I don't care who wins the "console wars", I just want the Wii U to sell BETTER so it gets more 3rd-party support.
Indie developers have no problems supporting Nintendo or any other platform. So why can't the big publishers release their games on all platforms? They'd reach a bigger audience that way.
I wonder who the next third party publisher to go bankrupt will be? Bethesda? Xseed?
With the Wii U's current poor situation, is anyone getting flashbacks to the PS3's terrible launch? The PS3 was ridiculed for being too expensive, and it sold terribly until Sony finally released the PS3 Slim at a cheaper price. So if Sony could turn the PS3 around, then surely Nintendo can turn the Wii U around (they already saved the 3DS from obscurity).
I can't wait to see Xbox One and PS4 sales drastically drop off into nothingness come January/February. Going to be a grand time.Schadenfreude is bad for your soul. Don't do this or your will turn into jaded cynic (the most pitiful creature in my opinion).
I'm sorry if that sounded as if I'll get pleasure from that situation, but I'm more looking forward to the actual numbers than anything. I just don't think this industry is stable any more. As has been mentioned in another thread on this forum - I, too, wonder which third parties will bite the dust this generation. It's getting quite scary.I can't wait to see Xbox One and PS4 sales drastically drop off into nothingness come January/February. Going to be a grand time.Schadenfreude is bad for your soul. Don't do this or your will turn into jaded cynic (the most pitiful creature in my opinion).
I'm sorry if that sounded as if I'll get pleasure from that situation, but I'm more looking forward to the actual numbers than anything. I just don't think this industry is stable any more. As has been mentioned in another thread on this forum - I, too, wonder which third parties will bite the dust this generation. It's getting quite scary.I can't wait to see Xbox One and PS4 sales drastically drop off into nothingness come January/February. Going to be a grand time.Schadenfreude is bad for your soul. Don't do this or your will turn into jaded cynic (the most pitiful creature in my opinion).
In before broodwars
I disagree. Third parties could have been porting PS3/360 games this whole time and for the most part, they haven't. Poor support has less to do with specs and more to do with Nintendo's lack of communication with third parties. That E3 sizzle reel seemed awesome at the time. In hindsight, those were probably the few third parties who even knew what Nintendo was planning. Don't expect support when you treat your partners like peons.
I disagree. Third parties could have been porting PS3/360 games this whole time and for the most part, they haven't. Poor support has less to do with specs and more to do with Nintendo's lack of communication with third parties. That E3 sizzle reel seemed awesome at the time. In hindsight, those were probably the few third parties who even knew what Nintendo was planning. Don't expect support when you treat your partners like peons.
I can't wait to see Xbox One and PS4 sales drastically drop off into nothingness come January/February. Going to be a grand time. It's then that everyone will see just how big each respective console manufacturer's audiences truly are.
Right now, there's about three-and-a-half to four million dedicated Nintendo fans...still. It'll be interesting to see the size of MS/Sony's crew.
They have to bring their teams up to speed on the Wii U in order to do a port. The Wii U was going to be on par with the other major consoles for literally only one year. So you go to all the trouble to get your teams familiar enough with the Wii U to include it in multiplatform development that will only work for a year? Why bother?This is not the first time we've been over this. Support for PS3/360 didn't stop abruptly when PS4/One came out. And please stop ignoring the fact that Vigil Games ported the assets for Darksiders 2 in a matter of weeks.
They have to bring their teams up to speed on the Wii U in order to do a port. The Wii U was going to be on par with the other major consoles for literally only one year. So you go to all the trouble to get your teams familiar enough with the Wii U to include it in multiplatform development that will only work for a year? Why bother?This is not the first time we've been over this. Support for PS3/360 didn't stop abruptly when PS4/One came out. And please stop ignoring the fact that Vigil Games ported the assets for Darksiders 2 in a matter of weeks.
I hate to say it (though I don't exactly know why), but Nintendo becoming a third party development company (for consoles at least) starts to make more sense every day.
Actually they had another team working on just the WII U port. When you factor in manhours vs copy sold do you really think it was profitable for them?Actually, TJ, according to (former) Vigil Games designer Haydn Dalton (http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/17/3518550/vigil-games-designer-says-wii-u-is-one-of-the-easier-consoles-to), "Initially, the base code port was tackled by our internal tech team, but as Darksiders 2 started to ramp up heavily, we handed ownership over to a separate team at THQ Montreal." So they started it themselves then handed it to another team. Ian keeps claiming that developers have to "bring their teams up to speed on the Wii U in order to do a port," and acting like it's a larger problem than it really is. Well, a designer from one of those teams that worked on a Wii U game flat-out said it's one of the easier platforms to develop for and they had their "core game up and running on it in a very short amount of time."
How many third party titles failed to sell 50K on the WII U? That's your reason why 3rd parties left Nintendo, it was because the core WII U owners weren't buying the software to begin with and I really wouldn't be surprised if AC and the Batman series skip the WII U down the road in the future.Based on a bunch of old ports? That's a rigged game. Releasing the entire Mass Effect Trilogy for $60 on PS3/360 weeks before a $60 port of just Mass Effect 3 on Wii was setting itself up to fail.
from Time for convincing third parties to support Wii U 'long passed,' says Bethesda's Pete Hines (http://www.polygon.com/2013/9/3/4689208/time-for-convincing-third-parties-to-support-wii-u-long-past-says)He doesn't speak for every third party company, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the prevailing attitude. Sony and Microsoft keep their partners in the loop, constantly bouncing ideas off them and asking for feedback. A lot of Nintendo fans like to blame third parties entirely, but it's Nintendo too. If third parties want better communication, I don't really see how this is a problem. I'm sure some companies want ridiculous payouts for exclusive content and whatnot, but a more open channel for communication is key. Nintendo has to be exponentially more proactive and third parties have to stop thinking Nintendo console owners want their scraps as if we should just take it because it's given and do so with a smile. This is not complicated. As a Wii U owner, if you treat me like you give a ****, you can have my money.
"The time for convincing publishers and developers to support Wii U has long passed," Hines said. "The box is out.
"You have to do what Sony and Microsoft has been doing with us for a long time," he added. "And it's not that every time we met with them we got all the answers we wanted, but they involved us very early on and talked to folks like Bethesda and Gearbox [sic] and saying, 'here's what we're doing, here's what we're planning, here's how we think it's going to work.' To hear what we thought, from our tech guys and from an experience standpoint, what we thought.
"You have to spend an unbelievable amount of time up front doing that. If you're going to just decide, 'we're going to make a box, and this is how it's going to work and you should make games for it,' well, no. No is my answer."
But imagine for a second, Nintendo partners with Microsoft. Nintendo and Microsoft's development teams together create a new handheld and console experience. Both playing to each others strengths.Except Microsoft is a software company trying to move into hardware. I wouldn't want Nintendo to partner with a company that apparently knew about hardware overheating problems and sent the console to market anyway. In that regard, **** Microsoft right in the face. With a tire iron.
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.
Phil - I think you have it backwards. Nintendo has totally refused risk and instead become a Mario factory. 3 core Mario games in year 1 of the.Wii U? This right after NSMB 2 and 3D Land were pumped out to save the 3DS. Titles like Fire Emblem Wii U publically spurned because they don't sell enough. Wii U product line is still not profitable per 10/31 reports. Iwata has spurned layoffs thus far. It's easy to do when you project 9 million units sold in 5 months or whatever their target is. When Nintendo misses that target (and they will) Iwata is going to have a lot of pressure to do something. That could be to lay off or start supporting tablets or to have a plan to move away from the Wii U.
If Nintendo software developers could focus on quality software and not forced to use hardware features, we would have never had shoulder buttons or the analog stick.
To say that Nintendo's developers have been hamstrung by the requirement to use hardware features anytime recently is insane. That was a valid criticism on the Wii but if anything they're not doing enough to showcase the Wii U functionality.
To say that Nintendo's developers have been hamstrung by the requirement to use hardware features anytime recently is insane. That was a valid criticism on the Wii but if anything they're not doing enough to showcase the Wii U functionality.I don't think management is forcing the developers to use certain hardware features as a requirement or something. However, I believe sometimes Nintendo's developers force themselves and that's why it's been somewhat uninspired in certain games. For example, the GamePad doesn't really work that well in Super Mario 3D World. It felt like they decided to use the GamePad because it's there, not because they had any interesting ideas that couldn't be implemented within the confines of their design otherwise.
On the Wii U though, they do seem to be a lot less interested in pushing the Gamepad than one would expect. Okay, so why are you making us buy this expensive controller and likely compromising the specs to keep the system at an affordable price point? It's like they learned from the forced remote usage but didn't realize that basing the whole system around a pack-in accessory kind of requires you to force the usage to justify it.I don't think it's fair to make that assumption. Third parties aren't interested in Wii U in general, but I doubt it's rooted in the GamePad. If there was no GamePad, we'd probably be looking at the same level of support.
Phil - I think you have it backwards. Nintendo has totally refused risk and instead become a Mario factory. 3 core Mario games in year 1 of the.Wii U? This right after NSMB 2 and 3D Land were pumped out to save the 3DS. Titles like Fire Emblem Wii U publically spurned because they don't sell enough. Wii U product line is still not profitable per 10/31 reports. Iwata has spurned layoffs thus far. It's easy to do when you project 9 million units sold in 5 months or whatever their target is. When Nintendo misses that target (and they will) Iwata is going to have a lot of pressure to do something. That could be to lay off or start supporting tablets or to have a plan to move away from the Wii U.
Either way there is no reason to believe Nintendo would have to lay off or wouldn't be able to optimize hardware they didn't create. Actually I think it would be great that software developers could focus on developing quality software and not be forced to use hardware features. Latest example being the tablet only 3D World levels. Does that really make the game better?
I don't see how the Gamepad could possibly NOT be expensive. It has a giant touchscreen in it. If it isn't expensive why do we even have the cheaper Pro option?Is that a serious question? Nintendo originally only had one GamePad working. They eventually managed to get two working before launch. The Pro Controller exists for four-player games. Jebus, man, it's like you're not even trying.
Every extra doodad that goes into the standard package has some manufacturing cost. It is just logical that a controller with a touchscreen in it costs more than the "normal" controller the Pro is because they're like the same thing but one has more parts.For the eleventy billionth time, every controller on the market is marked up egregiously. You're out of your damn mind if you think a Pro Controller costs Nintendo anywhere close to MSRP to make. The Pro Controller even has fewer things in it than a five year old Dual Shock 3 which I don't believe has ever dropped in price. Why is this a problem when Nintendo does it and not a problem when Sony does it?
Once again we have controller vs. up-to-date hardware.You can't be this daft. We've been over this so many times. Nintendo has had the same philosophy on hardware since ALWAYS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi) It's not controller vs up-to-date hardware by a damn sight. It's hardware with new controller vs. the same hardware without new controller. You need to drop this if-Nintendo-didn't-include-a-gimmick-controller-they-would-have-included-better-hardware line of thinking because it is patently false. Nintendo didn't choose one over the other. They have only ever chosen modest hardware.
You can't be this daft. We've been over this so many times. Nintendo has had the same philosophy on hardware since ALWAYS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi) It's not controller vs up-to-date hardware by a damn sight. It's hardware with new controller vs. the same hardware without new controller. You need to drop this if-Nintendo-didn't-include-a-gimmick-controller-they-would-have-included-better-hardware line of thinking because it is patently false. Nintendo didn't choose one over the other. They have only ever chosen modest hardware.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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).
I remember Iwata saying that the Wii U is profitable after selling a single Wii U game.
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/technology/microsoft-reports-higher-sales-and-profit.html?_r=0)
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/ (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/wii-u-sales-in-japan-surpass-ps3-vita-and-xbox-360-this-week/1100-6416036/)
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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 (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.
@ 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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, the Wii U is not the next PS3. The Wii U will actually make money for Nintendo.
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?
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.
Sorry, but I must have missed all those millions of dollars in profit the Wii U's brought to Nintendo so far. Come to think of it, I think Nintendo must have missed them, too, given that the 3DS' dominance in Japan counterbalancing the Wii U's worldwide failure is the only reason Iwata still has a job at this point.
Just sayin', you can't play the "Nintendo is the only company that makes money off their hardware!" card when Nintendo's attempting to sell the Wii U at a loss and people still don't want it.
PSP being a financial flop? Hahahahaha... Sorry gaugheyad, but I think your fanboyism is showing.
Nope. Wrong again. It was a financial success... maybe not next to the Nintendo DS juggernaut, but still. To say it wasn't would be a total fabrication.
Nope. Wrong again. It was a financial success... maybe not next to the Nintendo DS juggernaut, but still. To say it wasn't would be a total fabrication.
Indeed, especially with it still getting new games in Japan every week, and more new games than the Wii U at that.
Nope. Wrong again. It was a financial success... maybe not next to the Nintendo DS juggernaut, but still. To say it wasn't would be a total fabrication.
Indeed, especially with it still getting new games in Japan every week, and more new games than the Wii U at that.
No, it was a flop. Just like the PS3 and the entire XBox line.
Nope. Wrong again. It was a financial success... maybe not next to the Nintendo DS juggernaut, but still. To say it wasn't would be a total fabrication.
Indeed, especially with it still getting new games in Japan every week, and more new games than the Wii U at that.
No, it was a flop. Just like the PS3 and the entire XBox line.
(http://i.imgur.com/NwmjwCn.gif)
Yeah, this is just getting painful to read now, so I'm going to sheathe my sword and walk away while he's still only making an ass of himself. I generally enjoy speaking with fanboys on this site, but usually they provide more entertaining discussion.
The Xbox line has lost Microsoft money if you're looking at the whole life of the division, but what Microsoft really cares about is making a profit for the year, which they've been doing for a while now. I believe they've actually even made money on the 360 as a whole at this point after putting themselves in a bad spot with the red ring of death early in its life. They'll probably never make back the billions they spent on busting into the market, but they don't care.
Yes, PS3 and 360 have been profitable for a while. Unless another RROD issue comes up, there is little reason to believe PS4 and XBO won't be profitable.
Gaug- Nintendo posted a 9/30 operating loss. Operating losses exclude currency adjustments. That means the Wii U wiped out all the 3DS and software development profits for the period. Ironically, Nintendo made a net profit for the period because of favorable currency adjustments. That info may be useful to you.
I wouldn't call PS3 or 360 flops in pretty much any sense of the word, but they're not as successful as as they look to consumers. Most consumers don't know or care how much Sony and Microsoft lost and how much Nintendo profited. It should matter albeit indirectly because how well a console maker performs affects a lot of things.
Pretty much every game hardware company there ever was that isn't Nintendo sells the hardware at a loss in order to get it into as many hands as possible in order to make money on software. "Giving away the razor to sell the blades." They could probably do it Nintendo's way, but they want to do it that way, and the fact that virtually everyone else does it that way would lead me to believe it's (or at least it can be) an effective strategy.
Printers and ink.
The original XBox didn't have any major hardware problems and MS still managed to lose around a billion dollars ar on it, that we know of anyway, and people say that is was a success.
Neither did the PS3 and yet Sony still managed to wipe out every bit of money that they've ever made on games, and then some. You don't need a hardware disaster to lose money.
Nintendo isn't making money right now not just because of the Wii U but also because of the 3DS. It's selling great, yeah, but the hardware costs are still up there. That's one of the reasons the 2DS was released. They're really trying to get the costs down. I doubt they're making as much as you think on the 3DS even today. As the costs drop though, they'll make more. And the cost for the Wii U is dropping too. Shouldn't be too long before it becomes profitable as well.
Currency conversion is always an issue though. Especially when you're a smaller company like Nintendo who keeps all of their resources in one country under one currency, and liquid to boot. A small shift can easily wipe out your profit margins. Which makes it even more amazing that Nintendo has seen so few losses over the years.
Microsoft had no first parties and no third party relations. They used an entrance strategy where they knew they were going to lose money initially. They are now fully entrenched in the industry and profitable.
Sony made the mistake of thinking people would pay $300 extra for a blue ray player. It was a bad plan. Bad plans can cause you to lose money, I don't see a bad plan this round.
They didn't try to lose money and I dont understand why people think Microsoft and Sony intentionally lose money other than the original Xbox. These are investor owned companies who only evaluate executives based on profit. Read their financials and you'll get an idea of how important it is for these investments to turn a profit.
Jigga what? You think the 3DS is unprofitable? You should read Iwata's quarterly comments. He clearly blames the financial struggles on the Wii U while having a 3DS love affair. He says fun comments like needing to see how the Wii U does over the holiday before deciding a long term plan for the Wii U. I'd think he'd be a little more upbeat about it if it were close to making a profit.
You don't understand currency conversion's impact on Nintendo. They keep a broad amount of cash in dollars and euros since they do business there. These get revalued back to yen and that change in value impacts Nintendo, not the money they hold as yen. The money held as yen will never have gains/loss associated with it since they report in yen.
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11
As I've said before, you really need to take a good look at those books.
Besides, Nintendo didn't have any real 1st or 3rd party relations either when they started with the NES in what everyone was calling a dead industry. Didn't stop them from posting amazing profits from day one.
What it is is their actual goals have nothing to do with games. So their games systems are really their loss leaders until they get to where they really want to get, which is entrenched in your living room and you paying them for every bit of media that flows into your home. Why else would a company like MS be willing to loose so much over so many years with no sign of a return in sight?
I never said the 3DS was unprofitable. I said that it's not making the kinds of profits that a lot of people seem to be assuming that it is. When they dropped the price they started selling at a loss, and it took them a while to make up that loss. We're now looking at 3 different 3DS versions on the market at one time ranging from $129 to $199. Nintendo is currently trying to scrape the market from both ends because it's not turning the kinds of profits that they were hoping it would by now. Hell, even Iwata himself stated that he's been disappointed with sales outside of Japan.
I understand that but Nintendo still holds most of their currency in Yen and any fluctuations in the market can still greatly impact their resources and profitability.
QuoteQuoteWhat it is is their actual goals have nothing to do with games. So their games systems are really their loss leaders until they get to where they really want to get, which is entrenched in your living room and you paying them for every bit of media that flows into your home. Why else would a company like MS be willing to loose so much over so many years with no sign of a return in sight?
That's speculative. Microsoft's biggest profits come from supporting businesses. I think dont think xbox is as unprofitable as you think and I dont think they'd be willing to support it indefinitely with losses. Apple/Amazon are their closest competitors in the cloud realm and they get by fine without dedicated gaming devices.
I think it's pretty clear that MS doesn't have the healthiest idea of what they're doing in the gaming space. Their operational mode in the last decade has been to blow massive profit from enterprise on speculative ventures attempting to leech market share from established competitors. They're blowing billions eve3ry year on Bing with no hope of ever turning that around, with no end in site. Now that Ballmer's out we might see a rethinking of this late stage capitalism "sell at a loss on make it up in volume" nonsense that only actually seems to work for Amazon.
There is no way for me or anyone to look into the books because Microsoft doesn't publish them. A fun article to generate hits but can't be proven. I think the math is a little fuzzy too. The division is on track for 1B profit. Back out 2B in royalties and you are at 1 B loss. Yet somehow xbox is responsible for 2B loss? Did the windows phone make 1 B profit?
Mehdi has said the XBO will break even on day one and tear downs support that.
But it doesn't really matter if Xbox is a failure or not. You seem to be implying that because the competitors are wrong, Nintendo is right. Nintendo is losing money and the Wii U is being rejected by the market. They are not in a good position even if their main competitors are screwing up.
Do I need to explain competition? NES had none, Xbox had strong competitors. The 2 situations are completely different. And Nintendo did have game development experience with arcades ( DK) and game and watch.
That's speculative. Microsoft's biggest profits come from supporting businesses. I think dont think xbox is as unprofitable as you think and I dont think they'd be willing to support it indefinitely with losses. Apple/Amazon are their closest competitors in the cloud realm and they get by fine without dedicated gaming devices.
Yes, Iwata was disappointed in 3DS sales in 2011. I haven't heard him say he is now. 3DS hasn't dropped in price in 2.5 years and I can't believe it isn't raking in the dough. 2DS is just a good business move and not indicative that they are unsatisfied with the 3DS.
See when you say things like that it makes me think you dont understand. If Nintendo held 100% of their cash in yen they would never be subject to currency gains/losses. Yen holdings mitigate the risk, they dont expose them to more risk.
It's fair to say they haven't gotten the results they expected. I think that's different than saying they don't care about making profits on games.
PS3 and 360 have both sold over 80 million consoles. There is no planet where you can call that a flop.
Financial statements for all companies including Nintendo's obscure a lot. How much did Nintendo make off the 3DS last year? How much on software development? How much did they make on the Wii? You can't find it. While Nintendo can't hide their overall results you won't find much in the way of detail.
NES was spectacular for sure. But the gaming crash cleaned out companies and left a void for consumers looking for games. I think it benefited them greatly that there were no competitors.
Multinational companies are open to all sorts of risk, but we were talking about a very specific risk.
You care a lot more about Sony and Microsoft than I do. They've had disappointments for sure, but they both seem to have learned a lot and I believe they will both be profitable because they are correcting issues instead of plowing ahead like Nintendo.
When Sony and MS won't even list what they made or lost on their console business, that's a problem. Breaking down the 3DS vs Wii U income and losses is absolutely nothing compared to that. At least with Nintendo you get numbers.
Or it could have failed instantly and drove Nintendo back to hanafuda cards and love hotels. Point being, EVERYONE at the time was saying the NES was going to fail. So much so that Nintendo had to promise stores that they would buy back unsold NES systems if it came to that.
Besides, again, who said there was anyone looking to buy games anymore? The fad was over. Or at least it was supposed to be.
Yeah. But Nintendo will show more of those issues than either Sony and MS who can easily play the slide of hand game and make it look like they're making a profit even when they're losing money because of all the pies they have different fingers in.
I care because they scare me. It wouldn't worry me if they weren't dragging the entire industry down this path of unsustainability.
How many developers have gone under already?
An internal Sony developer has already stated that their PS4 budgets have quadrupled from the PS3 and PS3 budgets were already out of control. I don't see that as "learn(ing) a lot" or "correcting issues". Sounds like the same old business, different system.
Pretty much I've taken to the idea that as long as Nintendo is making money things will be okay. Since the Wii proved that 3rd parties are more than willing to burn their own market down in order to be seen as one of the "big boys", I've pretty much given up on all of them.
What exactly is the point of this argument, anyway? Even if you're right that Sony and Microsoft are lying when they say their game divisions are profitable, how is that relevant to Nintendo and to us?
Missed that quote and there really is no reason to believe those budgets would have quadrupled. EA is on record as saying next gen is 4% more costly.
So things aren't okay since they aren't making money.
PS3 and 360 were sold (and are still sold) at prices that they know they aren't profiting from the hardware with. I don't know how you can call that a flop, especially when they sold over 80 million each. They didn't expect people to pay $1000 for their consoles, they are sold at their own MSRP. If you average the PS3's price at $450 over the past 7 years, that's $36 billion in revenue. If they sold, let's say, 1 million consoles, then you could call it a flop. No interest and no sales = flop. Selling 80 million systems = not a flop.
We have no idea how much money Sony and Microsoft made (or un-made) from their respective divisions. We can't make such statements based only on speculation like this. We cannot say conclusively that the Xbox and PlayStation brands were unsuccessful as a whole because we do not have every piece of information to make such judgments.
Right now however after the disaster that was once known as Windows 8 I think it's safe to say Microsoft will take what they can get from the xbone. Sure it may have lost them money compared to ten years ago but I think it's safe to say right now the xbone is all they have atm. Sony has had to have made something on the PlayStation brand overall considering the relative haywire going on with that company just hemorrhagging money on half baked ideas in their other departments (see any smartphone they made before the Xperia Z or that bid they made on 3d TV)
Sony and Microsoft make up for their hardware losses with PSN/Xbox Live subscriptions and 3rd-party royalties.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101212582 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101212582)
"Although Sony brought the PlayStation 3's costs down significantly during its lifetime, the company's intent was never to make money on the hardware, but rather to profit through sales of games and content," said Andrew Rassweiler, senior director, cost benchmarking services for IHS.
How can you call that a flop? Like I said, they did exactly what they set out to do - sell millions of consoles at their MSRP, even if it was at a loss (for a while). Doing what you plan on doing = not a flop. Not failure. Not failure. Not failure. Every extra controller, every licensed accessory, every game (especially digital) sold = profit, or at least break even to wear the PS4 is already being sold for more than it costs to build and Sony will join Nintendo in making money off of hardware sales.
...
...
So far, the Wii U's been a failure sold at a loss with few 3rd party games and very little sales on what 1st party titles Nintendo did release. Despite this, you somehow claim that the Wii U will be profitable for Nintendo next year being sold at an even greater loss, with even fewer 3rd party games, even less media coverage, and even fewer 1st party games (as far as we know).Not that I want to get in the middle of this (which has been entertaining thus far and nice to be on the outside looking in for a change), but is Wii U still sold at a loss? I was unclear over whether the Basic and Premium Sets were both sold at a loss at launch. I recall reading that the Basic Set was sold at a loss while the Premium Set was not though I'm not sure if that was ever confirmed. That wouldn't surprise me because I didn't think the Premium Set cost Nintendo $50 in raw materials. Nintendo cut the price of the Premium Set (and quietly recalled the Basic Set then repackaged it with Skylanders) about 11 months after launch. The cost of components could have dropped enough in that time for Nintendo to cut the price $50 and still turn a profit.
Unless Nintendo can bring down the cost of producing the albatross that is the GamePad...Raw materials were estimated at a little less than $80 at launch. It's probably less than that now. How much does Nintendo have to bring down the cost?
The guy making baseless claims about Sony and Microsoft's business practices announced he's never coming back because of two very slight, somewhat playful insults. Where's broodwars to come in here and post that clip from The Critic?
......
Here's are a couple of links form Wikipedia that you two might find interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory)
Sorry there aren't any pictures.
Don't respond because I won't be back to read it.
Ever.
The guy making baseless claims about Sony and Microsoft's business practices announced he's never coming back because of two very slight, somewhat playful insults. Where's broodwars to come in here and post that clip from The Critic?
Ask and ye shall receive.
......
Here's are a couple of links form Wikipedia that you two might find interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory)
Sorry there aren't any pictures.
Don't respond because I won't be back to read it.
Ever.
*sheathes his hidden blades*
Ti ho dato un giorno intero per fare un pazzo di te. Lo strumento della tua scomparsa è stata una delle vostra creazione. Requiescat in pace.
(I gave you an entire day to make a fool of yourself. The instrument of your demise was one of your own making. Rest in peace.)
The guy making baseless claims about Sony and Microsoft's business practices announced he's never coming back because of two very slight, somewhat playful insults. Where's broodwars to come in here and post that clip from The Critic?
Ask and ye shall receive.
......
Here's are a couple of links form Wikipedia that you two might find interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory)
Sorry there aren't any pictures.
Don't respond because I won't be back to read it.
Ever.
*sheathes his hidden blades*
Ti ho dato un giorno intero per fare un pazzo di te. Lo strumento della tua scomparsa è stata una delle vostra creazione. Requiescat in pace.
(I gave you an entire day to make a fool of yourself. The instrument of your demise was one of your own making. Rest in peace.)
Are you Italian? Or did you just Google Translate it like I did?
