Oh man. I will absolutely miss the feeling of hearing everyone cheer and freak out when something big is revealed. Like when solid snake showed up in Brawl.
You do realize this didn't happen at the Nintendo press event that e3, right?
It happened at a developer's roundtable which is still happening.
Also so is the press event, it's just not going to be a spectacle.
I swear this happened at E3. It had the Brawl video... Everyone was freaking out. Then at the end there was a pause then you hear the CODEC ring and then snake talking.
Nope. That freaking out was a room of about 50 journalists, one of which snuck a phone camera into.
I think this kind of sums up the reasoning though:
Jeremy Parish @gamespite:
Not surprised Nintendo is abandoning the E3 press conference. Nintendo Direct helped them realize they can deliver info on their own terms.
Jeremy Parish @gamespite:
Nintendo Direct is also one of the worst things to happen to the games press. They can deliver freebase propaganda without critical filters.
I disagree with Jeremy here.
Big E3 conferences are also streamed like anything else.. people can choose to watch them and take them at face value or read about the very same conference through the critical filter of the media after or during.
Nintendo Directs are also streamed... like anything else.. people can choose to watch them and take them at face value or read about the very same conference through the critical filter of the media after or during.
The only difference is that one is streamed in a giant exhibit hall and the other isn't..?
Yeah but I'd imagine more people watch the Nintendo Directs... directly :P It's a shorter, more concise/dense format so it's easier to sit through than a big conference. So rather than going to Kotaku/whatever for info they might just watch it themselves. Nintendo also whores links to them all over 3DS/Wii U/their website.
I've also heard games journalists in the past bitch about e3 conferences that waste their time with stuff like concerts, dancing, etc. I'm sure it's a minor thing, but perception/tone is probably colored a bit by being forced to sit in a big conference room watching a bunch of shit you don't want to.
but the problem is that aside from people like us, who watches them? No one I know certainly.
People who own the systems? Like I said, Nintendo whores them out like crazy. You go to the eShop on either system and they are pretty much front page, right in front of you. I believe they also sometimes send out Spotpass notices about them. And probably e-mails, I forget :P
exactly! basically no one at this point. I own a Wii I play regularly, and I've never seen anything about them on said system (yes it is connected to the internets)
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
edited April 2013
Lots of people own 3DSes. I think they pretty much abandoned Wii classic (though the Nintendo Channel may have them still?).
Otherwise there are the typical news aggregators if you don't own the systems. But my point there being the videos are not as daunting as a big conference so even if they are getting them from a news source, they are probably more likely to actually watch the video (which will be linked) than rely purely on the journalists' opinions.
Edit: Another point - it's also pre-recorded so there's a greater degree of control there. Instead of headlines like "Miyamoto flubs Skyward Sword demo - game doesn't work!" (with an "ok, it really does work" buried somewhere deep in the article that no one sees :P)
Nintendo honestly may have seen a bit of the writing on the wall and guessed that the new consoles likely won't be getting many third party titles that aren't also showing up on the 360 or PS3 for at least the first year or so of their life.
If that's the case, then the power differential "problem" wasn't really going to be one for quite awhile.
I think the problem is that Nintendo did one of the most low-key launches since the US Saturn, combined with not actively incentivizing (read: bribing) publishers to release important day-and-date ports.
Anyway, Western devs were never going to flock en masse to "new control scheme", since that's like the last thing they care about at this point. Japanese devs might, but they're focused on portables more and more.
Eh, tough times ahead. Either Nintendo blitzes the market with tons of first and second party titles, or they get what they have in the pipeline out and then start ramping down.
Creating a console just like the PS4 or next Xbox would be a worse mistake than gambling on a different idea.
They would end up in the same situation as the Gamecube, at best, but instead they'd be losing a helluva lot of money and more ground to competitors.
Nah. The thing is, Nintendo didn't have to create a console exactly like the PS4 and next Xbox. They could have gone a little bit below. Made it a little bit less powerful than those two, but not an entire hardware generation behind.
Make it moderately powerful, enough so that it could keep up with the other two consoles for third party games.
Pack a pro controller and Wiimote in with the system.
Have no tablet controller whatsoever.
Considering what the rumors are for the next Xbox and what the specs are for the PS4, this package could have cost them at least $100 less than the competition, still pricing them at a sweet spot. But instead of basically having a cut off point where third party games can't be multiplatform, they would have just been the lowest spec console to get those multiplatform games.
Which leads me to address the bolded part of your post.
Third party games no longer work in the same way they did in the PS2/GCN/XBOX generation. If a third party can release their game on a system easily, they will do so. It's what saved the PS3. It's what's kept AAA development profitable for a lot of companies. There are only a handful of third party exclusives anymore between consoles that have some sort of spec parity.
That's what is hurting the Wii U. Why bother investing in being able to easily port 360/PS3 games to the Wii U? They're going to stop making those games soon. Why bother investing in unique versions of PS4/Next Xbox games for the Wii U? You make one game for two consoles, and then have to make a unique game for another? It doesn't make any sense business wise.
That's why Rayman is getting ported to the 360/PS3. That's why besides Ubisoft pretty much every developer is skipping the Wii U with their multiplatform games.
And that's why if Nintendo would have released a console with modern specs, they would have had third party. The industry changed last generation. FF/GTA/DMC/RE/MGS are all multiplatform games now. All the big and small third party franchises are. Nintendo doesn't seem to get this fact. Probably because last generation, they missed the exact same boat by not releasing a competitive console spec wise.
Do we still lime things? Because I want to lime this.
I do wonder: what is the absolute cheapest you could release a game console and have it meet the criteria of - it's dead easy to port UE4 games built for ps4/Durango to it. No tablet, no motion control, no anti-used games BS, no online store nobody uses because the prices and selection are terrible, just a game pad and a console with enough HD space for patches, installs and game saves.
Seriously, what's the bottom dollar estimate there? Because if it's less than $300, Samsung is probably losing money by not making one.
Oh man. I will absolutely miss the feeling of hearing everyone cheer and freak out when something big is revealed. Like when solid snake showed up in Brawl.
Is that still a relevant thing nowadays? It seemed to be the "way things were" during the Xbox/PS2/GC days, where you never saw one system's character -- even if it was a 3rd party character -- on another system's games. But as Mr. Rats says below, we're past that now. Most games are cross-platform and functionally similar.
We're sort of past mascots being game sellers, in my view. Are people excited for Smash Bros Wii U because it may have 3 or 4 extra characters in it? Like, would someone actually change their mind about buying the game if it had a notable non-Nintendo character, in 2013? To compare it to the odd PS3 All Stars Battle Royale, people criticized that game because they felt the characters were selected for "marketing appeal rather than appropriateness for a fighting game."
To me, that's Nintendo's biggest problem with their first party games, and why they have a hard time selling new consoles. What is it about Smash Bros Wii U, Mario Kart 8, new 3D Mario, new Zelda, that's going to make it notable or unique? Are we seeing the same mechanics used with an identical story? Are they new mechanics where they just used their current mascots to skin it to guarantee some easy sales? I don't think the game landscape is the same anymore. I don't think the majority of gamers really care if their favorite character makes a cameo. They care that online play is seamless, or that the game is doing something interesting that works, or that they can sink hours into the game and have fun the entire time. Like Death of Rats says:
Third party games no longer work in the same way they did in the PS2/GCN/XBOX generation. If a third party can release their game on a system easily, they will do so. It's what saved the PS3. It's what's kept AAA development profitable for a lot of companies. There are only a handful of third party exclusives anymore between consoles that have some sort of spec parity.
That's what is hurting the Wii U. Why bother investing in being able to easily port 360/PS3 games to the Wii U? They're going to stop making those games soon. Why bother investing in unique versions of PS4/Next Xbox games for the Wii U? You make one game for two consoles, and then have to make a unique game for another? It doesn't make any sense business wise.
That's why Rayman is getting ported to the 360/PS3. That's why besides Ubisoft pretty much every developer is skipping the Wii U with their multiplatform games.
And that's why if Nintendo would have released a console with modern specs, they would have had third party. The industry changed last generation. FF/GTA/DMC/RE/MGS are all multiplatform games now. All the big and small third party franchises are. Nintendo doesn't seem to get this fact. Probably because last generation, they missed the exact same boat by not releasing a competitive console spec wise.
If the Wii U was essentially the same to develop for as the other 2 upcoming consoles, the Wii U would see the games come out "just because." It's easy, then. The last time we saw this was the GameCube, and Nintendo's decision to use a small disc and have no online play limited some of the cross-platform stuff. Now, though? Now, if a developer can make some minor changes to their code, plug in some APIs provided by the console maker to make the netcode and the multiplayer work, and make some other minor adjustments to get the game on the system, they will. A good example is my current love, Dark Souls. Demon's Souls came to the US on PS3 only via Atlus. It was a surprise success, so Namco Bandai picked it up, and From Software, a small developer, developed it for both 360 and PS3. Why? I can only assume it was because it was easy to do so, and the network play is relatively similar between the two platforms. After the success of the game, From went on to release it on PC. They had some trouble -- the game was mostly a straight port and essentially required a controller, and they used Games for Windows Live which sucks. Yet, it is STILL doing well on the PC.
Why are From releasing their game on so many platforms, when it's still a niche title? Because the work involved is relatively low, but the new audience is relatively large. Would a larger developer adopt the same mindset? I can only assume so. The question isn't so much "why is Nintendo not courting 3rd parties" but "why are Nintendo consoles not natural targets for cross-platform development?"
We live in a world of cross-platform development now. We're sort of past exclusives because developers need to get as much money out of their games as possible.
*shrug* I'm perfectly fine with a new Smash Bros, new Zelda, new Mario, and new Mario kart game. I realize not everyone feels the same way but I always feel like they offer me a fun, refreshing experience over things like Gears of War and God of War and Uncharted.
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
I would be shocked if Smash does not generate massive hype, especially if they add somebody like Megaman. Smash is extremely popular. I'm almost certainly buying a console for Smash, as I know I will play that game to death, but if they added an Advance Wars character that'd bump the game to a guaranteed lock for me.
I think Nintendo's core franchise games will be fine. Because they don't sell on mascots (or not just on it). They sell on being, for the most part, really good games.
Mario Kart is a great little kart racer. It's tons of fun to play. The aesthetic is like an extra creamy layer on top, not the selling point.
*shrug* I'm perfectly fine with a new Smash Bros, new Zelda, new Mario, and new Mario kart game. I realize not everyone feels the same way but I always feel like they offer me a fun, refreshing experience over things like Gears of War and God of War and Uncharted.
If Nintendo continues to limit its console market to people who can describe stale 15 year old game design like Zelda as 'refreshing', they're eventually going to get into trouble. May e they already have - if Mario and Zelda aren't enough to justify a console for you, is the WiiU really worth a purchase?
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
I like Mario Kart because of the mechanics. Item boxes and cannons on the track and all that stuff. It makes it something more interesting than just driving.
I do wonder: what is the absolute cheapest you could release a game console and have it meet the criteria of - it's dead easy to port UE4 games built for ps4/Durango to it. No tablet, no motion control, no anti-used games BS, no online store nobody uses because the prices and selection are terrible, just a game pad and a console with enough HD space for patches, installs and game saves.
Seriously, what's the bottom dollar estimate there? Because if it's less than $300, Samsung is probably losing money by not making one.
I think that's the idea behind the Steambox, and why people are excited about it. I think the reason Samsung hasn't done anything is because releasing a console isn't as easy as just putting a box together -- nowadays, you have to have a network platform (ideally offering all the usual stuff like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc.) that allows for online gaming. You also need to ensure that games can play on your system, and that it's more compelling for them to be played on your system than somewhere else. For example, if I have a PC that can play everything I could play on a Steambox, why should I spend the extra money on a Steambox? Why should I spend more money on a Samsungbox when I can just buy a controller for my PC? What is it about the Steambox or Samsungbox that makes it unique or different from other platforms?
It's probably easier for PC developers to release a separate Steambox/Samsungbox version of their game, but they would still have to be compelled and/or asked to do so. Still, we have media-center PCs for movies and TV, yet no one seems to play games on them. It could be as simple as PC games want to max their video stats.
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
...right?
Because no one is buying the Wii U.
...But nobody's buying it because 3rd parties aren't making games for it, and they aren't making games for it because people aren't buying it, and ARGH!
I don't see anything between NSMBWii and NSMBWU that would count as a "refreshing experience".
Or did you mean that the brightly-colored, easily accessible, family-friendly games Nintendo is known for are a "refreshing experience" compared to what you typically see on PC/Other consoles?
Because these are pretty different ideas, and I'd guess you meant the later. Nintendo's strength isn't in being "refreshing", it's in being "Nintendo", and still doing the same things they did 25 years ago. When I say "platformer", most people say "Mario", and for good reason; how many other 2D platformers can you even name that came out in the last 5 years, and how many of them were not on Nintendo hardware? How many good kart sims are there beyond Mario Kart? Who else brings the level of nostalgia and chaos that SSMB does? Who's adventures are as epic as Link's?
Nintendo has been building a particular style of gaming for their entire existence, and it's rare to see anyone outside of them step into that zone.
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is.
It's because the era of PS3/360 games is ending. Again, why invest in creating the development pipeline to do ports when in 18 months you're not going to have anything to put through that pipeline?
There are costs associated with multiplatform development. It's just they are usually upfront engine costs. Once you get the Assassin's Creed engine up and running on a system, all future games using that engine will work on that platform with minor tweaking. But getting that engine working costs money up front.
And look at what games/franchises/engines are up and running on the Wii U. We have several heavily modified versions of UE3, but mostly for games not seeing a sequel anytime soon. We have the engine Ubisoft is using for AC, and more than likely WatchDogs, guess what is getting a Wii U port?
But there are a lot of games that aren't using engines already ported to the Wii U (and yes, just because a game is in the UE3 engine, doesn't mean its a snap to port. Any customization of that engine has to be ported first). Look at Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, GTAV. All of these games aren't released on the Wii U because they're on custom engines (or customized versions of engines), that haven't already been ported.
There isn't a magic port game switch for these games. They'd have to pay the upfront cost like they did with the 360/PS3 half a decade ago. There isn't enough time, however, for the upfront costs to be paid back through sales before the current gen ends for good.
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
...right?
Because no one is buying the Wii U.
...But nobody's buying it because 3rd parties aren't making games for it, and they aren't making games for it because people aren't buying it, and ARGH!
The hell kinda logic is that?
Also it doesn't matter how successful 720 and PS4 are. They can sell triple what the Wii U is right now, and they'll still have a minuscule userbase compared to last gen platforms. Why make games for them? The equivalent of "no one" will be buying them either, even if tons of people buy them.
So you make cross gen games until the userbase arrives, right?
And you can't do this for the Wii U as well, for what reason?
Creating a console just like the PS4 or next Xbox would be a worse mistake than gambling on a different idea.
They would end up in the same situation as the Gamecube, at best, but instead they'd be losing a helluva lot of money and more ground to competitors.
Nah. The thing is, Nintendo didn't have to create a console exactly like the PS4 and next Xbox. They could have gone a little bit below. Made it a little bit less powerful than those two, but not an entire hardware generation behind.
Make it moderately powerful, enough so that it could keep up with the other two consoles for third party games.
Pack a pro controller and Wiimote in with the system.
Have no tablet controller whatsoever.
Considering what the rumors are for the next Xbox and what the specs are for the PS4, this package could have cost them at least $100 less than the competition, still pricing them at a sweet spot. But instead of basically having a cut off point where third party games can't be multiplatform, they would have just been the lowest spec console to get those multiplatform games.
Which leads me to address the bolded part of your post.
Third party games no longer work in the same way they did in the PS2/GCN/XBOX generation. If a third party can release their game on a system easily, they will do so. It's what saved the PS3. It's what's kept AAA development profitable for a lot of companies. There are only a handful of third party exclusives anymore between consoles that have some sort of spec parity.
That's what is hurting the Wii U. Why bother investing in being able to easily port 360/PS3 games to the Wii U? They're going to stop making those games soon. Why bother investing in unique versions of PS4/Next Xbox games for the Wii U? You make one game for two consoles, and then have to make a unique game for another? It doesn't make any sense business wise.
That's why Rayman is getting ported to the 360/PS3. That's why besides Ubisoft pretty much every developer is skipping the Wii U with their multiplatform games.
And that's why if Nintendo would have released a console with modern specs, they would have had third party. The industry changed last generation. FF/GTA/DMC/RE/MGS are all multiplatform games now. All the big and small third party franchises are. Nintendo doesn't seem to get this fact. Probably because last generation, they missed the exact same boat by not releasing a competitive console spec wise.
Do we still lime things? Because I want to lime this.
I do wonder: what is the absolute cheapest you could release a game console and have it meet the criteria of - it's dead easy to port UE4 games built for ps4/Durango to it. No tablet, no motion control, no anti-used games BS, no online store nobody uses because the prices and selection are terrible, just a game pad and a console with enough HD space for patches, installs and game saves.
Seriously, what's the bottom dollar estimate there? Because if it's less than $300, Samsung is probably losing money by not making one.
My problem with this though is... why? Why bother? It's such an obvious cash grab that literally adds nothing to the industry. If anything it just segments it even more, which in a growing online community based industry is something you probably don't want to do. You're just another box with the same exact games as the other two, and at a disadvantage to boot since you have zero exclusives.
There's already the growing concern that the PS3 and 720 are going to be functionally identical save for the logo on the machine. Adding in a 3rd box isn't going to help anybody anywhere.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
...right?
Because no one is buying the Wii U.
...But nobody's buying it because 3rd parties aren't making games for it, and they aren't making games for it because people aren't buying it, and ARGH!
The hell kinda logic is that?
People aren't buying the Wii U because it lacks third party titles. Chances are, if they want a third party title that's going to be released for the PS3 or the 360, they already own a PS3 or a 360, so there's no point in buying a Wii U just to play a game they can buy for a system they already down.
Also, the thing has 8GBs of storage. With downloading games from the Xbox Live Marketplace and the Playstation Network becoming more popular I'm sure a lot of people see that 8GB and think they are out of their minds.
Jeremy Parish @gamespite:
Nintendo Direct is also one of the worst things to happen to the games press. They can deliver freebase propaganda without critical filters.
I really don't get this at all. How do Nintendo directs deliver propaganda that a stage show does not?
Creating a console just like the PS4 or next Xbox would be a worse mistake than gambling on a different idea.
They would end up in the same situation as the Gamecube, at best, but instead they'd be losing a helluva lot of money and more ground to competitors.
Nah. The thing is, Nintendo didn't have to create a console exactly like the PS4 and next Xbox. They could have gone a little bit below. Made it a little bit less powerful than those two, but not an entire hardware generation behind.
Make it moderately powerful, enough so that it could keep up with the other two consoles for third party games.
Pack a pro controller and Wiimote in with the system.
Have no tablet controller whatsoever.
Considering what the rumors are for the next Xbox and what the specs are for the PS4, this package could have cost them at least $100 less than the competition, still pricing them at a sweet spot. But instead of basically having a cut off point where third party games can't be multiplatform, they would have just been the lowest spec console to get those multiplatform games.
Which leads me to address the bolded part of your post.
Third party games no longer work in the same way they did in the PS2/GCN/XBOX generation. If a third party can release their game on a system easily, they will do so. It's what saved the PS3. It's what's kept AAA development profitable for a lot of companies. There are only a handful of third party exclusives anymore between consoles that have some sort of spec parity.
That's what is hurting the Wii U. Why bother investing in being able to easily port 360/PS3 games to the Wii U? They're going to stop making those games soon. Why bother investing in unique versions of PS4/Next Xbox games for the Wii U? You make one game for two consoles, and then have to make a unique game for another? It doesn't make any sense business wise.
That's why Rayman is getting ported to the 360/PS3. That's why besides Ubisoft pretty much every developer is skipping the Wii U with their multiplatform games.
And that's why if Nintendo would have released a console with modern specs, they would have had third party. The industry changed last generation. FF/GTA/DMC/RE/MGS are all multiplatform games now. All the big and small third party franchises are. Nintendo doesn't seem to get this fact. Probably because last generation, they missed the exact same boat by not releasing a competitive console spec wise.
Do we still lime things? Because I want to lime this.
I do wonder: what is the absolute cheapest you could release a game console and have it meet the criteria of - it's dead easy to port UE4 games built for ps4/Durango to it. No tablet, no motion control, no anti-used games BS, no online store nobody uses because the prices and selection are terrible, just a game pad and a console with enough HD space for patches, installs and game saves.
Seriously, what's the bottom dollar estimate there? Because if it's less than $300, Samsung is probably losing money by not making one.
My problem with this though is... why? Why bother? It's such an obvious cash grab that literally adds nothing to the industry. If anything it just segments it even more, which in a growing online community based industry is something you probably don't want to do. You're just another box with the same exact games as the other two, and at a disadvantage to boot since you have zero exclusives.
There's already the growing concern that the PS3 and 720 are going to be functionally identical save for the logo on the machine. Adding in a 3rd box isn't going to help anybody anywhere.
They'd have Nintendo games. If any system could differentiate themselves while still playing the third party multiplatform game, it's a Nintendo system.
Which is why their decisions with the Wii U confuse me so much. They don't need to differentiate themselves via hardware, they can do that via first party games.
Jeremy Parish @gamespite:
Nintendo Direct is also one of the worst things to happen to the games press. They can deliver freebase propaganda without critical filters.
I really don't get this at all. How do Nintendo directs deliver propaganda that a stage show does not?
Because the stage show is delivered in front of a collection of sensible reporters who can filter through the bullshit and will only report the unvarnished truth to the gullible masses.
But with Nintendo Direct, Nintendo is able to shove all that bullshit straight down the throat of the gullible masses before it has the chance to be critically reviewed and evaluated by the game industry's responsible journalists.
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
...right?
Because no one is buying the Wii U.
...But nobody's buying it because 3rd parties aren't making games for it, and they aren't making games for it because people aren't buying it, and ARGH!
The hell kinda logic is that?
People aren't buying the Wii U because it lacks third party titles. Chances are, if they want a third party title that's going to be released for the PS3 or the 360, they already own a PS3 or a 360, so there's no point in buying a Wii U just to play a game they can buy for a system they already down.
Also, the thing has 8GBs of storage. With downloading games from the Xbox Live Marketplace and the Playstation Network becoming more popular I'm sure a lot of people see that 8GB and think they are out of their minds.
Can we amend this? Can we stop saying it? The WiiU lacks titles, period, regardless of the source. Have you looked at the WiiU section in any store selling games? It's tiny.
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
...right?
Because no one is buying the Wii U.
...But nobody's buying it because 3rd parties aren't making games for it, and they aren't making games for it because people aren't buying it, and ARGH!
The hell kinda logic is that?
People aren't buying the Wii U because it lacks third party titles. Chances are, if they want a third party title that's going to be released for the PS3 or the 360, they already own a PS3 or a 360, so there's no point in buying a Wii U just to play a game they can buy for a system they already down.
Also, the thing has 8GBs of storage. With downloading games from the Xbox Live Marketplace and the Playstation Network becoming more popular I'm sure a lot of people see that 8GB and think they are out of their minds.
Can we amend this? Can we stop saying it? The WiiU lacks titles, period, regardless of the source. Have you looked at the WiiU section in any store selling games? It's tiny.
Yeah, definitely one of the biggest problem's Wii U has in general right now. The first party thing wouldn't be as bad if the third parties were there, and the third party thing wouldn't be as bad if the Nintendo stuff was there.
Granted Nintendo stuff is coming, but every light release month does damage to the brand.
Of course, given that it's Steam, we'll never know how successful it actually is, but it's still something interesting. Maybe we'll see more services offering things like this in the future.
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
...right?
Because no one is buying the Wii U.
...But nobody's buying it because 3rd parties aren't making games for it, and they aren't making games for it because people aren't buying it, and ARGH!
The hell kinda logic is that?
Also it doesn't matter how successful 720 and PS4 are. They can sell triple what the Wii U is right now, and they'll still have a minuscule userbase compared to last gen platforms. Why make games for them? The equivalent of "no one" will be buying them either, even if tons of people buy them.
So you make cross gen games until the userbase arrives, right?
And you can't do this for the Wii U as well, for what reason?
Well I was speaking to Enlongs statement about third party titles specifically, but I believe third party titles or no, the Wii U wouldn't sell with them much better than its selling now.
What it needed was some great first party stuff on release. Stuff that people can't get anywhere else. That's what it still needs.
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
...right?
Because no one is buying the Wii U.
...But nobody's buying it because 3rd parties aren't making games for it, and they aren't making games for it because people aren't buying it, and ARGH!
The hell kinda logic is that?
The kind of logic where "It's not their fucking problem if the WiiU doesn't sell". They released games for the WiiU. Neither the system nor the games sold well, so they decided it wasn't worth their investment.
3rd Parties and Nintendo aren't in this together. They are separate companies.
I don't expect WiiU sales to really pick up until Xmas. I'm having a hard time saying that I want to buy one right now, but I'm a smart game consumer, and I'm patient enough to wait for price drops and a better library to grow.
But, we're not the drivers that Nintendo is banking on. My children are practically begging for a WiiU. That's the market. Christmas. Mark my words.
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
I always find it odd when people complain about light software selection during Nintendo launches. Have they ever launched with a good lineup? I mean, the N64 had two games at launch, the Cube pretty much was Luigi, the DS/3DS both had pretty terrible launch titles as well. The Wii might have been one of their better ones, but that was mostly thanks to Wii Sports being so universally loved at the time.
The Wii U library at least has more to play than my launch DS had...
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
...right?
Because no one is buying the Wii U.
...But nobody's buying it because 3rd parties aren't making games for it, and they aren't making games for it because people aren't buying it, and ARGH!
The hell kinda logic is that?
The kind of logic where "It's not their fucking problem if the WiiU doesn't sell". They released games for the WiiU. Neither the system nor the games sold well, so they decided it wasn't worth their investment.
3rd Parties and Nintendo aren't in this together. They are separate companies.
Then again, is it 100% Nintendo's fault that the games didn't sell? Third parties can never just sit back and watch the money come in... they have to advertise, develop quality games people are interested in, etc. It's possible to argue they dropped the ball too.
Put it another way -- it's not Microsoft and Sony's fault that, say, DmC didn't sell.
Then why don't they release games to the Wii U? It's no like the controller's an obstacle. It has the same buttons as any other given console. There is absolutely no need to bother with the tablet portion of the controller. Just make it for the controller portion and/or Pro Controllers.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
...right?
Because no one is buying the Wii U.
...But nobody's buying it because 3rd parties aren't making games for it, and they aren't making games for it because people aren't buying it, and ARGH!
The hell kinda logic is that?
The kind of logic where "It's not their fucking problem if the WiiU doesn't sell". They released games for the WiiU. Neither the system nor the games sold well, so they decided it wasn't worth their investment.
3rd Parties and Nintendo aren't in this together. They are separate companies.
Then again, is it 100% Nintendo's fault that the games didn't sell? Third parties can never just sit back and watch the money come in... they have to advertise, develop quality games people are interested in, etc. It's possible to argue they dropped the ball too.
Put it another way -- it's not Microsoft and Sony's fault that, say, DmC didn't sell.
If it was just the games not selling well, I'd agree. But the system ain't either. That is, after all, where the accusations against the game developers originate in this conversation (ie - "it's not selling well cause it's got no games") The games sold well elsewhere, so clearly the market is there for them. They didn't "drop the ball" on the game itself or it's advertising. It's just no one bought the WiiU version.
Nintendo can't get people to buy the console, so people aren't developing for it.
Of course, given that it's Steam, we'll never know how successful it actually is, but it's still something interesting. Maybe we'll see more services offering things like this in the future.
This is great for smaller devs that can't handle that backend, but I sure as hell hope they plan on improving their customer service if they're gonna start handling things like that
Nintendo is doing exactly what Apple did when they pulled out of Macworld. They will no longer be stuck to a strict "must have something amazing for E3" schedule and can hold separate events for when they announce products, whenever they want and when they are ready. I think it's a good plan, actually.
Switch Friend Code: SW-4598-4278-8875
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
I don't expect WiiU sales to really pick up until Xmas. I'm having a hard time saying that I want to buy one right now, but I'm a smart game consumer, and I'm patient enough to wait for price drops and a better library to grow.
But, we're not the drivers that Nintendo is banking on. My children are practically begging for a WiiU. That's the market. Christmas. Mark my words.
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
I don't get this argument. It's already been through a Black Friday and Christmas. It was unchallenged by new consoles, and yet time it's totally going to do better?
Posts
Nope. That freaking out was a room of about 50 journalists, one of which snuck a phone camera into.
exactly! basically no one at this point. I own a Wii I play regularly, and I've never seen anything about them on said system (yes it is connected to the internets)
Otherwise there are the typical news aggregators if you don't own the systems. But my point there being the videos are not as daunting as a big conference so even if they are getting them from a news source, they are probably more likely to actually watch the video (which will be linked) than rely purely on the journalists' opinions.
Edit: Another point - it's also pre-recorded so there's a greater degree of control there. Instead of headlines like "Miyamoto flubs Skyward Sword demo - game doesn't work!" (with an "ok, it really does work" buried somewhere deep in the article that no one sees :P)
If that's the case, then the power differential "problem" wasn't really going to be one for quite awhile.
I think the problem is that Nintendo did one of the most low-key launches since the US Saturn, combined with not actively incentivizing (read: bribing) publishers to release important day-and-date ports.
Anyway, Western devs were never going to flock en masse to "new control scheme", since that's like the last thing they care about at this point. Japanese devs might, but they're focused on portables more and more.
Eh, tough times ahead. Either Nintendo blitzes the market with tons of first and second party titles, or they get what they have in the pipeline out and then start ramping down.
I do wonder: what is the absolute cheapest you could release a game console and have it meet the criteria of - it's dead easy to port UE4 games built for ps4/Durango to it. No tablet, no motion control, no anti-used games BS, no online store nobody uses because the prices and selection are terrible, just a game pad and a console with enough HD space for patches, installs and game saves.
Seriously, what's the bottom dollar estimate there? Because if it's less than $300, Samsung is probably losing money by not making one.
Is that still a relevant thing nowadays? It seemed to be the "way things were" during the Xbox/PS2/GC days, where you never saw one system's character -- even if it was a 3rd party character -- on another system's games. But as Mr. Rats says below, we're past that now. Most games are cross-platform and functionally similar.
We're sort of past mascots being game sellers, in my view. Are people excited for Smash Bros Wii U because it may have 3 or 4 extra characters in it? Like, would someone actually change their mind about buying the game if it had a notable non-Nintendo character, in 2013? To compare it to the odd PS3 All Stars Battle Royale, people criticized that game because they felt the characters were selected for "marketing appeal rather than appropriateness for a fighting game."
To me, that's Nintendo's biggest problem with their first party games, and why they have a hard time selling new consoles. What is it about Smash Bros Wii U, Mario Kart 8, new 3D Mario, new Zelda, that's going to make it notable or unique? Are we seeing the same mechanics used with an identical story? Are they new mechanics where they just used their current mascots to skin it to guarantee some easy sales? I don't think the game landscape is the same anymore. I don't think the majority of gamers really care if their favorite character makes a cameo. They care that online play is seamless, or that the game is doing something interesting that works, or that they can sink hours into the game and have fun the entire time. Like Death of Rats says:
If the Wii U was essentially the same to develop for as the other 2 upcoming consoles, the Wii U would see the games come out "just because." It's easy, then. The last time we saw this was the GameCube, and Nintendo's decision to use a small disc and have no online play limited some of the cross-platform stuff. Now, though? Now, if a developer can make some minor changes to their code, plug in some APIs provided by the console maker to make the netcode and the multiplayer work, and make some other minor adjustments to get the game on the system, they will. A good example is my current love, Dark Souls. Demon's Souls came to the US on PS3 only via Atlus. It was a surprise success, so Namco Bandai picked it up, and From Software, a small developer, developed it for both 360 and PS3. Why? I can only assume it was because it was easy to do so, and the network play is relatively similar between the two platforms. After the success of the game, From went on to release it on PC. They had some trouble -- the game was mostly a straight port and essentially required a controller, and they used Games for Windows Live which sucks. Yet, it is STILL doing well on the PC.
Why are From releasing their game on so many platforms, when it's still a niche title? Because the work involved is relatively low, but the new audience is relatively large. Would a larger developer adopt the same mindset? I can only assume so. The question isn't so much "why is Nintendo not courting 3rd parties" but "why are Nintendo consoles not natural targets for cross-platform development?"
We live in a world of cross-platform development now. We're sort of past exclusives because developers need to get as much money out of their games as possible.
Like, help me out here; I don't understand what the obstacle is. And obviously, the 3rd parties do right? It's not like they're avoiding making games for the Wii U just because the tablet exists.
...right?
Mario Kart is a great little kart racer. It's tons of fun to play. The aesthetic is like an extra creamy layer on top, not the selling point.
Because no one is buying the Wii U.
I think that's the idea behind the Steambox, and why people are excited about it. I think the reason Samsung hasn't done anything is because releasing a console isn't as easy as just putting a box together -- nowadays, you have to have a network platform (ideally offering all the usual stuff like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc.) that allows for online gaming. You also need to ensure that games can play on your system, and that it's more compelling for them to be played on your system than somewhere else. For example, if I have a PC that can play everything I could play on a Steambox, why should I spend the extra money on a Steambox? Why should I spend more money on a Samsungbox when I can just buy a controller for my PC? What is it about the Steambox or Samsungbox that makes it unique or different from other platforms?
It's probably easier for PC developers to release a separate Steambox/Samsungbox version of their game, but they would still have to be compelled and/or asked to do so. Still, we have media-center PCs for movies and TV, yet no one seems to play games on them. It could be as simple as PC games want to max their video stats.
...But nobody's buying it because 3rd parties aren't making games for it, and they aren't making games for it because people aren't buying it, and ARGH!
The hell kinda logic is that?
Or did you mean that the brightly-colored, easily accessible, family-friendly games Nintendo is known for are a "refreshing experience" compared to what you typically see on PC/Other consoles?
Because these are pretty different ideas, and I'd guess you meant the later. Nintendo's strength isn't in being "refreshing", it's in being "Nintendo", and still doing the same things they did 25 years ago. When I say "platformer", most people say "Mario", and for good reason; how many other 2D platformers can you even name that came out in the last 5 years, and how many of them were not on Nintendo hardware? How many good kart sims are there beyond Mario Kart? Who else brings the level of nostalgia and chaos that SSMB does? Who's adventures are as epic as Link's?
Nintendo has been building a particular style of gaming for their entire existence, and it's rare to see anyone outside of them step into that zone.
It's because the era of PS3/360 games is ending. Again, why invest in creating the development pipeline to do ports when in 18 months you're not going to have anything to put through that pipeline?
There are costs associated with multiplatform development. It's just they are usually upfront engine costs. Once you get the Assassin's Creed engine up and running on a system, all future games using that engine will work on that platform with minor tweaking. But getting that engine working costs money up front.
And look at what games/franchises/engines are up and running on the Wii U. We have several heavily modified versions of UE3, but mostly for games not seeing a sequel anytime soon. We have the engine Ubisoft is using for AC, and more than likely WatchDogs, guess what is getting a Wii U port?
But there are a lot of games that aren't using engines already ported to the Wii U (and yes, just because a game is in the UE3 engine, doesn't mean its a snap to port. Any customization of that engine has to be ported first). Look at Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, GTAV. All of these games aren't released on the Wii U because they're on custom engines (or customized versions of engines), that haven't already been ported.
There isn't a magic port game switch for these games. They'd have to pay the upfront cost like they did with the 360/PS3 half a decade ago. There isn't enough time, however, for the upfront costs to be paid back through sales before the current gen ends for good.
Also it doesn't matter how successful 720 and PS4 are. They can sell triple what the Wii U is right now, and they'll still have a minuscule userbase compared to last gen platforms. Why make games for them? The equivalent of "no one" will be buying them either, even if tons of people buy them.
So you make cross gen games until the userbase arrives, right?
And you can't do this for the Wii U as well, for what reason?
My problem with this though is... why? Why bother? It's such an obvious cash grab that literally adds nothing to the industry. If anything it just segments it even more, which in a growing online community based industry is something you probably don't want to do. You're just another box with the same exact games as the other two, and at a disadvantage to boot since you have zero exclusives.
There's already the growing concern that the PS3 and 720 are going to be functionally identical save for the logo on the machine. Adding in a 3rd box isn't going to help anybody anywhere.
People aren't buying the Wii U because it lacks third party titles. Chances are, if they want a third party title that's going to be released for the PS3 or the 360, they already own a PS3 or a 360, so there's no point in buying a Wii U just to play a game they can buy for a system they already down.
Also, the thing has 8GBs of storage. With downloading games from the Xbox Live Marketplace and the Playstation Network becoming more popular I'm sure a lot of people see that 8GB and think they are out of their minds.
I really don't get this at all. How do Nintendo directs deliver propaganda that a stage show does not?
They'd have Nintendo games. If any system could differentiate themselves while still playing the third party multiplatform game, it's a Nintendo system.
Which is why their decisions with the Wii U confuse me so much. They don't need to differentiate themselves via hardware, they can do that via first party games.
Because the stage show is delivered in front of a collection of sensible reporters who can filter through the bullshit and will only report the unvarnished truth to the gullible masses.
But with Nintendo Direct, Nintendo is able to shove all that bullshit straight down the throat of the gullible masses before it has the chance to be critically reviewed and evaluated by the game industry's responsible journalists.
Can we amend this? Can we stop saying it? The WiiU lacks titles, period, regardless of the source. Have you looked at the WiiU section in any store selling games? It's tiny.
Yeah, definitely one of the biggest problem's Wii U has in general right now. The first party thing wouldn't be as bad if the third parties were there, and the third party thing wouldn't be as bad if the Nintendo stuff was there.
Granted Nintendo stuff is coming, but every light release month does damage to the brand.
Of course, given that it's Steam, we'll never know how successful it actually is, but it's still something interesting. Maybe we'll see more services offering things like this in the future.
They did do it for the WiiU, remember?
It didn't work, so they said "fuck it".
What it needed was some great first party stuff on release. Stuff that people can't get anywhere else. That's what it still needs.
The kind of logic where "It's not their fucking problem if the WiiU doesn't sell". They released games for the WiiU. Neither the system nor the games sold well, so they decided it wasn't worth their investment.
3rd Parties and Nintendo aren't in this together. They are separate companies.
But, we're not the drivers that Nintendo is banking on. My children are practically begging for a WiiU. That's the market. Christmas. Mark my words.
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
"Dad, can we get a WiiU?"
The Wii U library at least has more to play than my launch DS had...
Then again, is it 100% Nintendo's fault that the games didn't sell? Third parties can never just sit back and watch the money come in... they have to advertise, develop quality games people are interested in, etc. It's possible to argue they dropped the ball too.
Put it another way -- it's not Microsoft and Sony's fault that, say, DmC didn't sell.
If it was just the games not selling well, I'd agree. But the system ain't either. That is, after all, where the accusations against the game developers originate in this conversation (ie - "it's not selling well cause it's got no games") The games sold well elsewhere, so clearly the market is there for them. They didn't "drop the ball" on the game itself or it's advertising. It's just no one bought the WiiU version.
Nintendo can't get people to buy the console, so people aren't developing for it.
This is great for smaller devs that can't handle that backend, but I sure as hell hope they plan on improving their customer service if they're gonna start handling things like that
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
I don't get this argument. It's already been through a Black Friday and Christmas. It was unchallenged by new consoles, and yet time it's totally going to do better?