The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Nintendo] The best January the Wii U has ever had
Atomika
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Imminent to the E3 expo arriving the next few weeks, Nintendo has announced that they will be unveiling their latest home console, for now dubbed the "Wii 2," the "Wii HD," or "Project Cafe." Naturally, speculation is high, and likely in no small part to the faction of relatively disappointed gamers who felt that the Wii underdelivered on its promise. Nintendo hasn't said much on the subject, other than confirming that the new console will be "more powerful than the competition," and be capable of HD output.
While rumors swirl about things as far-fetched as onboard Blu-Ray devices and touch-capacitive remotes, I'm reminded of my own dissatisfaction with the Wii experience. I felt that given the device's similar release date with the 360 and PS3, the lack of HD output was fairly glaring, not to mention its inability to use its online capabilities in any meaningful way, or use its DVD drive to, you know, play DVDs.
As well, over time I became more and more annoyed that it seemed like the Wii entrenched itself solely as a first-party machine, and sales figures have come to support that assertion. The overwhelming majority of Wii game sales are attributed to franchises owned or licensed solely by Nintendo, such as Mario Bros, Zelda, Pokemon, and Metroid, or peripheral-specific titles also first-party in nature (like Wii Fit). It seems that these feelings were shared by many developers, who left the Wii console over complaints of difficult translative coding across the platform, as well as sluggish sales compared to ports on other consoles.
So Nintendo would have us believe that their new machine will outperform the competition, but is that something we should believe? Such a statement seems to belie the feeling that Nintendo still feels that Microsoft and Sony are their rivals in the field, but is that even true? And should Nintendo really be trying to go head-to-head with these companies after the abject failure of cross-platform titles on the Wii?
I feel that Nintendo needs to seriously take a moment to actualize its imperative. "What does Nintendo want to do?" That's the question that needs asked. Because if Nintendo wants to go up against Sony and X-Box, they're facing a steep uphill climb, and merely offering HD output won't be good enough. The competition already has things like HD output, as well as blu-ray capability, deep DLC homestores with streaming media options, and even 3D capability. If Nintendo's new console showed up tomorrow with all that in tow, they'd still be 5 years behind the curve.
Which is why I don't think whatever new product will be unveiled soon will be all that impressive. But I do think it will be cheap, and Nintendo has always keenly followed their bottom line. The Wii was little more than a gussied-up Gamecube with bluetooth remotes and marginal online ability; The Wii HD (or whatever) will probably be little more than a duded-up Wii with better performance and increased online support.
Or maybe it won't be that at all. Maybe Nintendo will surprise us by actually sacking up and taking the fight to the competition. Maybe they'll begin to appreciate their long-neglected 18-and-over market and position themselves, through technological power and innovation, to be the must-have console of the next generation, regaining the dominance they've slowly given up since they first failed to strongly respond to the PS1.
But I doubt it.
While rumors swirl about things as far-fetched as onboard Blu-Ray devices and touch-capacitive remotes, I'm reminded of my own dissatisfaction with the Wii experience. I felt that given the device's similar release date with the 360 and PS3, the lack of HD output was fairly glaring, not to mention its inability to use its online capabilities in any meaningful way, or use its DVD drive to, you know, play DVDs.
As well, over time I became more and more annoyed that it seemed like the Wii entrenched itself solely as a first-party machine, and sales figures have come to support that assertion. The overwhelming majority of Wii game sales are attributed to franchises owned or licensed solely by Nintendo, such as Mario Bros, Zelda, Pokemon, and Metroid, or peripheral-specific titles also first-party in nature (like Wii Fit). It seems that these feelings were shared by many developers, who left the Wii console over complaints of difficult translative coding across the platform, as well as sluggish sales compared to ports on other consoles.
So Nintendo would have us believe that their new machine will outperform the competition, but is that something we should believe? Such a statement seems to belie the feeling that Nintendo still feels that Microsoft and Sony are their rivals in the field, but is that even true? And should Nintendo really be trying to go head-to-head with these companies after the abject failure of cross-platform titles on the Wii?
I feel that Nintendo needs to seriously take a moment to actualize its imperative. "What does Nintendo want to do?" That's the question that needs asked. Because if Nintendo wants to go up against Sony and X-Box, they're facing a steep uphill climb, and merely offering HD output won't be good enough. The competition already has things like HD output, as well as blu-ray capability, deep DLC homestores with streaming media options, and even 3D capability. If Nintendo's new console showed up tomorrow with all that in tow, they'd still be 5 years behind the curve.
Which is why I don't think whatever new product will be unveiled soon will be all that impressive. But I do think it will be cheap, and Nintendo has always keenly followed their bottom line. The Wii was little more than a gussied-up Gamecube with bluetooth remotes and marginal online ability; The Wii HD (or whatever) will probably be little more than a duded-up Wii with better performance and increased online support.
Or maybe it won't be that at all. Maybe Nintendo will surprise us by actually sacking up and taking the fight to the competition. Maybe they'll begin to appreciate their long-neglected 18-and-over market and position themselves, through technological power and innovation, to be the must-have console of the next generation, regaining the dominance they've slowly given up since they first failed to strongly respond to the PS1.
But I doubt it.
Atomika on
0
Posts
The reason nintendo are doing this is a gambit, because they've woken up to the realisation that the Wii game line up is completely and totally made up of shovelware, with only a few titles actually being worth the time or interest. Meanwhile, the likes of ps3 and xbox 360 are starting to stretch into the motion business, supplying not only the same entertainment, but graphically better. This helps both to catch public attention and also hook developers. After all, no developer wants to make a game, then have to completely and totally strip it down to fit it onto a yesteryear console.
The question now is as to whether that's such a bright idea. Do they continue down the road of supplying to a casual market, or do they throw themselves headlong into the big boys sector, on, let's face it, fairly childish first party game titles.
Zelda lovers will kill me in 5...4...3...2...
Steam | Twitter
You snark, but I know what you mean.
The Wii really blew its wad within the first few months of being on the market. Wii Sports, the friggin' game that came with the system, was basically the most innovative use of the Wiimote ever facilitated for the console.
Upon the success of his "Three Little Pigs" Silly Symphony, Walt Disney was asked when he would make another short with the famous pigs, to which he responded, "You can't top pigs with pigs." I look at things like Mario Soccer, Wii Sports Resort, and the MotionPlus adapter, and think, "Wow, pigs on pigs."
But Nintendo has something that is an X factor not shared by its competition, and that's the brand awareness of its first-party titles. Though it seems outside the realm of possibility, is it possible that Nintendo's entire market strategy can be summed up by flooding each new console with as much first-party content as the market allows before returns diminish, and then scrambling to build a new console to flood with first-party titles, wash, rinse, and repeat?
Yes. It's called the ninendo ds!
Buuuurrrrnnnnn.
We should not expect them to not have another go round on all the standard tired franchises yet again.
I'm curious where they'll go with this Wii-Remote type thing. Frankly, it has remained, after years, still mostly a gimmick. I have trouble thinking of many games where you couldn't replace the waggle with a button press and be kinder to my wrists and better on gameplay.
Yes, the new console should be called the MZM: Mario-Zelda-Metroid. That's all we buy it for, anyway.
Indeed. The thesis argument and rationalization for the Wii's entire existence has yet to be justified.
As well as you, I'm curious to see what they bring to the table in the next go-round. Like I said above, if they're bringing HD/3D output, a streamlined online service, and advanced motion-control technology . . . . . they're still behind the curve.
Which they might actually be okay with. It's not like Nintendo has ever shied away from basically boiling their sales pitch down to, "It's not all that great, but hey, here's some Mario games!"
I still haven't bought a mario or metroid game for my Wii, and only got zelda because I had to buy 6 games when I got it right after launch, and I'd call it quite a solid success. I have several first party, third party, and downloadable games I've enjoyed on it. Whoooooops!
From a financial perspective? It certainly looks that way. They definitely made Nintendo a shitload of money this generation. I'm curious to see if motion controls can still spur sales after the newness has worn off.
But from a gameplay perspective? I'd say they haven't justified themselves all that much. They've seemed to be less a revolution and more like the rumblepack. Cool, good for immersion in a few select spots (much narrower for motion control then rumble actually), but nothing amazing.
Some games have taken advantage of them, but most haven't at all. They just replaced one button with waggle and called it a day.
Much, much more to the point of the OP: is the business model of the Wii, i.e. "last-gen tech with a twist," something we should anticipate with the new console? Is Nintendo really going to try to appeal to the older gaming market, or will it keep "innovating" and market toward its younger, less-demanding base?
Because, I really don't give a damn about Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony, or anyone other manufacturer for that matter. All I care about is the technology, what that technology means to me as an end user (i.e. gamer), and what kind of developers the technology might attract. Though I think that last bit really has a lot more to do with the technology itself rather than anything to do with brand loyalty either.
So, for me, this question is moot. Either the technology will outperform the competition or it won't. If they say it will, why not believe them, at least for now? It's not like it's a fudgeable thing. "Outperform" in this context is very quantifiable. If anything, I'd take that statement at face value before I'd factor their past into this. Did they EVER claim that the Wii or NDS or, well, anything would "outperform" the competition? I don't believe so. Because it would have been a lie.
Why assume they are lying now?
Exactly. Saying it will outperform last generation consoles is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. If it didn't, I'd be shocked. It's not a relevant comparison.
What it has to be measured again is the NEXT Sony/MS consoles. MS, at least, is releasing their next entry in the next year or 2 afaik. Will Nintendo again be the cheaper but less powerful of the 3? That would be the real question.
Well. The 3DS doesn't outperform the PSP, does it? I admit I'm not too familiar with the 3DS tech, so I'm not sure how much more powerful it is over the NDS, but in terms of processing power, the PSP is way above the NDS and the NGP will increase that margin quite a bit. What the PSP and NGP do not have, however, is glasses-less 3D, which doesn't make the system "outperform" any other system, but it certainly is an innovative enough tangent to keep them raking in the cashola.
So, yes, I believe Nintendo has proven they know how to keep a foothold on the market with lateral innovation and I believe it would be possible to do so again if they really wanted to. I just believe that "it will outperform the competition" is a very simple, direct, and literal statement and should be taken as such. It implies that the new Nintendo system is being oriented as a competitor to Microsoft and Sony's stuff.
As far was what not to expect? That Nintendo doesn't act like total cocks like Sony always has and Microsoft has started to and ship an HD console without any goddamn HD ready cables. What. The. Shit. HD out of the box my ass you fuckers!
My one fervant wish that I'm sure will NOT be granted is that the new console has both access to the virtual console library and is back compatible with GC titles. That's what I wanted a Wii for and I never did get one.
I don't think there's a lot of specific loyalty, despite what the flame wars might tell you. I own both a PS3 and a Wii, as well as a GBA, and the only reason I don't have an X-Box is that I can't justify the cost seeing as how I would only want it for Fable and Mass Effect.
However, the sales figures don't lie, and Wii's sales are almost entirely relegated to first-party titles and peripherals.
No official statement, just "insider source" scuttlebutt.
I think you are making a mistake here with your comparison though. The handheld market just isn't the same in respects to performance. Plus, Nintendo basically owns the handheld market anyway, which causes further distortions.
Performance is more of an issue with home consoles though. And there's also the whole tech factor, which may also be what he was referring to. Older technology gets expensive.
I think there's a good chance "it will outperform the competition" is marketing-speak for "It won't be just a small upgrade over the Wii. It will actually have power and fancy graphics this time!" to counter-act the sort of general idea about the Wii being underpowered.
Welcome to the fanboy zone.
Except Nintendo is a business. So sales data kind of matter. They could care less who's buying their games.
In all fairness, in terms of graphics and potential, the Wii didn't outperform the 360 or the PS3, which were all released more or less concurrently. Not that the Wii even tried, mind you, but there you are.
I don't think Nintendo can get away with just an HD Wii upgrade, especially if it means buying all new games, but who knows? I'm consistently surprised by the way Nintendo continues to provide innovative and new gaming experiences, but I also was around when the Virtual Boy came out, so Nintendo's penchant for "innovating" without any clear mandate or justification isn't unremarked upon by me.
Yeah, from a business point of view, it's a huge success, no ifs ands or buts. (hehehe, butts)
The question is whether they can replicate that success again. Will they go for another "gimick"? Or will we see "The Wii, but super-powerful this time!" to try and hit that same gravy train again? Or something else.
I'd heard the statement as "the new Nintendo console will outperform the 360 and the PS3" which is what I was referring to.
Yes. None of the console makers evaluate the performance of their product based on user opinions (Although they can use that for marketing). It's how much money does it make. The Wii is a massive success for Nintendo. They made bank off it. Now, though, it's completely obsolete by virtue of the products the competition has released and they have no leg to stand on regarding the future of the Wii.
So new console time. And if there's one thing Nintendo has always managed to do, it's make a successful console. The N64 and GC still made a profit, even if they weren't market dominant. This notion that a company is only successful if it releases the absolute very best is something that doesn't really fly outside of the tech industry.
AFAIK Nintendo never sells at a loss so they basically can't not make a profit on their consoles as long as they sell even just kinda ok. It makes the fact that they made a profit kind of a silly point.
The question most people are asking I think is can they make a sales-dominating console again.
Just to be clear here when you use the terms "older" and "younger" what you're talking about is the length of time the people in those two categories have been playing games and thus actually meaning casual gamers vs more "tradtional" (not the term either but my brain is failing me) gamers, right?
Oh, I understand completely, and they have a bottom line to watch. But right now the Wii is basically inert, and didn't even release a single game this quarter.
But it's kind of like (to continue the metaphor) applauding the studio that made the Twilight movies for being so profitable. It's the fight between "continued customer appeal" and "novelty," and it seems that with the Wii and 3DS that Nintendo has clearly chosen "novelty" as their prime market motivator.
Which is to say that isn't the worst thing. It's profitable. But it also drops hard, so the only way to maintain revenues is to constantly provide newer, more novel experiences. Sony and Microsoft seem to feel that those experiences should be mostly software-based, whereas Nintendo seems to prefer hardware changes. My personal opinion is that software is a lot easier to take a chance on than new hardware, so I don't particularly care to be asked to go out and drop $200 on whatever new way Nintendo thinks you should hold a controller to play the same first-party titles again.
I think so. By "older," I mean people who have been gaming (and continue to game) for several years, whereas "newer" gamers I refer to younger people who are more casual with their gaming. Most people in the 18-45 demographic aren't new to gaming by a long shot, and generally have fairly specific tastes in what they're looking to play.
But with the Wii being what it was, what that new console actually will be is up in the air. Do they mean to compete directly with the 360 and PS3? Or is Nintendo throwing down the gauntlet and challenging Sony and MS to come up with their own new consoles?
More than anything, considering how MS responded to the PS3 I hope to see similar marketing hijinks. That's my best case scenario from this.
Indeed. Or better yet, a console that comparably competes with the PS3 and 360 (or whatever next-gen machines) in the same format, which the Wii decidedly does not.
The two-part question is:
- Should Nintendo really treat Sony and Microsoft as direct competition, and if so,
- What do they need to do to accomplish that?
In that, I find myself wondering that if Nintendo fails to up its caliber of performance and instead opts for a more insular experience, is that something I want to be part of? I'm not sure I do, really.
I'd have bought a replacement except that I've been far too busy with work to play games much. I haven't turned on my 360 since playing GTA IV.
So, Ross, you just don't find that the Wii has any compelling games?
The recent scuttlebutt has the new Nintendo out in 2012, with Sony and MS following up in 2014.
As a PS3 owner, I'm in no hurry for a new console right now, and I can think of very few deficits in my current gaming experiences that I'm eager to see rectified. Really, the only thing that comes to mind is the frame-rate issues thanks to the PS3's wimpy 256 RAM.
Why would they want to? Sony and MS are driving themselves into the ground while Nintendo makes piles of money.
And also, why would competing directly with them be 'upping its caliber of performance'? There are more Wii games than 360 games I like and have bought. Can you actually define this in a way that isn't just 'I don't like Wii games'?
Outside a handful of first-party titles? No, I don't. But it just doesn't have the mechanical capability to give me the experiences that I generally come to expect from the PS3, and the MotionControl technology hasn't enriched any gaming experience outside of Wii Sports and Mario Cart.
It's just old technology. It's the GameCube with motion-mapping technology, at that technology has done little to make a strong case for its persistence beyond novelty value.