Wii-U thoughts so far

[EvilRyu2099]

Is this possible in the future?




A lot of people feel like Iwata put them in this predicament..

[Zing]

I'm only upset because if a new console does happen to roll around by 2015 I'll have spent a good deal of money and time on a system with no staying power. I've got 16 games on that shelf today.

Sixteen playable games is considered disappointing? That's probably the total number I have played on the original gameboy over the entire course of my life. I have nine games for the Wii and I consider that system to be one of the best values in gaming, ever. I originally owned only six games for the PlayStation, and rented about as many. Sixteen games worth owning after only a year seems no reason to be upset.

edit: I just noticed that someone said the quality of Wonderful 101 and Lego City is "debatable". I am at a loss for words.

[BoringSupreez]

Yeesh, I didn't realize criticizing Wii U titles was such a crime.

I guess that's what happens when there's so few.

But let's assume Wonderful 101 and Lego City are in fact great games rather than merely decent, as some of you obviously consider them to be. There's still something wrong with the U's current lineup, because it is not selling.

I didn't drop $350 for this. If ZeroAX and Zing are happy with the Wii U, good for you guys. It just so happens I was expecting a bit more, and I know Nintendo and their stockholders were expecting far more.

[Zing]

I paid $550 for a PlayStation, extra controller, memory card, and two games back in 1995. I just calculated, and I've paid about as much for the Wii U and seven great games. Plus, I can use it to play my Wii games. Even if there were zero additional games released for the Wii U, it was a fine value.

[BoringSupreez]

I paid $550 for a PlayStation, extra controller, memory card, and two games back in 1995. I just calculated, and I've paid about as much for the Wii U and seven great games. Plus, I can use it to play my Wii games. Even if there were zero additional games released for the Wii U, it was a fine value.

Well we obviously have very different views on how much entertainment should cost.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Well we obviously have very different views on how much entertainment should cost.

Seriously, I like the Wii U but I wouldn't call it an amazing value for the money.

I'm only upset because if a new console does happen to roll around by 2015 I'll have spent a good deal of money and time on a system with no staying power. I've got 16 games on that shelf today.

Sixteen playable games is considered disappointing?

When you expect your system to last 5 or so years and the majority of those titles are actually multiplatform games, yes; and now it will possibly only be getting two wortwhile games a year, so yes I think that is rather disappointing.

[BoneSnapDeez]

I'm only upset because if a new console does happen to roll around by 2015 I'll have spent a good deal of money and time on a system with no staying power. I've got 16 games on that shelf today.

Sixteen playable games is considered disappointing? That's probably the total number I have played on the original gameboy over the entire course of my life. I have nine games for the Wii and I consider that system to be one of the best values in gaming, ever. I originally owned only six games for the PlayStation, and rented about as many. Sixteen games worth owning after only a year seems no reason to be upset.

Yup. Personally speaking I think the Wii U line-up is fantastic. Lots of great stuff on the horizon too.

The fact that the Wii U is failing is something of a testament to how out-of-touch I am with modern gaming. To see people ignore the Wii U but line up in droves for a $400/$500 console with pitiful launch titles makes my head spin.

[Retrogamer0001]

I guess this is pretty similar to the disappointment many Dreamcast owners were probably feeling.

It's similar, I guess. Apart from the Dreamcast had loads of amazing games and the second Sega announced hardware production was ending, those amazing games were being sold off for next to nothing. The Dreamcast is kind of an anomaly in gaming history, since it failed and production ceased within less than 2 years of its launch, yet it had amazing games and great third party support (yeah, no EA, but lots from Capcom, for example).

The Wii U's amazing games, on the other hand, I can count on my fingers and toes and I own them all. Oh well, I guess have the millionth iterations of Mario Kart and Smash Bros to look forward to...

All Wii U's best games that are not ports from other consoles are Pikmin 3, Wind Waker HD, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, New Super Mario Bros. U, and Super Mario World. That's it. Two Marios, a re-release of an old Zelda, and new entries in two franchises that have never been much of a big deal. The rest of the U's games are either tardy ports of 360/PS3 titles, or the overall quality is debatable (Wonderful 101, Lego City Undercover). Far from enough to convince most people to drop $300 on a new Nintendo.

This is probably more similar to how US Saturn owners felt than DC. Oh and on the topic of DC, last time EA decided to shun a major console it was dead within two years.

I would personally add Zombi-U and Tank, Tank, Tank to the list of quality games for the system. Btw, Bone, how dare you criticize the launch line-up for the PS4/XB1! Don't you know you're not supposed to do that around here? Those line-ups are "great", seriously, seriously "great", some of the best ever, along with the awesome value for the systems themselves...

[RCBH928]

Here are some news for you : Nintendo 'studying' mobile devices in wake of bleak hardware sales forecast

This is what I have talked about earlier on in the forums, where NIntendo should probably move into the mobile phone business. There are only 2 major competitors in that market and there is a room for a third and Nintendo already does the portable small devices very well.

I am surprised more and more people on this forum are now supporting my point of view on the direction Nintendo is taking.

I would definitely buy a Nintendo console that is made to compete with the PS4/X1 level , with 1 controller (not a zillion accessories), even if it has few unique but great games like N64 did. They either can do that or just play low-profile this generation. If I was Nintendo, I would either quit the hardware business or spend the next 3 years building a great console with 4 or 5 system selling games (Killer App) and just early launch the next generation.



@BoneSnapDeez

They are buying it on the future of great games that are going to be released . PS3 launch games sucked, but people got the console for the MGS4, GTA 4, and GT5 that were going to be released in the future. What future games are coming for the Wii U? Mario Party 23?

Bad news for Nintendo and especially Wii U fans today guys. 2014 is going to be a rough year, and I expect some major changes at Nintendo. What those changes will be? We'll have to see, 3 consecutive years operating at a loss and cutting sales projections 70% are bound to create some change.

Where are all the billions they made off the Wii? Unless they gave it back to the shareholders, I do not see any big investments that Nintendo made to lose that cash.

The Dreamcast is kind of an anomaly in gaming history, since it failed and production ceased within less than 2 years of its launch, yet it had amazing games and great third party support (yeah, no EA, but lots from Capcom, for example).

The Wii U's amazing games, on the other hand, I can count on my fingers and toes and I own them all. Oh well, I guess have the millionth iterations of Mario Kart and Smash Bros to look forward to...

I do not understand this either, for a console that has been on the market for about 2 years with relatively weak sales (Similar to Wii U, 5m a year? ) the Dreamcast has one amazing library and some great support. My only guess is back in the late 90's every few months there was some new crazy technology and everyone just jumps to the next faster more powerful thing.

You are. Nintendo's proprietary cartridges were significantly more expensive per unit than the the standardised and cheaper to develop CD format. We're talking exponential rates.

Sorry I confused you, I meant it was cheaper to build the console that reads cartridges than build a laser based console. Not the actual game formats, i am very aware that cartridges are more expensive than a CD which is sold now days for like a quarter of a dollar .

or the overall quality is debatable (Wonderful 101, Lego City Undercover).

I'm sorry, but what makes the quality of those games debatable? The fact that the gaming press with its homogeneous taste/scoring methods didn't give them perfect scores?

Cause in my opinion those games are much better and more creative (ofc this is more true of W101) than most of the "game of the year, bland shooter 2013 edition" crap that gets high marks.

That's why I said the quality of those games is debatable. Some, like you, enjoyed them. Others didn't.

nice comeback

[ZeroAX]

@ZeroAX

I agree with you on where the market is heading but I think there are 2 things I think you might not be right about.

1) You say that PC and Android is the future, I understand the PC but I doubt the Android part. From my online readings the Android tablet market is very very weak. As for the smartphone market reports are saying that developers make a lot less money on Android than they do on iOS. I think the Android phones are heavily hacked and many just get their stuff pirated . If you are implying that Android will move into many different devices like Ouya, TVs, hand-helds I see where you are going with that but the defragment model has failed in the past. You know as well I do making a game for the hand-held is very different than for the console.

I think its more likely to be a PC and iOS in the future. Btw , I play on my iOS devices and I see no reason why they cant play games just as good or better than say a PS Vita or a 3DS . In fact I think those games already exist and the only issue that remains is the physical buttons and many games can play just as good without them like World of Goo, Plants vs Zombies, Point and Click, and Limbo. There are even games out there that look like they are best controlled with a touch screen like The Room and Angry Birds.

2) I think you are correct about consoles turning into Linux boxes but it won't be Playstation and Nintendo branding I think it will be Playstation and Xbox branding. Sony and Microsoft are way bigger with a lot of leverage in film and music industry which Nintendo lacks. I think its a matter of time that Nintendo will turn into a software company like Sega then everyone can play Zelda and Mario on their iPhones and Xboxes.

1)Android is not weak. The piracy rate is crazy, but so is the Chinese software market, yet everyone wants to get in. Simply put when you have such a huge install base piracy doesn't matter. You will make a lot more money by grabbing a smaller % of the market. Not to mention the alternative revenue streams (advertising, DLC, micro-transactions ect.)

I'm sorry but you just stated the problem with smartphone/tablet gaming yet you don't recognize it at the same time. It's not that the 3DS is more powerful that smartphones. My 2010 smartphone was more powerful than the 3DS. But it didn't have a large screen, and most of all, it doesn't have a decent method to control a game. Not having buttons is not something you can just brush aside as a small issue. The game experiences smartphones can deliver are limited by the nature of their platform. You're not going to play an epic storyline game on a smartphone, cause you take it out to play while you are waiting for the bus/doctor's appointment/your date to come back from the bathroom. A handheld on the other hand is something you will pack in your bag for a long bus ride, plane trip ect. (of course people will have different experiences on this subject, but this is how I see it)

2) To gamers the xbox seems like a really successful product. In reality, it's not. It's a complete failure. Even though they made a bit of profit the past 3-4 years, it's nowhere near enough to make up for the HUGE loses they took with the original xbox, and developing the 360 and xbone.

Not to mention the wasted capital. You see investors don't care about something just being barely profitable. They are going to ask why were so many billions wasted on gaining a foothold in a market which brings back so little profit, when google and apple conquered so many new markets which brought them such huge profits.

Microsoft took a bet back in 2001 that the future of entertainment is through a box under the telly. It was a bet which they completely lost. The future of entertainment is in personal mobile devices. Nintendo and Valve can make niche gaming machines cause that is their expertise and main market. Games. Sony's gaming machine has been so profitable for them and they have such a strong foothold in the market, that it's worth the investment to keep at it.

Microsoft on the other hand doesn't have a reason to stay in it. It won't help them in their fight against google, and it doesn't develop brand loyalty which led to Apple's huge profit (not to mention the amazing innovations in smartphones and the re-invention of tablets).

If there is one of the big 3 who makes the biggest sense to bow out from the console market, it's microsoft. I don't think the xbox will go away mind you, but the board of directors might want to sell away the xbox branch of the company. It has really just wasted their capital and time.