Topic: Wii U is the new PS3?

[Sarail]

I see Oblivion has fallen into SEGA's marketing hype. You're about 21-22 years late, though.

[Adrock]

Don't fuckin' insult me, particularly when your "fact" is revisionist history.  Nintendo has gone with last gen out-of-date hardware since 2006 and no earlier.

No. Nice try. Nintendo released a non-color handheld when color LCDs were available yet impractical. So, there's that. Additionally, Wii U is the first piece of hardware Nintendo sold at a loss at launch. They've profited from day one with every other piece of hardware prior. Do you really think Nintendo managed to sell cutting edge hardware for under $200? No, sir, they have never used cutting edge hardware ever. There was always better hardware available and Nintendo chose modest hardware in order to profit day one at a mass market price. You can take back that revisionist history nonsense because there's no evidence for that and tons of evidence to the contrary.

Sony tried launching with cutting edge technology and they lost like $300 per unit. Wii is only an exception in that it still would have been underpowered even if Sony and Microsoft had not forced the HD era. Nintendo aimed really low while the other two aimed really high.

Let me put it this way: The Wii U Basic Set was $300 and sold at a loss. Subtract the $80 CNN estimated the GamePad cost at launch. That's $220 for a console (and say $10 for a Pro Controller in lieu of the GamePad) in 2012. Would they sell at $200 at a loss or $250 and profit? If I had to guess, I'd bet on the latter because Nintendo selling a console at launch was unheard of (especially after the 3DS fiasco). In any case, that price is around what Nintendo has set MSRP for their consoles in the past. Point being Wii U's hardware is right where one would expect them to be in 2012

You keep insisting (incorrectly, I might add) that Nintendo chosing modest hardware is this new, unheard of thing. It's not new, not even remotely. Wii U is underpowered compared to PS4/One. No one is going to argue that. However, stop acting like Nintendo has changed. What has changed is that their completion isn't Sega or any other company that couldn't/wasn't willing to incur massive losses to push more powerful hardware. Nintendo, for better or worse, has been acting like Nintendo pretty consistently since always

I should add that since their competition has changed, perhaps Nintendo should as well. How and what they should change is a different discussion.

[ShyGuy]

I like the word 'daft'.

It's classy.

[Ian Sane]

Being underpowered compared to the other competing consoles is a change.  Prior to the Wii it did not happen.  You can call the SNES "modest" if you want but you're hanging on the semantics of the word.  I expect a console to be of comparable hardware to the other consoles of the same generation.  I got that from Nintendo for four generations and then they changed and they don't offer that anymore.  That's different.  Maybe Sony and MS have raised the bar but Nintendo used to match and I expect them to do so.  And if they don't want to do that, then they should get out of the console biz and go third party.  They used to match, now they don't.  They changed.  From the perspective of a consumer they are now offering a different type of product than they did when I first became a fan.

[Adrock]

/facepalm

Nintendo has been so consistent with how they've always built hardware that they changed? How the **** does that even...

Actually, no... I'm done here. If anyone needs me, I'll be in my rocket ship because I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[NWR_insanolord]

Nintendo's philosophy has been consistent, but the way it's been implemented has changed. There's no denying that, relative to their competition, Wii and Wii U were pretty different from their previous consoles. Whether that's good or bad can be debated, but I don't see how you can argue there's no difference.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Being underpowered compared to the other competing consoles is a change.  Prior to the Wii it did not happen.  You can call the SNES "modest" if you want but you're hanging on the semantics of the word.  I expect a console to be of comparable hardware to the other consoles of the same generation.  I got that from Nintendo for four generations and then they changed and they don't offer that anymore.  That's different.  Maybe Sony and MS have raised the bar but Nintendo used to match and I expect them to do so.  And if they don't want to do that, then they should get out of the console biz and go third party.  They used to match, now they don't.  They changed.  From the perspective of a consumer they are now offering a different type of product than they did when I first became a fan.

Starting with the NES, Nintendo used to set the bar, everyone else attempted to meet or raise that bar with differing results (3DO, CDi, Saturn, etc etc)
Starting with the introduction of the Xbox, Sony and MS have started a Tech War for the livingroom, so Nintendo is no longer the bar setter (so to speak). We are now in round 2.5 of that battle for the set-top box that rules the living room. This is not the battle Nintendo wanted to fight, but it is one they are apart of.
They can pretend that this isn't happening and bury their heads in the sand, march to their own beat or whatever, but when the dust settles, Nintendo is the one that is going to be buried in the rubble if they don't find a way secure a victory in this war. Companion box w/ only Nintendo games is losing it's appeal quite quickly, so Nintendo better play ball or become find themselves becoming quite obsolete.

I'm not saying they need a monster spec machine to compete. But they need to do the best they can with what they have, and they have left so much on the table with the Wii U that it's not even funny. Their frugality with the Wii U may have actually crippled the machine from being all it can be, but it still doesn't even appear that they are trying to achieve that anyway.

That is something Nintendo should have learned from Sony.

[Adrock]

Well, I'm back from space...

Nintendo's philosophy has been consistent, but the way it's been implemented has changed. There's no denying that, relative to their competition, Wii and Wii U were pretty different from their previous consoles. Whether that's good or bad can be debated, but I don't see how you can argue there's no difference.

It's not that there's no difference. Rather, I'd argue that the industry changed around Nintendo and if anything, they failed or decided not to adapt. If you've always worn polka dots and continue to do so even after everyone starts wearing stripes, you're now different, but you didn't change at all. The circumstances have changed; Nintendo has not.

[Ian Sane]

I think the difference is that Adrock is looking at the internal policies of Nintendo the company and I'm looking at the product that is released to the public.  Perhaps Nintendo has not changed their policies internally when designing the Wii U.  They're thinking "we're still making modest hardware".  As the consumer I see that prior to the Wii their consoles kept up in the hardware arms race and now they don't.  Now they're consistently one generation behind.  To me it seemed their philosophy was "make an impressive console that's future proofed to keep up with competitors".  That's what the product used to be, and perhaps that came about by coincidence as it fit within Nintendo's internal approach.  But I became a fan of Nintendo partially because their hardware was impressive and compared well with the competition and now they don't offer that so I'm not buying their product.  And the Wii U ain't selling so I imagine the public perception in general is similar to mine.

Internally Nintendo's policy towards third parties is probably hardly no different than it was in the NES days (it actually is LESS restrictive now).  Ah, but the NES and SNES had great third party support and everything since the N64 has had horrible support.  So while Nintendo hasn't really changed their internal policies, the market has changed and sticking to these policies has resulted in a different product going out to the consumer.

Now what matters more?  Nintendo's philosophies or the market's expectations?  Since I'm a consumer, and not an employee of Nintendo, all I really care about is the resulting product.  They used to have good third party support, now they don't.  They used to keep up with the console hardware of their competitors, now they don't.  I don't really give a **** how this is accomplished within Nintendo's offices.  Nintendo, you used to offer a console with "current" hardware that had healthy third party support.  That's what you made when I became a fan.  That is what I will buy and nothing less.  I put up with the loss of third party support, mostly because I assumed in good faith that you would address the issue, but compromising the hardware was too much for me.

Hell I have a similar approach to Mario.  I observed the innovation and creativity of each Mario game as a key element of the Mario experience.  I lost interest in NSMB because it's approach compromises my interpretation.  Perhaps when Nintendo was making SMB3 they were just thinking "we've got to improve this until we have a good template we can milk with later sequels."  But from the consumer perspective I just noticed that each Mario game was more ambitious and creative than the last so that's what I expect.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Sony tried launching with cutting edge technology and they lost like $300 per unit. Wii is only an exception in that it still would have been underpowered even if Sony and Microsoft had not forced the HD era. Nintendo aimed really low while the other two aimed really high.

That's not a fair determination.  Sony lost tons of money to push Blu-Ray.  As the price of blu dropped, the price of the PS3 dropped and they were eventually able to make a profit on it. 


The past really is irrelevant though.  Look at current gen.  By Nintendo's account they have sold the Wii U at a loss and are still selling it at a loss.  Sony/Microsoft haven't officially commented, but according to tear downs they are both making a day 1 profit.  Price isn't as important as meeting consumer demands.  Hardware alone isn't the reason Sony/Microsoft are winning, but they are clearing meeting consumer demand better at this point and it will likely be a big bump to their financials. 

[BranDonk Kong]

If Nintendo is still selling the Wii U at a loss (which I doubt) it's only because the sales have been so terrible and the costs have not dropped. I have a hard time believing that it was ever sold at a loss and if it was, it couldn't have been that much.

One other thing to mention is that the bill of materials is not the total cost, there is, assembly (which may be included in the BOM), shipping to the US, etc, shipping to each state, etc. It doesn't increase total coss by *that much* but it isn't free. Also these are being sold to retailers (unless you buy direct) and they don't pay MSRP. Profit margins are typically pretty low on game consoles (around $12 from last generation, IIRC).

[smallsharkbigbite]

The point wasn't that it was all encompassing. Its impossible for us to know all those costs. The point is Sony/Microsoft came with an economical box this time because they are ready to make $ on consoles. Both actually need it as Windows and offuce software is tanking and Sonys electronics division is tanking. They no longer can afford to subsidize consoles so not competing on that ground doesn't make sense anymore.

I'll find the Iwata quote when I get home. 10/31 he admitted Wii U was still a financial drain. That may be because its not selling enough to cover r&d, overheads ect.  But that just means they've made mistakes and the Wii U is thus far a failure.

Psn and live are now mandatory and will be cash cows too.

[shingi_70]

The point wasn't that it was all encompassing. Its impossible for us to know all those costs. The point is Sony/Microsoft came with an economical box this time because they are ready to make $ on consoles. Both actually need it as Windows and offuce software is tanking and Sonys electronics division is tanking. They no longer can afford to subsidize consoles so not competing on that ground doesn't make sense anymore.

I'll find the Iwata quote when I get home. 10/31 he admitted Wii U was still a financial drain. That may be because its not selling enough to cover r&d, overheads ect.  But that just means they've made mistakes and the Wii U is thus far a failure.

Psn and live are now mandatory and will be cash cows too.

Windows and Office are tanking. Reality says differently. I'm not sure about Sony but I must question a statement about Microsoft not being able subsidize consoles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/technology/microsoft-reports-higher-sales-and-profit.html?_r=0


With that said if Nintendo doesn't get their **** together they're going to be on deathrow in 5-6 years.

[alegoicoe]

its funny how mainstream video games news site such as ign and gamespot are not talking about the long loading times the ps4 has in between task and back when the wii u lauched it was top headlines.

[BranDonk Kong]

Because they don't exist. Load times on the PS4 are nothing like the long loads on the Wii U when starting a game, and the multi-tasking is instant.

[Adrock]

That's not a fair determination.  Sony lost tons of money to push Blu-Ray.  As the price of blu dropped, the price of the PS3 dropped and they were eventually able to make a profit on it.

How is it not fair? The point was that cutting edge technology is expensive. Ian was claiming that Nintendo previously used cutting edge technology in their hardware which doesn't make sense because Nintendo profited day one on sub-$200 MSRP ($250 for Wii). There was better technology available and Nintendo wasn't even close.

If Nintendo is still selling the Wii U at a loss (which I doubt) it's only because the sales have been so terrible and the costs have not dropped. I have a hard time believing that it was ever sold at a loss and if it was, it couldn't have been that much.

One other thing to mention is that the bill of materials is not the total cost, there is, assembly (which may be included in the BOM), shipping to the US, etc, shipping to each state, etc. It doesn't increase total coss by *that much* but it isn't free. Also these are being sold to retailers (unless you buy direct) and they don't pay MSRP. Profit margins are typically pretty low on game consoles (around $12 from last generation, IIRC).

That CNN link I posted estimated Wii U bill of materials (including the GamePad) at $227.50. I believe Nintendo when they said they sold Wii U at a loss because I don't think they would have said anything if they made a profit. This is also in contrast to 3DS where Nintendo gloated about it being expensive due to the reaction it got at E3 then they had that ridiculous pricedrop. It was like they were saying, "This is as low as we're willing to launch because we're already losing money on it." I suppose they could have just been saying that, but didn't they also say that they make up that loss with the sale of a single first party title? I doubt anyone would have believed Nintendo was taking a huge loss even if they didn't say that, but a loss at launch from them is still unprecedented.

[Kytim89]

I remember Iwata saying that the Wii U is profitable after selling a single Wii U game.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I couldn't find the exact quote I thought about before but here is their third quarter investor update. 

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/131031/index.html

2nd paragraph:

For the six-month period ended this September, ordinary income was in the black for the first time in four years. However, in connection with the price reduction of the Wii U hardware in the overseas markets, the effects of absorbing the inventory markdown at retail, revaluating the hardware as finished goods, and loss arising from the hardware for production in the second half of the fiscal year, led to an operating loss situation.

Nintendo is still in an operating loss position.  All the reasons they gave are because of the Wii U.  Heck, who are we kidding, we know the 3DS is insanely profitable.

I remember Iwata saying that the Wii U is profitable after selling a single Wii U game.

See B-dogs comment.  There are several manufacturing costs and overheads associated with selling hardware.  My guess is if they would have hit their targets, those overheads would be spread over a greater number of consoles and they could have gained profitability with just one game sold.  Clearly they are still losing money on the Wii U business as indicated in their quarterly financial information.  This means that due to lower console sales and the corresponding lower than expected software sales, the entire Wii U business is in a loss position right now (which includes software). 

An easy example is software.  Let's say for instance, Pikmin 3 cost $20M to make and we'll assume Nintendo gets the full $60 for simplicity sake.  Let's say they expected to sell 1 million copies.  Then the cost per game is $20 and every game adds $40 to their margin.  What if they only sell 0.5 million copies?  Then their cost per game is $40 and every game adds $20 to their margin.  There's a similar calculation with consoles.  It's easier to pick apart the component costs, harder to determine the overheads.  Missed sales means each console and software title picks up more overhead and they are losing money in total now although each Wii U has probably sold more than one software title. 

[smallsharkbigbite]

The point wasn't that it was all encompassing. Its impossible for us to know all those costs. The point is Sony/Microsoft came with an economical box this time because they are ready to make $ on consoles. Both actually need it as Windows and offuce software is tanking and Sonys electronics division is tanking. They no longer can afford to subsidize consoles so not competing on that ground doesn't make sense anymore.

I'll find the Iwata quote when I get home. 10/31 he admitted Wii U was still a financial drain. That may be because its not selling enough to cover r&d, overheads ect.  But that just means they've made mistakes and the Wii U is thus far a failure.

Psn and live are now mandatory and will be cash cows too.

Windows and Office are tanking. Reality says differently. I'm not sure about Sony but I must question a statement about Microsoft not being able subsidize consoles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/technology/microsoft-reports-higher-sales-and-profit.html?_r=0

There are rumors Microsoft is looking to sell the console business and the hardware teardown costs suggest that Microsoft is not looking to subsidize the XBO but rather get it in a gain position. 

I'm not going to get in a big argument about Microsoft because that will mostly derail this thread.  They had a good quarter that wasn't expected driven by their business services.  They have been struggling with consumers moving from PCs into apple tablets and the loss of Windows revenue associated with that movement.  They have been losing additional office software volume as business workers choose ipads and apple has aggessively been including free software that can view and edit spreadsheets.  That article you posted indicated as much that they are really struggling in the consumer markets and they don't really seem to have an answer there so I think they'll need help to continue that trend.  It's also one good quarter after several disappointing quarters for them. 

[broodwars]

As I previously posted, I do not think the Wii U is the next PS3, and here's why: Nintendo's approach to business isn't Sony's and the Wii wasn't what the PS2 was in its day.

When the PS3 released, the PS2 was the most massively successful console in recent memory in terms of hardware sales; software sales; software support; and software variety. In my mind, it's library is right up there with the SNES as possibly the biggest and best in the history of gaming.  It made Sony a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut with the clout to convince 3rd parties to support their future platforms, and it was a console seeing notable new releases well into the PS3's life cycle.  The Wii, meanwhile, was massively successful in terms of hardware sales; party games; and Nintendo's 1st party software sales, but little else.  The Wii also stopped seeing significant software development from anyone after 2010 (2 years BEFORE the Wii U released), and it took public outcry from a fan campaign to get some of the Wii's best titles even RELEASED over here in NA (and no, I'm not buying Reggie's insistence that the public shaming they took from Operation Rainfall didn't influence Nintendo of America to do their goddamn job).  When the party games stopped selling, Nintendo was DONE with the Wii.

Sony also spent the PS2 years and the early PS3 years building their infrastructure, expanding their development roster and partnerships both within and outside Japan. Sony saw the shift in the industry towards the Western market and Western studios, and they embraced it. The end result was a steady stream of quality titles from a variety of studios such as Naughty Dog; Sucker Punch; Sanzaru; Quantic Dream; Sony Japan Studios; Sony Santa Monica; etc. Nintendo spent their Wii years building their excuses; delaying Wii titles (Pikmin 3); delaying cash-in Wii U titles (Wii Fit U) regurgitating tired franchises; and paying one of Japan's most continually underwhelming studios (Platinum) to make more games that don't sell. Please Understand.

The PS3 is a machine with technical parity with its chief competitor, the Xbox 360.  It took developers a few years to understand how to code for it, but after a few years games across both platforms were more or less the same.  And while the PS3 versions of multiplatform games were routinely outsold by the 360 versions, they still sold respectably enough to maintain developer support and Sony has always had good relations with their 3rd party developers.  Meanwhile, the Wii U is a machine with technical parity with consoles produced 7 years ago, and it can't even compete with THEM in terms of software sales. Its UI is a joke and runs like **** on its own merits. It's completely outclassed on a technological level by the consoles it's supposed to be competing with, and those consoles right now are on pace to pass it in hardware sales by the end of Q1 2014.

3rd parties are still making PS3 games.  They've shown no sign of wanting to make Wii U games after how badly they've sold so far.  The Wii U routinely misses out on even basic ports of the most popular 3rd party games on the last-gen platforms, despite it not being a considerable technical challenge.

Sony spent the PS3 years building for the future, and in the meantime they managed to completely turn around their public image through programs and features such as PlayStation Plus and Cross-Buy.  Nintendo spent the Wii years running from the future, and the Wii U seems to continue that trend. We don't even have a true unified account system on the Wii U with a single download history, something Sony's had on the PS3 for the vast majority of the PS3's life cycle.

So no, the Wii U is not the next PS3. I don't see ANY sign that Nintendo has learned the lessons from the last generation that Sony did.  They have NOT planned for the future. They have NOT built the infrastructure to continually turn out 1st party Wii U software. So long as Iwata is in charge, I do not see Nintendo making the necessary changes required to make them a relevant company in the modern gaming industry that Sony made.

So no, the Wii U is not the next PS3. This Nintendo isn't capable of producing a home console worthy of being considered on the same level as it in terms of software development and 3rd party relations.  And they're OK with that because the Japanese will predictably buy any random **** thrown on the 3DS.

[Kytim89]

The argument that everyone is making towards the Wii U could also be said about the Vita. The Playstation Vita is Sony's Wii U. It was initially overpriced, and no third parties would develop for it, and it's first party titles were few and far between. Although the Wii U stands a greater chance of surviving due to Nintendo's persistence of maintaining their presecence within the gaming community.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/wii-u-sales-in-japan-surpass-ps3-vita-and-xbox-360-this-week/1100-6416036/

[broodwars]

The argument that everyone is making towards the Wii U could also be said about the Vita. The Playstation Vita is Sony's Wii U. It was initially overpriced, and no third parties would develop for it, and it's first party titles were few and far between. Although the Wii U stands a greater chance of surviving due to Nintendo's persistence of maintaining their presecence within the gaming community.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/wii-u-sales-in-japan-surpass-ps3-vita-and-xbox-360-this-week/1100-6416036/

Not quite.  The Vita would be Sony's Wii U if its software library massively underwhelmed and its tech was vastly inferior to its competition. The Vita has quite the respectable software lineup (especially 1st party), and while it's sad that the handheld seems to have shifted into being the PS4's backup controller, I've been quite satisfied with my Vita. I already own more software for it than I likely ever will my Wii U, and there's probably still more software being made for it in Japan than the Wii U.

And incidentally, the Vita's never been overpriced. It's those damn memory cards that make the price ridiculous.

[MagicCow64]

As I previously posted, I do not think the Wii U is the next PS3, and here's why: Nintendo's approach to business isn't Sony's and the Wii wasn't what the PS2 was in its day.

When the PS3 released, the PS2 was the most massively successful console in recent memory in terms of hardware sales; hardware sales; software support; and software variety. In my mind, it's library is right up there with the SNES as possibly the biggest and best in the history of gaming.  It made Sony a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut with the clout to convince 3rd parties to support their future platforms, and it was a console seeing notable new releases well into the PS3's life cycle.  The Wii, meanwhile, was massively successful in terms of hardware sales; party games; and Nintendo's 1st party software sales, but little else.  The Wii also stopped seeing significant software development from anyone after 2010 (2 years BEFORE the Wii U released), and it took public outcry from a fan campaign to get some of the Wii's best titles even RELEASED over here in NA (and no, I'm not buying Reggie's insistence that the public shaming they took from Operation Rainfall didn't influence Nintendo of America to do their goddamn job).  When the party games stopped selling, Nintendo was DONE with the Wii.

Sony also spent the PS2 years and the early PS3 years building their infrastructure, expanding their development roster and partnerships both within and outside Japan. Sony saw the shift in the industry towards the Western market and Western studios, and they embraced it. The end result was a steady stream of quality titles from a variety of studios such as Naughty Dog; Sucker Punch; Sanzaru; Quantic Dream; Sony Japan Studios; Sony Santa Monica; etc. Nintendo spent their Wii years building their excuses; delaying Wii titles (Pikmin 3); delaying cash-in Wii U titles (Wii Fit U) regurgitating tired franchises; and paying one of Japan's most continually underwhelming studios (Platinum) to make more games that don't sell. Please Understand.

The PS3 is a machine with technical parity with its chief competitor, the Xbox 360.  It took developers a few years to understand how to code for it, but after a few years games across both platforms were more or less the same.  And while the PS3 versions of multiplatform games were routinely outsold by the 360 versions, they were still respectible enough to maintain developer support and Sony has always had good relations with their 3rd party developers.  Meanwhile, the Wii U is a machine with technical parity with consoles produced 7 years ago, and it can't even compete with THEM in terms of software sales. Its UI is a joke and runs like **** on its own merits. It's completely outclassed on a technological level by the consoles it's supposed to be competing with, and those consoles right now are on pace to pass them in hardware sales by the end of Q1 2014.

3rd parties are still making PS3 games.  They've shown no sign of wanting to make Wii U games after how badly they've sold so far.  The Wii U routinely misses out on even basic ports of the most popular 3rd party games on the last-gen platforms, despite it not being a considerable technical challenge.

Sony spent the PS3 years building for the future, and in the meantime they managed to completely turn around their public image through programs and features such as PlayStation Plus and Cross-Buy.  Nintendo spent the Wii years running from the future, and the Wii U seems to continue that trend. We don't even have a unified account system on the Wii U with a unified wallet and download history, something Sony's had on the PS3 for the vast majority of the PS3's life cycle.

So no, the Wii U is not the next PS3. I don't see ANY sign that Nintendo has learned the lessons from the last generation that Sony did.  They have NOT planned for the future. They have NOT built the infrastructure to continually turn out 1st party Wii U software. So long as Iwata is in charge, I do not see Nintendo making the necessary changes required to make them a relevant company in the modern gaming industry that Sony made.

So no, the Wii U is not the next PS3. This Nintendo isn't capable of producing a home console worthy of being considered on the same level as it in terms of software development and 3rd party relations.  And they're OK with that because the Japanese will predictably buy any random **** thrown on the 3DS.

That's a right fancy hagiography of Sony, a company teetering on the brink of disaster after 15 years of obsessively pageant-momming their entrants in the video game wars. And as as mentioned, post-Ballmer Microsoft restiveness is pointing toward decoupling their distracting and at-best minisculely profitably video game arm. I don't have the energy at present to address all of your points, for which I apologize, as many are legit, but to me the back-and-forth here about how Nintendo has changed or not changed based on hardware power is absurd. The technological world that existed during the Genesis vs. SNES pissing match is so different from today as to render this a meaningless comparison. Yeah, so I guess the SNES was at parity with the Genesis? Both of which systems and their entire libraries could be replicated on a smallish SD card today? **** got different quick, and, again, as has been mentioned, Nintendo was abruptly facing two giant differentiated companies that could afford to blow stupid amounts of money on loss-leader tech strategies. Meanwhile, Nintendo's closest analog, Sega, ruined its **** by chasing novel upgrades and abandoning nascent platforms. You have to believe that Nintendo took note. it happened to be that they were fundamentally better at games and business than Sega, and lasted out, but comparing pre Cube/Box1/PS2 era competition to the aftermath just doesn't work.


NOW, the complaints after are that Nintendo didn't adapt to the new paradigm. Probably true! I don't happen to give a **** about online play, so most contemporary feature-parity grousing is irrelevant to me. But then the cries are that Nintendo isn't in sync with current mass-market preferences. Definitely true! But do you consider videogames art? I do, in a sense, and I also believe incredibly strongly that market preferences are fundamentally at odds with the creation of worthwhile art. See: the proliferation of dumb blang-blang corridor design, the ubiquity of reality television, nuTrek, Transformers, whathaveyou. Not to say that that stuff shouldn't exist, or doesn't have its place, but being the market leader isn't the goddamned point, despite Iwata's arguably craven beholdenness to shareholder demands and the bottom line. So fucking what if the WiiU is in a distant third place in the coming years? If Nintendo can stay above keel and keep producing software that is fundamentally about interaction, then who cares if Gears of Glory Theft are sucking up all the mainstream oxygen?


People, we are on a motherfucking hobbyist website. Why the hell are most of you here if you just want to get into the Killzone? Mario 3D World is fucking beautiful. It's an incredible aesthetic object. After playing it at my house, my nephew insisted on getting a Super Mario Bros. 3 GBA cart for my old DS and is glued to it. This is a kid who only ever wanted to play GTA or Kane & Lynch or Max Payne previously. Stop treating Game Informer like it's the arbiter of worth. It's like basing your taste of movies on Entertainment Weekly.


What won't Nintendo be able to do with WiiU hardware? Not have as many hundreds of zombies on the screen at the same time? No 64-player deathmatches? Fewer facial pores? Less jiggle? No sharing COD killstreak vids? If that's what you need and want, take up residence on IGN forums.

[broodwars]

What won't Nintendo be able to do with WiiU hardware? Not have as many hundreds of zombies on the screen at the same time? No 64-player deathmatches? Fewer facial pores? Less jiggle? No sharing COD killstreak vids? If that's what you need and want, take up residence on IGN forums.

I hate that "if you have so many problems with Nintendo, then get the **** out attitude" that some have adopted here. You can still like Nintendo and have serious issues with them, and my general problem with Nintendo can pretty much be summed up by Kyle Bosman's little analogy with Nintendo regarding Super Mario 3D World here: http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/1hpws1/the-final-bosman-thanks-for-nothing (you have to scroll through the video a bit to get to it).

On Gametrailers, he's just about the ONLY guy on the site who sticks up for Nintendo and generally mocks the indifferent attitude of the rest of the site towards them. However, despite this even he compares Mario 3D World to an incredibly lazy student who spends their time slacking off and screwing around, only to show up and ace the big test at the last possible moment.  They are a company whose software I can seriously enjoy, but they are also a company whose business doctrine seems to be doing the absolute minimum they need to do to get by. No ambition whatsoever. They're a company that could be so great if they just applied themselves, but they're Nintendo and that's not how they do things. And their handheld domination ensures that they never really have to try.

That's the thing with me about Sony: Sony often feels to me how I wish Nintendo would be, embodying the spirit I thought Nintendo had once upon a time. Yeah, their games can sometimes be a bit clunky and they don't have this amazing library of characters that Nintendo has.  However, I feel like when Sony steps up to the plate, they swing for the fences. They may swing and miss, but at least they ****ing try.  They still experiment and play with ideas and strategies that might not work, and the results are often at least interesting.  Occasionally, they're amazing.  And they do all this without scaring away or pissing off everyone who could potentially want to work with them or put out games on their platforms.  Nintendo has only managed such levels of cooperation when they ruled the gaming industry with an iron fist and browbeat companies into submission back in the 80s and 90s.

I feel like Nintendo has such a huge library of characters and such conservative leadership that they hold themselves back.  They keep themselves from achieving their true potential, because taking that creative risk and putting themselves out there isn't 100% safe.  And that wasted potential infuriates me.

[Kytim89]

Look at how the industry imitates Nintendo and their gimmicks to get an idea of how important Nintendo is to business. Sony has reduced the Vita and PS4 to a more expensive version of the Wii U. Look at how they tried their own version of motion controls.