Topic: Wii U in Review (News & Rumor Consolidation)

[BranDonk Kong]

But not consistently. I'd rather have constant frame rate than the risk of dips if the system can't handle it.

The 3-4Mbps that it typically streams at is also enough for h.264 (which it uses) 720p video.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Haven't you all learned that Nintendo doesn't care about what the hardware is actually capable
of and pushing for that, they are more concerned with the lowest acceptable performance and locking it there.
that's their comfort zone, we just refuse to accept that.

[BranDonk Kong]

I don't even think it's that big of a deal to be honest. Sure the Gamepad screen could look better, but it still looks pretty damn good.

[tendoboy1984]

Batman Arkham Origins proves that Wii U games can have good graphics if developers actually put effort into their titles. Arkham Origins looks amazing on the TV and even better on the GamePad.

It seems that WB Games, Activision, and (especially) Ubisoft all have faith in Nintendo. Their Wii U games are on par with their Xbox 360 / PS3 counterparts. Who needs EA or Bethesda?

[BranDonk Kong]

WB Games, Activision, and Ubisoft.

[tendoboy1984]

Well Ubisoft has always had good things to say about Nintendo. Activision supports Nintendo with their Call of Duty and Skylanders franchises. WB Games put their various LEGO games on Nintendo platforms, and the Wii U got very good ports of the last two Batman Arkham games.

[BranDonk Kong]

Right, and those companies need EA to support Wii U as well.

[tendoboy1984]

I just found something cool. When a game is playing on the TV, you can stream the audio through headphones connected to the GamePad. It worked for Batman Arkham Origins; do all Wii U games have this feature?

[tendoboy1984]

Speaking of Batman Arkham Origins... God damn it Deathstroke / Slade is hard as ****. I can never get the timing of Batman's counterattack right, and Slade attacks so viciously that it's difficult to judge his movements.

[broodwars]

Speaking of Batman Arkham Origins... God damn it Deathstroke / Slade is hard as ****. I can never get the timing of Batman's counterattack right, and Slade attacks so viciously that it's difficult to judge his movements.

Pfft. Lightweight. Deathstroke's weak against his own weapon: the grapple. You keep grappling him in and following it up with a combo (and occasional Special), and he goes down very easily. You just have to watch carefully for Deathstroke's counters.

*points to the Trophy he got on the PS3 version for not getting hit at all during the Deathstroke battle.*

[Adrock]

Haven't you all learned that Nintendo doesn't care about what the hardware is actually capable of and pushing for that, they are more concerned with the lowest acceptable performance and locking it there. that's their comfort zone, we just refuse to accept that.

Apparently not. What are considering acceptable? I think Nintendo is more concerned with performance vs. cost. They could aim lower if aiming low was strictly what they were doing. If Nintendo could get better performance without increasing cost, they absolutely would. We all want the best hardware available. It's just that someone has to pay for it and no one really wants to.

We should all know the pros and cons of better performance because it's been discussed to death on these forums. People act like Nintendo is just fucking with them or that they lack self-awareness. Nintendo isn't clueless though. They build their hardware for their software. Some may not like that, but that's the way it's always been. They don't really give a **** about how their hardware affects other companies' games. Maybe they should, but they don't and never did. If Nintendo ever decides to, well, they have a lot more than hardware performance to consider.

[Ceric]

After hearing how Debugging works for the Wii U... Nintendo must have Sadists as there Software developer.  Their are few things that are more annoying as a developer then it take longer to push code then it does to Compile and make the change.

[rlse9]

It's just that someone has to pay for it and no one really wants to.

I think that consumers have shown that they're willing to pay for a more powerful product.  Look at how many PS4s have sold already, and to a slightly lesser extent the X-Box One.  Outside of games, look at how insanely successful the iPad, iPhone, Galaxy phones, etc. all are.  The problem with the Wii U wasn't that the price was so expensive, it was that it was so expensive for what it was.

I like the Gamepad and think it's a great idea but the quality is just not that good in my opinion.  For navigating menus and the eShop and all of that, it works wonderful but it's hard to look at the screen and want to play a game on it when it looks so blurry in comparison to what the game looks like on my 1080p TV.

I wonder how many Wii Us would need to sell to bring back EA.  It's a shame they didn't release a Tiger Woods game for the Wii U, the Tiger Woods series was possibly the best use if the Wiimote on the Wii.

[BranDonk Kong]

The Gamepad works well for the shop, but I hate that you have to use it.

[Adrock]

I think that consumers have shown that they're willing to pay for a more powerful product.  Look at how many PS4s have sold already, and to a slightly lesser extent the X-Box One.  Outside of games, look at how insanely successful the iPad, iPhone, Galaxy phones, etc. all are.  The problem with the Wii U wasn't that the price was so expensive, it was that it was so expensive for what it was.

Are consumers willing to pay for what more powerful hardware should actually cost? Even Sony and Microsoft don't believe that which is why they shoulder the losses to sell at a more attractive price. Nintendo strongly prefers not to sell hardware at a loss and despite taking a loss in the past, they have certainly never gone anywhere near the losses of Sony and Microsoft per unit. At $350, they were taking a smaller loss than Sony is at $400. If Nintendo sold PS4 level hardware in 2012 with their usual margins, Wii U would probably have been like $700. It's easy to say that Nintendo should take on the responsibility of those hardware losses, but for a company that has never done so, we should all stop expecting them to.

[Ceric]

It looks that Sony right this second is making $18 per PS4 on the raw hardware so once they pay off R&D and Marketing they should make a profit off of Hardware sales.

[ShyGuy]

I tried to get this thread back to news and rumors, I tried...

[Adrock]

It looks that Sony right this second is making $18 per PS4 on the raw hardware so once they pay off R&D and Marketing they should make a profit off of Hardware sales.

Sure, as long as Sony convinces someone to manufacture it for free.

I tried to get this thread back to news and rumors, I tried...

[Ceric]

It looks that Sony right this second is making $18 per PS4 on the raw hardware so once they pay off R&D and Marketing they should make a profit off of Hardware sales.

I'm pretty sure it costs less than $18 to Assemble and ship per unit.

[BranDonk Kong]

It looks that Sony right this second is making $18 per PS4 on the raw hardware so once they pay off R&D and Marketing they should make a profit off of Hardware sales.

I'm pretty sure it costs less than $18 to Assemble and ship per unit.

Probably not.

[Ian Sane]

I think the hardware thing is as simple as the competition offers this one level of hardware and Nintendo is offering something that compares more to what the competition just replaced.  You can argue about Nintendo not wanting to take a loss or not being able to afford the better hardware but from a consumer perspective that's just an excuse.  All that matters to a consumer is that he goes to the store and sees the PS4 for $400 and sees the Wii U, which compares more to the PS3 for only $100 less and $100 more than the starting price range for the now outdated PS3.  That's just the reality of it: Nintendo releasing a 2006 console in 2012 and matching it up against a 2013 console.

You can argue that Nintendo makes consoles solely for their own games or that something cutting edge would be against Nintendo's core values (circa 2006) but it has NEVER been about what Nintendo wants.  Nintendo doesn't buy the systems or the games.  The consumer doesn't want to pay $100 premium for last gen hardware with a fancy controller and they're demonstrating that by not buying Wii U's, all while grabbing every PS4 to come out of the factory.  That's reality and if Nintendo can't provide something like that, then they can't compete in the console market anymore because that is what the consumer expects.  And if they just don't want to because it isn't what they want to do, well, designing their consoles for their own personal preferences and not what the general public actually wants is pretty much the whole reason they've had console market problems since the N64.

Hell, I just look at how the NES, SNES, N64 and Gamecube all came across as contemporary console hardware that compared well to the competition.  The Wii didn't and I felt it was a rip-off as a result and I'm not going to buy something like that again and that's a big reason why I don't have a Wii U.  You can argue that from Nintendo's perspective things didn't change but that's behind-the-scenes internal company stuff.  From my perspective, as a consumer, it looks like Nintendo used to release consoles with up-to-date current hardware and now they don't.  Maybe Sony and MS raised the bar beyond Nintendo's comfort zone but the consumer never saw the previous consoles as "the best hardware Nintendo is willing to release" but rather "hardware that competes with the other consoles of the time".  Ignore the internal corporate policy stuff because that's just making excuses.  What perceived product is released to the consumer?

[Adrock]

Ignore the internal corporate policy stuff because that's just making excuses.

What? No. That's the entire point.

What I want (ideally) as a consumer is markedly different than what I understand and accept of Nintendo's business practices. I want everything, cheap or free. However, I realize that's not possible and no amount of Internet bitching is going to change that. Referring back to BlackNMild's post, I have no delusions over what I'm getting when I buy Nintendo hardware and at this point, no one should. Your displeasure essentially boils down to "Why can't Nintendo be not-Nintendo?" which, quite frankly, is ridiculous. A consumer's greatest asset is the ability to say no which you have by not buying Wii U. You don't seem to understand that everyone else who purchased Wii U here is probably fairly content with that decision.

The difference between you and most of us here at NWR is that you insist on repeatedly registering your distaste for certain (and the seemingly vast majority of) Nintendo things. We are aware of the negatives. Like you, we weighed our options and decided to buy or not buy Wii U. Unlike you, we accept Wii U for what it is rather than repeatedly railing against what it isn't.

[BlackNMild2k1]

What the Wii u is, is a good idea that wasn't fully followed through.
My complaints are mostly from execution of software, not power of the hardware.
I don't really care about the graphics, they are good enough for me.
I harp on the usefulness of the software presented. It's like they had great ideas but were to afraid to fully execute them and settled at "good enough".

I don't know if it's budgets, or politics or patents that ultimately get in the way, but most of the non gaming features are lacking. It could be from disinterest, lack of resources, or because they aren't the focus of the system, but looking at sales I can't be the only one wanting more from my Wii U.
Times have changed and I would love for Nintendo to change a little with them.


Edit: and it seems Iwata might agree with me

"We cannot continue a business without winning," Iwata said on Friday during a press conference attended by Bloomberg. "We must take a sceptical approach whether we can still simply make game players, offer them in the same way as in the past for 20,000 yen or 30,000 yen, and sell titles for a couple of thousand yen each.

"We are thinking about a new business structure," Iwata added. "Given the expansion of smart devices, we are naturally studying how smart devices can be used to grow the game-player business. It's not as simple as enabling Mario to move on a smartphone."

I read that as expanding what the box under the TV is capable of, it had to be more than a game player, it has to be an entertainment box, a smart entertainment box. I've put forth quite a few idea already on how they could do that, but there is no need for me to reiterate all that here.

[Ian Sane]

Your displeasure essentially boils down to "Why can't Nintendo be not-Nintendo?" which, quite frankly, is ridiculous.

I want Nintendo to not be like Nintendo in regards to the things they suck at and be like Nintendo in the regards to what they're good at.  Nintendo has always had a very wonky approach to online gaming.  So if they made it better would that be not-Nintendo?  And if it is, is that bad?  Nintendo is really good at making games, when they're not shoehorning in a goofy control scheme.  So I don't want Nintendo to change that.  That's something that's part of Nintendo's identity that's a good thing.  Nintendo used to make consoles that were technologically comparable to the competition and, while I explained that there could be a difference in the consumer and internal perspective, it isn't something they do anymore.  So I would argue that the whole approach to the Wii and Wii U is non-Nintendo.  They took something they used to do well and fucked it up and I'm asking merely that they switch back.  Same with controls.  Nintendo used to have very responsive tight controls so the loosely goosey waggle **** we often got with the Wii was, to me, non-Nintendo so I am asking for it go back.  To me Iwata-era Nintendo is a compromise of what Nintendo used to be.  They haven't improved the things they suck at and have hurt some of the things they used to be great at.  So I ask that Nintendo become great at those things again and become great at the things they've always sucked at.  The whole reason anyone is a Nintendo fan is because of what Nintendo is good at.  Their pros are the TRUE nature of Nintendo and everything else can be changed.

If an individual changed the negative aspects of their personality while keeping the good would they be compromising who they are?  No, it's called self-improvement.  Any company can do the same thing and maintain the important elements of their identity.

[Adrock]

What the Wii u is, is a good idea that wasn't fully followed through.
My complaints are mostly from execution of software, not power of the hardware.
I don't really care about the graphics, they are good enough for me.
I harp on the usefulness of the software presented. It's like they had great ideas but were to afraid to fully execute them and settled at "good enough".

That's pretty much how I feel. I don't doubt Nintendo's ability to make excellent games regardless of hardware power which is why I'm okay on that end. When it comes to the GamePad itself, they didn't fully commit to the idea that it could be a game-changer. It's like they were flat-out fucking flabbergasted when people asked if more than one could be used. When it comes to actual gameplay concepts using the GamePad, I still think they have great ideas, but they have an ehh-we'll-get-around-to-it attitude. There's no time like the present. Get on that.

I want Nintendo to not be like Nintendo in regards to the things they suck at and be like Nintendo in the regards to what they're good at.

That's everyone. We all want this. We just don't bring it into every thread and continue beating that horse's corpse. You have already sent Nintendo the only message that matters to them: not buying their console. The rest of your post is just same **** you keep regurgitating in every thread. Point taken. We've heard it before. So you either have anterograde amnesia or you just refuse to accept the fact that this is the way things are. Mind you, I'm not saying you have to be happy about it. Your incessant complaining is just not accomplishing anything, mostly because it's addressed to the wrong group of people.