Topic: Will the Wii U be Nintendo's Last console?? Will they go handheld only??

[pokepal148]

As far as I can tell, every single facet of the Wii U has been a disaster. 
- The console is underpowered.

ok let me stop you there... compared to what... we don't have a solid specsheet for the PS4/720 and even then the gamecube has proven that specs don't always tell the whole story...

outside of Ram the Wii U seems in line with what we know about the PS4 (yes the PS4 has 8 cores but those cores come from a micro-processer made for tablets)

they could maybe introduce some usb Ram expansion stick IDK

[smallsharkbigbite]

As far as I can tell, every single facet of the Wii U has been a disaster. 
- The console is underpowered.  -First Nintendo HD console, more power than PS3 or Xbox 360, console has plenty of power. 
- The OS is slow and buggy. -The recent patch helped alot.  In my experience, it went from a Vita like experience to a PS3 like experience. 
- Frequent game crashing.  I've not experienced a crash yet.  Not saying they don't exist, I've just not experienced it yet. 
- Pretty much nothing standout in the way of games. -I'd challenge you to find many systems that have a great lineup at this point in their life.  I'm very excited about Pikmin 3 and Wonderful 101.  The Wii U will get great games, I'm not worried about that. 
- Been shunned by 3rd parties.  As has every Nintendo console since N64.  You can say EA shunning them is new, but they got shunned by EA for mainstay launches on the Wii (Battlefield, Deep Space) and always had the worst port in the sports departments. 
- Hardly any information pre-launch. (Ordinary PR) -? We still don't know anything about the Durango console and that is expected to launch in November. 
- Missing DLC -So far one title has not said what their Wii U DLC plans are, and EA dropped Wii U support.  The capacity for DLC is there and will be utilized by most people who put together a Wii U game.
- Staple titles absent from the system. -This is really the same point as shunned by 3rd parties since Nintendo staples will obviously appear.

You say your not here to cause issues, but it seems like you are just trying to rail on the Wii U to me.  The measuring stick of any consoles is the games.  I'll give you, the Wii U is lacking games at this point in it's life so it's hard for me to recommend a purchase at this time.  But the system is the best hardware that Nintendo has released.  It will probably be outshined by the PS4 and Durango, but they will be outdated by PC within a few months anyway.  It does 1080p and people that take the time to port correctly put the best versions on the Wii U.  The system is fine and won't be a Wii to PS3 downgrade.   

Other positives not mentioned above.  Nintendo has gone back to a focus on core games, which I'm excited about.  Also, the Wii U not selling great isn't necessarily a bad thing for Nintendo fans.  With the Gamecube, there was a players choice within a year of the system launch.  When did the Wii get a players choice?  It seemed like year 6 to me and they kept it limited to games that had sequels or didn't really sell well in the first place. 

I don't think home consoles will go away.  The DS is a monster brand and I don't think Nintendo is in a hurry to get the DS to compete against the PS4 and Durango.  You have the issue with multiplayer.  Do you buy multiple DS's?  Do you sell stand alone controllers for the DS?  How do you do storage?  Do the games use 32 gig sd cards or do you build in a hard drive?  How do you implement the dual screens?  Also,  the DS would cost $500+ if it had enough power to do 1080p and multiplayer with just one system.  I also think the market for handheld will try to stay portable only.  I think Apple wants to sell 3-4 Ipads to your family.  They are in no hurry to give you a one shop stop to get everything you want in just 1 device. 

[RarityGamer]

Even if the Wii U fails to do anything, Nintendo are a very rich company. They could afford it. They'd probably end moving Iwata on mind. And on the whole, it could be a huge wake up call for the company.
The biggest problem I actually think Nintendo have is lack of investment on developers.
Rare for example were a great company that would take some of the weight off the Nintendo teams when they were busy making the next Mario, Zelda and Starfox? (hehehe) and so on. Retro were a great company to acquire, but I think more is needed.
 

[tendoboy1984]

I think he's saying in the future, consoles and handhelds will be the same device. Think of a Vita that can connect to your TV via Bluetooth to stream games to the bigger screen (similar to Apple's AirPlay).

[Ian Sane]

I think the future is for handhelds and consoles to be one in the same.  So even if the Wii U became Nintendo's most successful console yet I think it should be their last console in the traditional sense.  If they combined the two then they wouldn't have to worry about spreading their resources thin trying to supply games for two formats.  Plus Japan is all about handhelds now and North America is a little more interested in consoles.  A system that was both could sell in both markets.  It's just the logical successor to both the 3DS and the Wii U.

So what I wonder is if the Wii U will get its act together or if it doesn't if Nintendo will drop it earlier than normal.  How bad would it have to do for Nintendo to completely give up on it?  And if it was that bad would they just go with no console for a while or would they have a new console prior to the handheld-console combo?  Of course the handheld-console combo is just where I think the industry SHOULD go and perhaps will eventually go but that doesn't mean that Nintendo is thinking of going there.  I could see them focusing on handhelds but not picking up on the idea to let them also connect to a TV.  Nintendo misses the most obvious ideas a lot of the time.

For me the Wii U purchase has been a no-go because I did not like the Wii and the Wii U has not demonstrated any real improvement.  It's still gimmick controllers (though thankfully a "add gimmick" one instead of the "replace with gimmick" approach of the Wii), out-of-date hardware, cookie cutter sequels, casual focused games staring the Miis, and TERRIBLE third party support.  Now Nintendo has only released two games thus far so the fact that their lineup shows no real difference or improvement over the Wii might just be because of the small sample size.

Is my justification for waiting on a Wii U purchase very specific to me or do enough people have a similar attitude and that is contributing to poor Wii U sales?  The Wii was very popular among casuals but controversial among core gamers.  If the casuals all went to smartphones, which I think they have, that leaves the core gamers to buy the Wii U.  Well are they going to just jump back in bed with Nintendo just like that or are they going to see if they get another casual-focused console like the Wii or something more suited to their tastes?  It seems like the casual market for dedicated videogame systems is gone but that is the market that made the Wii successful and the Wii U seems aimed at the same market.  The Wii U seems like a product without a real audience.  How far can such a product go and can Nintendo prop something like that up for the next five years?  If the casual market is truly gone can they refocus the Wii U at the core market or is too handicapped by its design to fill that role?

[MagicCow64]

If the Wii U fails, I don't think Nintendo would have any other option but to go with the handheld-hybrid concept. Motion controls were a one-time wild card, can't see how they could re-energize the home market again without some kind of VR breakthrough (and I'm not convinced this will ever be a viable mass market product, or at least not for 20 years).

Supposing the Wii U dies on the vine, what could Nintendo do to follow that up? Release a bleeding-edge tech system two or three years into the PS4/Durango lifecycle? At that point, who would the market be for a full-priced new console that lacked the software history of its competitors? 

One thing that I've seen bandied about is the idea of a subscription service. This could be integrated with a Wii U re-launch. The sub would give you unlimited access to ALL virtual console games, including an expanded roster of systems (Dreamcast, GameCube). So potentially they could become the Netflix of older games, supported by new Nintendo releases. The issue with this (besides the probably lack of tech), is that the reason Netflix is staying afloat is that it's a crazy good deal for the amount of content. Nintendo would have to divorce themselves from their long, deeply ingrained habit of treating their catalog like holy relics, only to be exhibited at the time and cost of their choosing.

[ShyGuy]

Nintendo already consolidated their handheld and console hardware divisions. I think they are a year ahead of us.

[Adrock]

I presumed that was for better connectivity in the future and so things like Miiverse show up concurrently between console and handheld.

Like I said, combining the console and handheld into one device forces too many compromises. I think Nintendo wants to keep them separate. And honestly, I'd prefer it that way.

[NWR_insanolord]

I think if they can solve the issue of battery life there wouldn't be many compromises that had to be made, although that is one hell of an "if" right there.

[Stratos]

I don't see what compromises there would be. There are workarounds to meet both needs.
They could just model both the handheld and the console marketing similar to how they do the DS/DSi or 3DS/3DS XL marketing:

Release the NinTablet that is smaller - maybe even clam shell akin to the 3DS - and market that as their 'handheld-centric' device.

Release a NinTablet XL that is as large as a modern tablet with larger storage space.

Both can play the same games and even make both connect to your television via wireless or USB dongle. Then consumers can decide how they want their experience to be from the get-go. Would that be so hard to go along with?

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo seems unwilling or unable to make cutting edge console hardware so where is the compromise that Nintendo wouldn't already enforce with the existing model?  We had a bit of time there where their products were the 3DS and Wii, which from a layman's perspective appear comparable in terms of hardware.  Ditto the PS Vita and PS3.  We've been talking about consoles peaking on hardware for years now where the benefit from a hardware boost is not so obvious to the consumer to convince them to spent a big wad of cash every five or six years.  Each generation will become longer and longer as the obvious improvements of an affordable hardware increase decrease.  If we move into 10 or even 20 year generations, why wouldn't you want to make that same hardware in a handheld format?  At the very least the handheld hardware may catch up and then making them different formats is arbitrary.

I also figure that Nintendo is never going to keep up with the competition on the console front.  Having a unified Nintendo system I can play as a console or a handheld works better for me than having some gimped Nintendo console that gets like five games a year or Nintendo only supporting handhelds.  What I want is a Nintendo that keeps up with the rest of the industry but if they can't or won't do that then a handheld/console combo is the best approach from them I can hope for.

Of course this hybrid not only needs to connect to TVs but also needs to connect to external controllers.  Hell I suggest multiple models as the portability will increase the price and it would be nice to have a cheaper console model that doesn't need to include a built-in battery, screen or speakers.  I suppose screen size might be a bit of an issue as games designed for a smaller resolution will look like crap on a big TV but you can't have really fine or small writing on a handheld.

[Fjurbanski]

The only compromise I see is from a control aspect. Every game made for this console/handheld would have to be made with the handheld in mind. Everything that Nintendo has done up to this point have to be thrown out the window. A game like ZombiU would never be made because you wouldn't be able to make a game that makes heavy use of screen on the controller. Because as soon as you left the house you wouldn't be able to use those asynchronous functions. Nintendo would only be able to make games that only use the standard buttons of the modern controller. Sure we'd have the convenience of every game at home and on the go, but the games themselves would be limited to standard controls. And although i'm sure there are plenty of people who would just love that, it doesn't sound like something Nintendo would like. Having the handheld and console as separate entities allows Nintendo more freedom to mess around like they enjoy doing.

[Stratos]

Having the handheld and console as separate entities allows Nintendo more freedom to mess around like they enjoy doing.

And allows Nintendo to gouge our wallets on more hardware purchases.


Joking aside, you have a good point. I had an idea similar to Ian's but doing anything like a dongle station to attach controllers and such might fracture the market like we have seen in the past. N64 Expansion Pak, Circle Pad Pro, Classic Controller...these have weakened the exposure ability of games. While us game nerds like having extra dongles and controller options, the average consumer will probably ignore them and a portion of the market would be alienated and confused one way or the other.

[Mop it up]

You know what they say about headlines that ask a question...

[Spak-Spang]

Hell, I don't think anyone who hasn't spent more than at least twenty hours on the system shouldn't say anything.

Is that a double or triple negative, because that sentence makes no sense? 

What?


I don't think (easy to understand right?) anyone who hasn't played more than at least twenty hours on the system (so my "i don't think" only includes anyone who hasn't played for more than twenty hours) shouldn't say anything (those who hasn't played for more than twenty hours shouldn't say anything).


I shouldn't have have to break my setence down that much, but I said it correctly.

Technically correct...but still confusing.  Using too many negatives, when positive statements can be used, makes sentences that are hard to understand.

You could of easily said:

I think people who haven't played the WiiU for at least 15 hours, should not comment on the console.  A much more precise statement.

[Spak-Spang]

Well, IF nintendo was to create a single console and handheld device into one unit.  I think it would come with a recharge station that plugs permanently into the TV.  This station could have simple docks for extra controllers and handle any features needing an extra connection. 

But I do not think Nintendo would have to worry about having the next powerful super HD console.  The tablet markets are plenty powerful right now, and in 6-7 years what is available on the market now will be much cheaper to produce and make.  If you could make a handheld with the power of the current ipads or more powerful with traditional controls...that could plug into a television then you would have a compelling console.   

[Spak-Spang]

The only compromise I see is from a control aspect. Every game made for this console/handheld would have to be made with the handheld in mind. Everything that Nintendo has done up to this point have to be thrown out the window. A game like ZombiU would never be made because you wouldn't be able to make a game that makes heavy use of screen on the controller. Because as soon as you left the house you wouldn't be able to use those asynchronous functions. Nintendo would only be able to make games that only use the standard buttons of the modern controller. Sure we'd have the convenience of every game at home and on the go, but the games themselves would be limited to standard controls. And although i'm sure there are plenty of people who would just love that, it doesn't sound like something Nintendo would like. Having the handheld and console as separate entities allows Nintendo more freedom to mess around like they enjoy doing.

Not exactly true....two screens on the 3DS and DS say hi!!!  Actually, yes there are some games that could only be played at home like Wii Fit...but then you could also do things like never before.  Wii Fit travel, could monitor your walking, and even suggest activities during the day to keep you exercising and active. 

[MagicCow64]

If you could make a handheld with the power of the current ipads or more powerful with traditional controls...that could plug into a television then you would have a compelling console.

I think that's it. An easy dongle that can go into most devices. The device itself has full controls like the Wii U gamepad. If people are carrying around iPads, they might be willing to tote big ole handheld systems. Ain't like Vitas or 3DSXLs are especially small.

The latency tech from the Wii U could end up being its major breakthrough. Like I think Ian said earlier, if you could make a tablet with comparable tech to a PS4 that also turned into an Apple TV when you plug it into a screen and could stream games, you could probably have a product that leap frogs the obsolescence of dedicated game machines.

[Fjurbanski]

I like the idea of having one console, but that's mostly because I like the idea of not having to buy anymore portable consoles. I never game on the go, because when I leave the house I have things to do, so I just end up playing my 3DS in the house. I bought a 3DS simply that's where the good games are, but I'd rather all those resources go towards the Wii U. So I'd rather Nintendo only focus on one CONSOLE, as in not a handheld. The issue I see with having a console that IS a handheld is that we would probably see Nintendo tailoring their games to the handheld aspect of the system rather than the home console aspect. I think certain games lose a lot when they're specifically made to be portable (Luigi's Masion 2 for example).

[Adrock]

I would have agreed that barely any compromises had to be made pre-DS because handhelds up to that point were just weaker, portable consoles. They played the same kinds of games for the most part, just a generation or so apart. Then, Nintendo began separating the two with DS, presumably to justify each product's existence. 3DS and Wii U do different things. The main difference is that 3DS's screens are fixed and the Wii U GamePad can be moved independently of the television. Once you take it out of the house, you can't do that anymore. So? Well, once you start asking developers to do extra work (in this instance, a game that plays differently depending on where you are), you start encountering resistance. What Nintendo should have learned by now is that they absolutely cannot force developers into a position where they have to do more or different things.

One way or another, you're going to end up with one less screen when you leave your house. That matters. And the size of the screens matter. Your eyes shift between two small screens on 3DS; you're entire head moves between GamePad and television. How do you reconcile any of that? Then, you have to worry about what controls it has. The original GamePad had circle pads which Nintendo changed because that was silly to put on a home console. And it's still not portable. The GamePad is light, but it's thick and has handles. It's not a tablet which are millimeters in depth.

I'm not saying it can't be done. Nintendo can certainly try. However, I remain skeptical since they would absolutely have to make sacrifices in many areas to make it work. I worry that an all-in-one console-handheld isn't either especially well at which point, why bother?

[NWR_insanolord]

I think Nintendo would certainly want to keep the lines separate, based on the idea of being able to sell you two systems instead of one. Wii U would have to be a tremendous flop, like current sales or worse for the whole generation, for them to even consider it. Even then, I think they'll give this route at least one more shot.

[Ian Sane]

Having the handheld and console as separate entities allows Nintendo more freedom to mess around like they enjoy doing.

And allows Nintendo to gouge our wallets on more hardware purchases.


Joking aside, you have a good point. I had an idea similar to Ian's but doing anything like a dongle station to attach controllers and such might fracture the market like we have seen in the past. N64 Expansion Pak, Circle Pad Pro, Classic Controller...these have weakened the exposure ability of games. While us game nerds like having extra dongles and controller options, the average consumer will probably ignore them and a portion of the market would be alienated and confused one way or the other.

I don't see how having extra controller ports will fracture the market.  The N64 came with only one controller but that didn't stop anyone from making four player games.  There was no concern about people who didn't own four controllers not buying the game.  Typically any game that supports multiple controls does so optionally.  It is literally just multiplayer and I would have the dongle station come with the system as standard.

I'll admit that some of the more gimmicky controller options of late like motion control would not work on a handheld model, and a game that only worked in "console mode" would have less appeal.  Though regarding the screen, why can't you just use the handheld as your second screen?  When the Wii U was announced where were all sorts of rumours about using a 3DS as a second tablet.  The handheld itself can be the tablet only the top screen gets outputted to the TV when in console mode.  Just imagine your 3DS has an extra analog stick and that it is the controller for your console.

I see Nintendo's obvious desire to have two seperate product lines but I think the market will demand this in time.  These days the fact that I use my computer exclusively in my house is weird.  The whole world is glued to handheld devices.  A videogame system designed specifically to stay in your house is much more niche than it was in the days where one could not hypothesize any other way to offer home videogames.  People expect to have all of their entertainment on the go.  So I figure the logical future is that everything is effectively portable and if all we have are handhelds, well, why not connect them to our TV when we're at home?

[ThePerm]

There was some talk that once the wii u connected to the 3ds then it couldn't connect online at the same time. That could be fixed through some work-around though.

[Adrock]

Though regarding the screen, why can't you just use the handheld as your second screen?  When the Wii U was announced where were all sorts of rumours about using a 3DS as a second tablet.  The handheld itself can be the tablet only the top screen gets outputted to the TV when in console mode. Just imagine your 3DS has an extra analog stick and that it is the controller for your console.

The main difference is that 3DS's screens are fixed and the Wii U GamePad can be moved independently of the television. Once you take it out of the house, you can't do that anymore. So? Well, once you start asking developers to do extra work (in this instance, a game that plays differently depending on where you are), you start encountering resistance. What Nintendo should have learned by now is that they absolutely cannot force developers into a position where they have to do more or different things.

One way or another, you're going to end up with one less screen when you leave your house. That matters. And the size of the screens matter. Your eyes shift between two small screens on 3DS; you're entire head moves between GamePad and television. How do you reconcile any of that? Then, you have to worry about what controls it has. The original GamePad had circle pads which Nintendo changed because that was silly to put on a home console. And it's still not portable. The GamePad is light, but it's thick and has handles. It's not a tablet which is millimeters in depth.

I would love to only have to buy one piece of hardware that could function as both home console and handheld, but not at the expense of quality. I'd rather have two products that do what they do really well than one product that does two things not as well.

We've seen companies trying to unify two products and doing a terrible job at it. For example, in the past year or so, look how many times different companies have tried bridging the gap between tablet and laptop and they just end up making a hybrid product that sucks at being both. If the technology is there and Nintendo can pull off a hybrid product that does home console and handheld equally as well as they've been done separately in the past, sure, give it a go. Until then, don't waste anyone's time.

[MagicCow64]

The whole world is glued to handheld devices.  A videogame system designed specifically to stay in your house is much more niche than it was in the days where one could not hypothesize any other way to offer home videogames.  People expect to have all of their entertainment on the go.  So I figure the logical future is that everything is effectively portable and if all we have are handhelds, well, why not connect them to our TV when we're at home?

Right, and the big thing missing right now is an easy, uniform way to beam handheld device content (or even Internet content in general) to a full-size screen. Sure, many phones and tablets have HDMI outs and it's relatively simple to connect a laptop to a screen, but there's a critical convenience gap. And stuff like Roku/Apple TV hasn't really taken off. I think Nintendo has to disrupt themselves out of their current cul-de-sac.