Topic: Wii U is the new PS3?

[smallsharkbigbite]

Magic Cow - Discussing business and playing armchair CEO can be fun and I think should be part of this site. Part of the problem with the Wii U stagnating is criticising Nintendo is like shooting fish in a barrell. Sometimes criticism overtakes the board because there are wide gaps in the release schedule and we don't have much to talk about on the game front.

Most people here are Nintendo biased and enjoy Nintendo titles best and couldn't care if Killzone comes to a Nintendo console. Where my concern lies is whether or not Nintendo will continue to come out with high quality software I enjoy. I'm not naive enough to think that Nintendo will keep status quo with their current results. After decades of profits they've are going on their 4th straight year of operating loss. I think they are going to do something drastic after their fiscal year ends.

Will Iwata get fired?  Will they have mass layoffs?  Will they go third party or develop a new console to replace the Wii U?  Maybe not any of those things. But I think drastic changes are coming for Nintendo and that it will affect the games they develop. The Wii U has not brought profit to Nintendo so it is no Gamecube in that respect.

[Oblivion]

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.

Interactivity between Sony's video game consoles and handheld video game console is traced back as far as 2006, prior to the PlayStation 3's launch, when journalists noticed a PlayStation Portable icon, with the title "Remote Play", on pre-release versions of their PS3.[4] The functionality was officially revealed just prior to the PS3's launch in October 2006, at Sony's "Gamer's Day" event, where Sony demonstrated the ability to transfer the PS3's output to a PSP instead of a television, through showing downloaded PlayStation 1 games and movie films being transmitted to a PSP's screen and speakers.[5] Sony announced that all original PlayStation 1 games would support the feature, but they had to be digital, not disc-based, media from the PS3's internal harddrive.[6][7] This later changed by the end of 2007, when a firmware update made it so any PlayStation 1 game was compatible with Remote Play, even disc-based ones.[8]

The console was first conceived in 2008,[17] after Nintendo recognized several limitations and challenges with the Wii, such as the general public perception that the system catered primarily for a "casual" audience.[18] With Wii U, Nintendo explicitly wishes to bring "core" gamers back.[19] Game designer Shigeru Miyamoto admitted that the lack of HD and limited network infrastructure for the Wii also contributed to the system being regarded in a separate class to its competitors' systems, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.[20] It was decided that a new console would have to be made to accommodate significant structural changes. Within the company, there was much debate over the idea for the new console, and the project was scrapped and restarted several times.[21] The concept of a touchscreen embedded within the controller was originally inspired by the blue light on the Wii that illuminates to indicate new messages.[22] Miyamoto and his team wanted to include a small screen to provide game feedback and status messages to players (in similar vein to the VMU for Sega's Dreamcast). Much later in development, this was expanded to a full screen that could display the game being played in its entirety, a concept which was suggested but not financially viable earlier in the project.[23]

Hold up there fanboy. Remote play has existed far longer than was a twinkle in Nintendo's eye. Let's get that straight right now. Motion control? Sure, I'll give you that. But we aren't talking about motion control, we are talking about GAMES, dude. Stop grasping at straws when you know broodwars just kicked your ass logically.

[Adrock]

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.

I'd argue that Nintendo has done a better job of planning for the future than both Sony and Microsoft because Nintendo is the only one of the three that has a business model that revolves around turning a profit as soon as possible. They're in a far better position to face hard times than their competition. Now, this isn't to say that Nintendo couldn't be doing more. However, they're doing okay considering the circumstances. Wii U had a rough start, but it's in a decent position to be profitable for Nintendo within the next year. They're stubborn in many ways but not completely clueless. While they clearly hoped motion controls would be more sustainable, we've seen them move away from it so they've shown some degree of self-awareness.

I find it strange that people tend to give more credit to Sony than Nintendo considering how much money Sony's games division lost last generation. Sony operates mostly on a "We'll make it back later" philosophy. It's a slow process, one that consumers don't see. Sony lost a lot of money and while Sony eventually made money on PS3, they haven't made up for those losses. They have done a better job with PS4. I read that the bill of materials is approximately $380 so they're probably losing less than $100 this time.

Both Sony and Nintendo could stand to be more balanced in their approaches. Nintendo's is safer which I consider better since it allows for greater flexibility in the future regardless of whether Nintendo actually does anything with it.

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.

I don't see how you can rightly say that when Nintendo bet their console future on motion controls. I don't even particularly like motion control games and I even hated it in Skyward Sword, but as it stands, this is pretty much what you're commending Sony for. It's just not the way you wanted it which is understandable, just unfair to claim Nintendo isn't doing this.

Sony has reduced the Vita and PS4 to a more expensive version of the Wii U.

Sure, Remote Play kind of gives PS4 feature parity with the GamePad (note I didn't say Wii U since PS4 is more feature rich), but your statement is ridiculous to the point of parody.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I guess I give Sony more credit because they made lots of money on PS1 and PS2. With PS3 they made 2 incorrect assumptions that led to them losing money. 1 They thought blu ray playing ability would drive consumers to their product despite its high cost. It did not. 2 They thought people would pay 600 for a box with playstation on it.

 I think its false to assume they aimed to go into that generation to subsidize the PS3. It turns out they did but it appears they've immediately corrected those issues with the PS4 and want to get profitable. There is no trojan horse in the PS4 the way blu ray was. The 400 is reasonable and where the 360 started last gen. PS4 is much more diversified and set up to do well this gen.

I feel Sony made some bad decisions that hurt them in short term profits but they are set up well long term. I feel like Nintendo did the opposite. They made decisions with the Wii that made them tons of $ in the short term. But essentially saying screw you to third parties has put them in a tough long term situation. It's cliche at this point, but if you don't like Zelda, Mario, Metroid it's hard to recommend a Wii U.

[Adrock]

It's cliche at this point, but if you don't like Zelda, Mario, Metroid it's hard to recommend a Wii U.

True. At the same time, the people who like Zelda, Mario etc., know what they're getting because Nintendo has always taken care of their franchises. They may get overzealous with releases (namely Mario), but they're still good games.

Nintendo and third parties turned their backs on each other when they could be making more money together. It's a shame. Nintendo has set up a business model to be able to support themselves without third parties in the present and future which ultimately sucks for consumers, like myself, who would prefer to buy one console and have most games available. However

[MagicCow64]

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.

I wasn't really saying GTFO, I more so was actually asking why so many people hang out here to take turns pissing in Nintendo's face. I've been visiting this site off and on for probably 15 years, and I've never seen such an era of bad feelings. Maybe it's kind of like fans of local sports teams that always lose. I guess it's starting to chafe because one of the things I hold in high regard about Nintendo is how uncynical and bright their approach to video games is, which I think is more important than ever in the sea of bullets and microtransactions and TV-watching achievements that is ever rising. (As for Sony's alleged game design daring-do, that's pretty debatable, especially given how mediocre the results tend to be. But whatever, not really the place for that argument.)


Nintendo failed, mostly on purpose, to adapt to the increasingly Western-dominated and online-focused video game market. In a way, that's the definition of bad business. But I'd rather see them where they are today than turn into Sega or start releasing Bomberman Zeros. I think people need to come to terms with the fact that Nintendo is a niche. Most of the Wii's mass-market success was ephemeral, like when a band gets 15-minutes of fame for a novelty song that bears little relation to their actual sound. Nintendo will never have another SNES. If you think the $300 buy-in for a niche console is too much, that's a perfectly defensible position, but given how much people drop on phones and tablets and crap I don't think it's unreasonable. And I certainly don't think you can argue about the 3DS' value. Asking for a PS4 tech-equivalent is asking for an even higher buy-in with extremely dubious benefits (I doubt we'd get more ports than the main Ubisoft releases, although those are probably about to cease in this universe). When you wish for Nintendo to go third party, you're wishing for a much-reduced entity. How many games a year do you think they could viably release on PS4? If they released 10 games a year 8 out of 10 would get swamped. Game journalists still wouldn't take them seriously, and they'd be even easier to ignore. 

[Ian Sane]

There are a lot of people hanging out here to piss on Nintendo's face because we're Nintendo fans, we like Nintendo, and we're frustrated with how things are right now.  The Wii was controversial and split the fanbase.  Now the Wii U isn't selling, has horrible third party support, and first party releases have been infrequent.  The whole future of the console, and thus Nintendo's whole existence as a console maker, is up in the air.  It's a rough time for Nintendo and thus their fans.

Personally I find it frustrating because I know Nintendo is capable of better.  I want the Wii U to be a product I would want to buy or I would like there to be a Nintendo console I would want to buy if the Wii U can't accomplish that.  I want Nintendo to be successful and I want that success to be earned, so the product has to be good.

I became a Nintendo fan for a reason and find that that fandom is less and less justified each year.  I want to be excited about Nintendo but I need a reason to do that.  I see no reason in just accepting what I perceive as an inferior product and an inferior effort.  That will just encourage bad habits and it is the good things about Nintendo I became a fan of, not the bad ones.

[Kytim89]

@ Oblivion.

Nintendo had been experimenting with bridging the gap between home consoles and handhelds as far back as the SNES days with the Super Gameboy. They also tried it with the GBA player for the Gamecube. As for Sony unveiling their remote play feature, they under utilized it in the past  five plus years, and only got serious once Nintendo showed off the Wii U.

[broodwars]

@ Oblivion.

Nintendo had been experimenting with bridging the gap between home consoles and handhelds as far back as the SNES days with the Super Gameboy. They also tried it with the GBA player for the Gamecube.

You're seriously using two devices that played Game Boy & GBA games on a home console as your basis for saying that Sony's been ripping off Nintendo with Remote Play, a feature where you stream full console games onto a handheld for true portable play. I don't even know what to say to an argument so mind-numbingly stupid.  The process is literally the exact opposite and uses a completely different technology, and (frankly) until modern WiFi technology it didn't even work (which is why Sony really didn't support it much).

Seriously, your argument is so inane it would be like me claiming that Nintendo ripped off Sony with the Wii Remote because Sony had the EyeToy on the PS2.  Similar ideas, but radically different approaches to executing them with completely different technology.  I could at least understand the argument (though not agree with it) if you wanted to bring up the GBA->GameCube Connectivity with Crystal Chronicles, but the GBA Player & Super GameBoy? That's quite a stretch there.

[Oblivion]

@ Oblivion.

Nintendo had been experimenting with bridging the gap between home consoles and handhelds as far back as the SNES days with the Super Gameboy. They also tried it with the GBA player for the Gamecube. As for Sony unveiling their remote play feature, they under utilized it in the past  five plus years, and only got serious once Nintendo showed off the Wii U.

That's a completely opposite thing. Remote Play is not putting a handheld game on your television through the console. Remote Play allows for the handheld to display the console game.


Like I said earlier: you're a desperate fanboy grasping for straws, even moreso than the last time you posted in this thread.

[tendoboy1984]

Going third-party would mean a whole change of Nintendo-- mass exodus of employees, less risks, no ability to work on games that are on hardware they're comfortable with, no features that come from Nintendo hardware that can't be found elsewhere, etc.


Those thinking it would be the same Nintendo and the same quality are sorely mistaken.

Exactly, look at what happened to Sega (though they've rebounded recently with Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations).

[tendoboy1984]

I guess I give Sony more credit because they made lots of money on PS1 and PS2. With PS3 they made 2 incorrect assumptions that led to them losing money. 1 They thought Blu-Ray playing ability would drive consumers to their product despite its high cost. It did not. 2 They thought people would pay 600 for a box with PlayStation on it.

Ah but the irony is people are perfectly fine with buying a $500 Xbox with Kinect functionality built in.

[tendoboy1984]

There are a lot of people hanging out here to piss on Nintendo's face because we're Nintendo fans, we like Nintendo, and we're frustrated with how things are right now.  The Wii was controversial and split the fanbase.  Now the Wii U isn't selling, has horrible third party support, and first party releases have been infrequent.  The whole future of the console, and thus Nintendo's whole existence as a console maker, is up in the air.  It's a rough time for Nintendo and thus their fans.

Personally I find it frustrating because I know Nintendo is capable of better.  I want the Wii U to be a product I would want to buy or I would like there to be a Nintendo console I would want to buy if the Wii U can't accomplish that.  I want Nintendo to be successful and I want that success to be earned, so the product has to be good.

I became a Nintendo fan for a reason and find that that fandom is less and less justified each year.  I want to be excited about Nintendo but I need a reason to do that.  I see no reason in just accepting what I perceive as an inferior product and an inferior effort.  That will just encourage bad habits and it is the good things about Nintendo I became a fan of, not the bad ones.

This whole post reminds me so much of the GameCube era. It's like we've come full circle. Nintendo bounced back from the GameCube by sheer luck. They took a huge risk with the Wii and it paid off. Hopefully they can do it again with their next console (if the Wii U fails to sell well during the next 6-7 years).

[Oblivion]

But the Gamecube is far better than the Wii U. And if they do in the next gen they did with the last gen, I will quit being a Nintendo fan.

[Kytim89]

But the Gamecube is far better than the Wii U. And if they do in the next gen they did with the last gen, I will quit being a Nintendo fan.

The Gamecube is better than the Wii U at this point. However, what is say that by the end of the Wi U's life that it has even more high quality titles than the Gamecube? Just because it is struggling now does not mean it will be once the good games are released for it next year.

[Phil]

But the Gamecube is far better than the Wii U. And if they do in the next gen they did with the last gen, I will quit being a Nintendo fan.

It's not like Nintendo stopped producing great games with the Wii. 2008 notwithstanding.

[Oblivion]

But the Gamecube is far better than the Wii U. And if they do in the next gen they did with the last gen, I will quit being a Nintendo fan.

It's not like Nintendo stopped producing great games with the Wii. 2008 notwithstanding.

I ain't talking software. I'm a strong defending of the games that released during the Wii's lifetime. I'm talking hardware.

[tendoboy1984]

Honestly yes the Wii was severely underpowered, but the games and unique controller more than made up for it. Wii Sports is tons of fun, and the Wii Remote's pointer controls revolutionized shooters.
 
Sony's PlayStation Move is clunky and difficult to calibrate properly. The Wii Remote automatically calibrates itself when you point it at the sensor bar.

[Spak-Spang]

In the end, the Wii had software that was fun and enjoyable to play, and even if it was a fad, it was an enjoyable enough experience to get people buying and playing those fun games. 

Now, the Wii U doesn't have that catch on craze of the Wii.  I think the controller is part of that reason.  There is real confusion about what the Wii U is.  Partially because all these controls and new game pad. 

But the biggest reason the Wii U wasn't an immediate hit was no killer app that sold the experience.

[tendoboy1984]

There was a Nintendo holiday event at my local mall. There were probably 30 people all playing the Wii U and having fun, with many more spectating. I overheard quite a few people say they would buy a Wii U for their families.
 
I tried Zelda: Wind Waker, Sonic Lost World, and Super Mario 3D World, and those games sold me on the system. I play video games to have fun, and Nintendo certainly delivers on that front.

[gaugheyad]

It's been a while since I've posted here, more than a year actually, but I feel the need to vent so...

No, the Wii U is not the next PS3. The Wii U will actually make money for Nintendo. That right there puts it light years ahead of BOTH Sony and MS' previous disasters.

As for the discussion pertaining to 3rd parties, I'm just going to repost my last post from more than a year ago on this subject verbatim, as it still stands:

All excuses from 3rd parties as to why their games aren't going to appear on *Whatever* Nintendo systems always boil down to "Nintendo won't pay us".

That's pretty much it.

I mean, wasn't it these same developers who also said that they couldn't make their games for the Wii because it wasn't powerful enough and that they needed as many systems as possible to port around to since development costs had gone up so much?

Ignoring the first issue (since Wii development was pretty much the same as last gen and therefor Wii games were a fraction of the cost of HD titles and didn't NEED to be ported to hell and back in order to make a profit), now they have another HD system, something developers claimed that they needed. Now all of a sudden... they don't need it any more?

Could it be because that box has the word "Nintendo" on it?

3rd parties will support Nintendo hardware again when Sony and MS leave the industry, and the way things are going that's not going to be that far off. Until then, don't expect much beyond token support, specifically under the auspicious veil of "outsourced" ports. And it's nothing that Nintendo can control or change without driving themselves out of business. Something Sony and MS would absolutely LOVE since they wouldn't actually have to make games anymore in order to sell their little boxes.

[NWR_insanolord]

I've said before, there really isn't a great analog for the Wii U in the history of gaming. Nintendo operates so differently from most other gaming companies that it could really only be compared to one of their own, and I don't think Nintendo's been in this position before. The only real comparison you could make is a hypothetical one, as I'm pretty sure the Wii would have been in just about exactly this situation if Wii Sports never existed.

[Oblivion]

No, the Wii U is not the next PS3. The Wii U will actually make money for Nintendo.

?

And the PS3 does not? If I remember correctly, one only needs to buy one or two games to recoup the costs, similar to how the Wii U is now.


Or am I thinking of the PS4?

[RedBlue]

No, the Wii U is not the next PS3. The Wii U will actually make money for Nintendo.

?

And the PS3 does not? If I remember correctly, one only needs to buy one or two games to recoup the costs, similar to how the Wii U is now.


Or am I thinking of the PS4?

Making a profit now does not make up for all the money they (xbox 360 and PS3) lost  in the first 4 or 5 years they lost money on them.

[RedBlue]

double post