saves onto a memory card. When the slim 360 came out, I wasn't able to put my saves onto the new console (because of the memory card slots no longer existing), but if I wanted to I could have tracked down someone with an old 360 and transfer them to a USB stick. But anyway, I was able to log into the new console with my old account, transfer the licenses to the new console, and download all my old games as if I never sold my old 360.
And that's important to me. That makes sense. However, when I had to sell my Wii, with over $100 worth of virtual console games, there was no way for me to transfer those to a new Wii if I ever picked one up. They were lost forever.
That sucks.
Not only that, but with the 360 I can take out the HD, move it to another console, and play any of my downloaded games real easily. No reason to pack up the whole console, just have to take out the HD, and as long as I can get online, I can play my games/songs. If I'm over at a friend's place (lets say for a week or two), and I want to, I can log in with my gamertag, without bringing anything with me, and download any game I own on the service, and play it. Hell, I can even download my saves off of the cloud service, and I'm good to go.
A few weeks ago I let someone borrow my 360, but I didn't want them to be able to access my gamertag. I had forgotten to turn on passwords before I let them borrow it. I was able to go online to Xbox.com, and require the next login of my account to ask for a password.
The Wii U should be able to do all of this, or else they're playing catchup. This is our data, our games, and not allowing me to take a DD game over to a friends house without taking the whole console is like not allowing me to buy tickets to movies online, it's archaic and backwards.
Edit: To make this even more clear, if the Wii U can't do all of this, we have a next gen console playing catchup with the previous gen consoles. Which is pathetic.
Oh, I certainly agree that Nintendo's been behind the times in online for a long time. And, if Nintendo doesn't live up to their promises in the Wii U, I'll call them on it.
I just don't really see anything in what they've announced in their Wii U strategy that inherently qualifies as "gooseshit."
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Oh, I certainly agree that Nintendo's been behind the times in online for a long time. And, if Nintendo doesn't live up to their promises in the Wii U, I'll call them on it.
I just don't really see anything in what they've announced in their Wii U strategy that inherently qualifies as "gooseshit."
It's not gooseshit.
But it is, once again, Nintendo staying a full generation behind everyone else on the whole online thing, and it will hurt them (especially when it comes to where people will spend their multiplatform money) if they don't evolve.
That said, the 360 of today looks alien to the 360 of launch, and the Wii has seen some nice updates come to it over the course of its life, so there is always the chance that cloud saves, some sort of Mii-tag that has your purchase history on it and can travel between systems, and other neat features can come to pass.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Oh, I certainly agree that Nintendo's been behind the times in online for a long time. And, if Nintendo doesn't live up to their promises in the Wii U, I'll call them on it.
I just don't really see anything in what they've announced in their Wii U strategy that inherently qualifies as "gooseshit."
It's gooseshit because I expect a console coming out in 2012 to have online support that is also from 2012.
Oh, I certainly agree that Nintendo's been behind the times in online for a long time. And, if Nintendo doesn't live up to their promises in the Wii U, I'll call them on it.
I just don't really see anything in what they've announced in their Wii U strategy that inherently qualifies as "gooseshit."
It's gooseshit because I expect a console coming out in 2012 to have online support that is also from 2012.
It doesn't?
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Oh, I certainly agree that Nintendo's been behind the times in online for a long time. And, if Nintendo doesn't live up to their promises in the Wii U, I'll call them on it.
I just don't really see anything in what they've announced in their Wii U strategy that inherently qualifies as "gooseshit."
It's gooseshit because I expect a console coming out in 2012 to have online support that is also from 2012.
It doesn't?
It is missing lots of "duh" features that a new system should have. And these aren't "MOAR POWER MOAR PIXELS" things; these are simple, consumer-friendly features that are not terribly hard to implement that a brand new online gaming system should just have as part of their spec right out of the gate.
unique system-agnostic save games and online purchases are right at the top of the pile.
When I go home to visit my family for the holidays, I can just pack a couple games, knowing that my DLC and my save games will be waiting for me at his house, one login away.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Oh, I certainly agree that Nintendo's been behind the times in online for a long time. And, if Nintendo doesn't live up to their promises in the Wii U, I'll call them on it.
I just don't really see anything in what they've announced in their Wii U strategy that inherently qualifies as "gooseshit."
It's gooseshit because I expect a console coming out in 2012 to have online support that is also from 2012.
It doesn't?
It is missing lots of "duh" features that a new system should have. And these aren't "MOAR POWER MOAR PIXELS" things; these are simple, consumer-friendly features that are not terribly hard to implement that a brand new online gaming system should just have as part of their spec right out of the gate.
unique system-agnostic save games and online purchases are right at the top of the pile.
When I go home to visit my family for the holidays, I can just pack a couple games, knowing that my DLC and my save games will be waiting for me at his house, one login away.
Well, that's just the point I was fishing for -- we don't specifically know that they're NOT system-agnostic. Nothing's been announced. We're going on incomplete data, though that isn't stopping people from calling it "gooseshit" anyway.
Nintendo's (formerly complete, now relative) lack of online support has been a major failing of theirs, and the E3 presentations aren't the most heartening thing for early adopters in this case, but as cloudeagle has said there's no reason (or sign) nintendo won't implement these kinds of things. The company has made plenty of mistakes and missteps over it's almost thirty years (thirty!) as a console maker, however it has also shown that it has learned and improved on certain mistakes, and proved naysayers wrong with the validity of some of its past systems.
It's online infrastructure and (easier) accommodation for more third party developers have moved at a snails pace in technology years, but it's amazing how much vitriol people have been throwing at them since the wii and now the wii u, which is still half a year away from launch, let alone what may be in store for updates once it is on the market.
Nintendo's (formerly complete, now relative) lack of online support has been a major failing of theirs, and the E3 presentations aren't the most heartening thing for early adopters in this case, but as cloudeagle has said there's no reason (or sign) nintendo won't implement these kinds of things. The company has made plenty of mistakes and missteps over it's almost thirty years (thirty!) as a console maker, however it has also shown that it has learned and improved on certain mistakes, and proved naysayers wrong with the validity of some of its past systems.
For me, it's a greater issue that Nintendo is making these mistakes so regularly to begin with. When the Wii launched, the concept of a robust online component wasn't just an idealized dream, it was a practical thing that had already existed for almost two years with the competition. Same thing with making their systems beholden to irregular input schemes; forcing those models is a mistake, and Nintendo is "innovating" the same way I "innovate" the use of tree leaves when I'm in the woods without toilet paper - I use what I have to, not what's optimal.
Those shouldn't be mistakes you have to learn from.
But Google and Apple are incomplete competitors. Last time I updated my phone it didnt bring back my game saves just the App. I never really understood the yelling regarding game saves anyway. To me they are only used during the process of playing through the game. When the game goes on the shelf the save game goes bye bye too. I sincerely doubt that Nintendo will not eventually bring the games over... if I were a cloud/online service soap boxer I would be more concerned with my favorite company like Sony, or Microsoft releasing a console with no disc drive in the next generation or two. Sony has already tried it. It will happen eventually.
Edit: I love my nintendo consoles. They are the most solid platforms released in the industry.
Nintendo's (formerly complete, now relative) lack of online support has been a major failing of theirs, and the E3 presentations aren't the most heartening thing for early adopters in this case, but as cloudeagle has said there's no reason (or sign) nintendo won't implement these kinds of things. The company has made plenty of mistakes and missteps over it's almost thirty years (thirty!) as a console maker, however it has also shown that it has learned and improved on certain mistakes, and proved naysayers wrong with the validity of some of its past systems.
For me, it's a greater issue that Nintendo is making these mistakes so regularly to begin with. When the Wii launched, the concept of a robust online component wasn't just an idealized dream, it was a practical thing that had already existed for almost two years with the competition. Same thing with making their systems beholden to irregular input schemes; forcing those models is a mistake, and Nintendo is "innovating" the same way I "innovate" the use of tree leaves when I'm in the woods without toilet paper - I use what I have to, not what's optimal.
Those shouldn't be mistakes you have to learn from.
Because Sega, Microsoft, and Sony haven't also made a shitload of mistakes? Sega is out of the console business because they had a string of major failings and weren't doing enough right things to keep them afloat. Nintendo's made lots of mistakes, but I don't think they were ever selling several major consoles (or major console peripherals) at a loss like sega did. If the original xbox didn't have microsoft capable of buying out bungie and the halo IP the system would have been dead on arrival. The xbox 360 (at least early on) repeatedly had shitty systems crap out forcing consumers to go through (many) replacements. The PS3 is a solid console choice now, but I don't think I need to explain the kind of fuck ups sony has made throughout this generation.
But Google and Apple are incomplete competitors. Last time I updated my phone it didnt bring back my game saves just the App. I never really understood the yelling regarding game saves anyway. To me they are only used during the process of playing through the game. When the game goes on the shelf the save game goes bye bye too. I sincerely doubt that Nintendo will not eventually bring the games over... if I were a cloud/online service soap boxer I would be more concerned with my favorite company like Sony, or Microsoft releasing a console with no disc drive in the next generation or two. Sony has already tried it. It will happen eventually.
Edit: I love my nintendo consoles. They are the most solid platforms released in the industry.
Here's where the problem is, Nintendo is courting people who own the PS3/360 with the Wii U. These features are standard on those consoles. People are use to them, they like them, and they want them going forward. To not include these features is a negative in their eyes. It's like releasing a car that doesn't come with a CD player standard. Or a TV that doesn't have HDMI ports. Building a house without central air. It's not progress. The only people who seem to be ok with it are the people who either never owned something with one of those features, or people who never used those features. But once you use it, it's really hard to want to get something without it.
But Google and Apple are incomplete competitors. Last time I updated my phone it didnt bring back my game saves just the App. I never really understood the yelling regarding game saves anyway. To me they are only used during the process of playing through the game. When the game goes on the shelf the save game goes bye bye too. I sincerely doubt that Nintendo will not eventually bring the games over... if I were a cloud/online service soap boxer I would be more concerned with my favorite company like Sony, or Microsoft releasing a console with no disc drive in the next generation or two. Sony has already tried it. It will happen eventually.
Edit: I love my nintendo consoles. They are the most solid platforms released in the industry.
Going completely digital with the Vita is very possible. And works quite well.
Posts
Absolutely. Nintendo can blow this whole thing and still walk away with a lot of cash in the till.
However, if Nintendo flubs the Wii-U, you can probably count them out of the console market for a long while, if not indefinitely.
...or maybe they'll pick themselves up and dust themselves off like when the N64 and Gamecube weren't ginormous hits.
I have to wonder how many times you can remind the public that you're just not the console company they're looking for.
Well, they skipped a turn this generation, so it'll probably be easier in this hypothetical situation. :P
Honestly the only worst-case scenario I can picture is nintendo fumbling with the launch 3ds style before picking things up again, and if the 720 and ps4 turn out to be god's greatest gift to entitled hobbyists everywhere then I guess they won't have a repeat of holding the largest amount of the market share again.
Also I'm personally not going to be getting this thing at launch, but that is mostly because I have stopped being an early adopter of consoles since the xbox 360 first came out. Anyone remember that? Outside of like a project gotham sequel and call of duty 2 the games ranged from overpriced mediocrity to crap.
Because they didn't do it with the Wii and the DSi. Or the Wii and the 3DS. And it's not just money - for example, with PSN, all your purchases are linked to your PSN account, not the device itself. Which means that when you are dealing with multisystem compatable games (Minis/PS1 Titles/PSP Titles), all you need to do to get access is to link your system to your account.
I take it you didn't see Sony's presentation, then. They've decided to rework the strategy completely, with a new name (PlayStation Mobile) and new partners (they lined up HTC behind this initiative so far). It looks like they're retooling it from the ground up, which is definitely needed.
Not really. MS is really good at building APIs, and the SmartGlass system will no doubt be built on one.
I'm guessing you missed this:
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/06/05/nintendo-readying-the-system-to-transfer-wiiware-vc-and-wii-s/
So what's the new reason Nintendo's online system is gooseshit? :P
I saw it. I wasn't impressed. Sony's dropped the ball enough on PlayStation Suite that it'll take a miracle to get anyone to care again, plus fragmentation is already a horrible problem on Android. Why bother to make games for a store that'll be on a tiny fraction of Android devices when you can make the same ones that'll run on many more of them?
An API good enough to run on the 3,000 Android devices? (That's not an exaggeration -- there really are 3,000 Android devices.)
So yes, it's still gooseshit, because it's nowhere near where the competition is.
As for PS Mobile, it's looking like it's being rebuilt from the ground up. As for why devs will use it, if Sony provides a solid API through it that makes it easier to make Android games, and the number of PSM certified devices increases, then it will be a simple choice. Also, the idea of store fragmentation on Android is a laugh - there are only two storefronts that matter (Play, Amazon) and most devs release to both. Besides, the old PS games brought to Android were sold through Google, with the devices that could buy and download the games restricted.
Finally, might I remind you that MS created DirectX? Which is designed to allow devs to build to a stable API and not worry about the millions of PC hardware permutations out there? Something like SmartGlass is child's play in comparison.
Nintendo allows system transfers. I did it myself between 3DS systems... it's quick and painless. And again, Nintendo is working on having all your Wii stuff transfer over to the Wii U.
So, to sum up your position, when PSN/XBL/Steam lets you transfer stuff over, it's fine, but when Nintendo announces the exact same thing, it's gooseshit. Gotcha.
But again, if developers just release stuff for the Sony store, they're missing out on the vast majority of the market. Why would they limit themselves in that way, especially on a service that has a year-long track record of being horribly mismanaged?
And no, the old PS games were originally sold through a specialized PlayStation store. I know, I used an Xperia Play. In fact I was excited for it, at least until I actually used it.
PC makers still have to bend over backwards to accommodate myriad device configurations, DirectX or no. I'm not sure why SmartGlass will be different.
Guess which is the better solution.
And no, the PS games are quite available on Google Play. While Sony may have set up a branded storefront as part of the PS branding, they also made the titles available on the Market as well. So devs building games using PSM won't be constrained to the Sony storefront.
Edit: I'm glad that you brought up the DSi /3DS transfer process, since it perfectly illustrates how Nintendo's solution is inferior gooseshit. To transfer the games, you have to have both systems in hand, download a transfer app to the DS, and the process is one way. In comparison, making any Minis/PSP games bought on the PSP available on the Vita is as simple as attaching your PSN account to the Vita. Plus, the games are still usable on the PSP as well.
As I just said, Nintendo allows you to move stuff from machine to machine too. I recently did it myself. You keep trying to convince me that one of these two apples is, in fact, a sasquatch.
That must be a recent change.
Still, that begs the question: why bother to use Sony's stuff at all, when you can just use your PC and put stuff on the market? As you said, since they're tuned to specific devices it still cuts the potential buyer base waaaaaaaaaay down.
Nintendo: Destructive one way transfer process between two systems.
Microsoft/Sony/Valve: Purchases linked to a master account, which can be then associated to specific machines. The master account can be freely reassociated as per the holder's will, nondestructively.
Yet Nintendo just announced that.
Come to think of it, Nintendo has always had master accounts, it's just that they've started giving users the freedom to move stuff across devices.
Oh, and this brings up another bit of Wii gooseshit - machine locked saves.
...except that the announcement also covers transfers of saves from the Wii to the Wii U.
Two questions:
1. Why is there a vast difference? The end result is that stuff gets transferred.
2. Why are you just mentioning unified accounts now?
I've been talking about unified accounts all this time, you silly goose.
Two, process matters. What if you want to play a downloaded game (say, Skullgirls, for a good example) at your friend's place? Nintendo's solution doesn't let you do that, but the others do.
Three, saves, especially in this day and age, should never be machine locked. Transferring a save should be a matter of inserting removable storage, moving the save to it, then moving the storage to the new system. And yes, I'm pissed that the Vita fucked this up, though it's a bit more understandable there (the saves are recorded to the cartridge if you're playing a physical copy.)
No we haven't. The previous post is literally the first time you mentioned it.
Why would you want to do that? It sounds like you're trying to rip Steam/Microsoft/PSN out of money. Besides, that's a minor annoyance at worst. Hardly worthy of "gooseshit."
Nintendo's saves aren't machine locked.
As for why I would want to do that, well, why can't I bring over a game I own to play with a friend? The copy is useless without me signed in.
And some Wii games have machine locked saves. Found that out when I tried to backup my Brawl save.
The fact is, Nintendo is years behind the offerings of their competition online, and yet they refuse to improve.
Well, the point sure didn't get across.
Well, why not just bring the console over? That's quicker than having to redownload the game and the saves.
Yes. But I was able to transfer over my 3DS saves, and it looks like you can do the same on Wii U.
Never mind all the improvements they implemented into the 3DS and just announced for the Wii U.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the feature he is talking about is a really, REALLY good one that everyone but nintendo has, and the fact that you have to take your argument to the point where the person should just pack their 400 dollar console up and take it to a friends house if they want to play a WiiWare game because it is better than plugging in a username and password and playing on their system in minutes is just goosey.
Nintendo has historically been behind the times on networking their systems well. The gamecube was pretty much the only one out of the four in its generation (including the dreamcast even) to not have an online strategy of some sort. The Wii is the only one that made maintaining a group of friends to play games with a maddening affair that required external websites or emails between players. It looks like Wii U is launching with the level of online capability the xbox 360 had in 2006. Which is a damn fine level of capability that everyone was happy to have in 2006, but is still way behind the curve.
And it is funny, because there is no justifiable reason for them to be behind like this.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I may not have played my Wii much but I do have to say that the games I enjoyed on the Wii rate as top this generation.
I had to sell my 360 a few years ago. I had a ton of RB purchases, arcade game purchases, ext ext. So I wiped the HD and backed up all the important saves onto a memory card. When the slim 360 came out, I wasn't able to put my saves onto the new console (because of the memory card slots no longer existing), but if I wanted to I could have tracked down someone with an old 360 and transfer them to a USB stick. But anyway, I was able to log into the new console with my old account, transfer the licenses to the new console, and download all my old games as if I never sold my old 360.
And that's important to me. That makes sense. However, when I had to sell my Wii, with over $100 worth of virtual console games, there was no way for me to transfer those to a new Wii if I ever picked one up. They were lost forever.
That sucks.
Not only that, but with the 360 I can take out the HD, move it to another console, and play any of my downloaded games real easily. No reason to pack up the whole console, just have to take out the HD, and as long as I can get online, I can play my games/songs. If I'm over at a friend's place (lets say for a week or two), and I want to, I can log in with my gamertag, without bringing anything with me, and download any game I own on the service, and play it. Hell, I can even download my saves off of the cloud service, and I'm good to go.
A few weeks ago I let someone borrow my 360, but I didn't want them to be able to access my gamertag. I had forgotten to turn on passwords before I let them borrow it. I was able to go online to Xbox.com, and require the next login of my account to ask for a password.
The Wii U should be able to do all of this, or else they're playing catchup. This is our data, our games, and not allowing me to take a DD game over to a friends house without taking the whole console is like not allowing me to buy tickets to movies online, it's archaic and backwards.
Edit: To make this even more clear, if the Wii U can't do all of this, we have a next gen console playing catchup with the previous gen consoles. Which is pathetic.
I just don't really see anything in what they've announced in their Wii U strategy that inherently qualifies as "gooseshit."
It's not gooseshit.
But it is, once again, Nintendo staying a full generation behind everyone else on the whole online thing, and it will hurt them (especially when it comes to where people will spend their multiplatform money) if they don't evolve.
That said, the 360 of today looks alien to the 360 of launch, and the Wii has seen some nice updates come to it over the course of its life, so there is always the chance that cloud saves, some sort of Mii-tag that has your purchase history on it and can travel between systems, and other neat features can come to pass.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It's gooseshit because I expect a console coming out in 2012 to have online support that is also from 2012.
It doesn't?
It is missing lots of "duh" features that a new system should have. And these aren't "MOAR POWER MOAR PIXELS" things; these are simple, consumer-friendly features that are not terribly hard to implement that a brand new online gaming system should just have as part of their spec right out of the gate.
unique system-agnostic save games and online purchases are right at the top of the pile.
When I go home to visit my family for the holidays, I can just pack a couple games, knowing that my DLC and my save games will be waiting for me at his house, one login away.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
No, I don't.
I mean things like cloud backup of my saves. Or download purchases tied to my master account, not my console.
Well, that's just the point I was fishing for -- we don't specifically know that they're NOT system-agnostic. Nothing's been announced. We're going on incomplete data, though that isn't stopping people from calling it "gooseshit" anyway.
It's online infrastructure and (easier) accommodation for more third party developers have moved at a snails pace in technology years, but it's amazing how much vitriol people have been throwing at them since the wii and now the wii u, which is still half a year away from launch, let alone what may be in store for updates once it is on the market.
Unfortunately for Nintendo; Microsoft, Sony, Google, and Apple do.
Considering those are all their competitors, they really don't have a choice.
For me, it's a greater issue that Nintendo is making these mistakes so regularly to begin with. When the Wii launched, the concept of a robust online component wasn't just an idealized dream, it was a practical thing that had already existed for almost two years with the competition. Same thing with making their systems beholden to irregular input schemes; forcing those models is a mistake, and Nintendo is "innovating" the same way I "innovate" the use of tree leaves when I'm in the woods without toilet paper - I use what I have to, not what's optimal.
Those shouldn't be mistakes you have to learn from.
Well lets hope consumers agree with Nintendo that things consumers want aren't required. Or developers agree with them.
I mean, Nintendo can stand in a field and shout that the sky is green all they want, that doesn't mean it's not going to bite them in the ass.
Edit: I love my nintendo consoles. They are the most solid platforms released in the industry.
Because Sega, Microsoft, and Sony haven't also made a shitload of mistakes? Sega is out of the console business because they had a string of major failings and weren't doing enough right things to keep them afloat. Nintendo's made lots of mistakes, but I don't think they were ever selling several major consoles (or major console peripherals) at a loss like sega did. If the original xbox didn't have microsoft capable of buying out bungie and the halo IP the system would have been dead on arrival. The xbox 360 (at least early on) repeatedly had shitty systems crap out forcing consumers to go through (many) replacements. The PS3 is a solid console choice now, but I don't think I need to explain the kind of fuck ups sony has made throughout this generation.
Here's where the problem is, Nintendo is courting people who own the PS3/360 with the Wii U. These features are standard on those consoles. People are use to them, they like them, and they want them going forward. To not include these features is a negative in their eyes. It's like releasing a car that doesn't come with a CD player standard. Or a TV that doesn't have HDMI ports. Building a house without central air. It's not progress. The only people who seem to be ok with it are the people who either never owned something with one of those features, or people who never used those features. But once you use it, it's really hard to want to get something without it.
Going completely digital with the Vita is very possible. And works quite well.