Wii-U thoughts so far

[dsheinem]

I thought this response piece to the common complaints against the WiiU was pretty fair.

http://placetobenation.com/things-fall- ... -the-west/

A lot of good points, especially the part about there not being a game worth owning on the PS4/Xbone at this point in time, yet people are still shelling out for them despite the fact that the Wii-U actually does have some decent titles. Zombi-U, Pikmin 3, and the new Mario come to mind. I still personally consider all this negatively surrounding the console to be overblown and something that will likely disappear in a year or two.

Ignoring the mountain of logical fallacies in this article, there are a few specific things that he's just dead wrong about:

-With the exception of the Wii, no drastically underpowered console has ever won a generation. Yes plenty of systems that were somewhat less powerful have won or been competitive, but with the Wii U and Wii you have hardware that is clearly closer to that of their competitors from the previous generation. That isn't the case with the other comparisons that the author makes.

-His claim that "Everything released for the PS4 and XboxOne thus far (Killzone: Shadow Fall and Call of Duty: Ghosts for example) are essentially upscaled PS3 and Xbox360 games" is just wrong. The graphics work in Shadow Fall and games like Ryse, NBA 2K14, Killer Instinct, and a few others are clearly above and beyond what we saw last generation. Of course games in every generation start out much closer to what came before, and that's no different on the XB1/PS4, but if he thinks they are "essentially upscaled" ports he's factually incorrect.

-He gets so close to understanding Nintendo's third party woes but still misses the boat. Ports of successful third party games sell poorly on Wii/Wii U because they are necessarily downgraded/B-team ports. It's that simple. He laments "Besides hardware compatibility and the rise of digital distribution, the number of ports between PC and console games is unprecedented! Companies need to make dat money..." and should thus port more carefully to Nintendo. It's just not economically advisable or technologically feasible to design a game for the PC/PS3/360 or (now PC/PS4/XB1) and have them all share the same assets and architecture as the Wii/Wii U port. People know that the Nintendo version of a cross platform is going to be far worse in almost every way measurable (graphics, online infrastructure, shoehorned control schemes, etc.) and smartly avoid them. The Wii indeed has many niche third party exclusives that are excellent, but they usually didn't sell well and aren't really worth the risk at all on the Wii U if there's no install base.


That said, I agree with his conclusion for the most part that "Nintendo is becoming…niche" and that this is a problem for the company's long term console business success. But he can't merely chalk that up to them creating/publishing games that aren't violent, that rely on the same IPs, or that rely on unique hardware. The other arguments that he dismisses about raw power and third party support are at least just as significant (if not more so) than the specific focus on games made by Nintendo itself.

[Retrogamer0001]

Ignoring the mountain of logical fallacies in this article, there are a few specific things that he's just dead wrong about:

-With the exception of the Wii, no drastically underpowered console has ever won a generation. Yes plenty of systems that were somewhat less powerful have won or been competitive, but with the Wii U and Wii you have hardware that is clearly closer to that of their competitors from the previous generation. That isn't the case with the other comparisons that the author makes.

I think that the definition of "success" in regards to a console "winning a generation" is extremely defined by perspective - from a company/stockholder standpoint, turning out enough hardware/software to make a profit is largely considered success, not simply "beating" another company in terms of numbers. From a consumer standpoint, it would be fair to assume success is a large number of relevant, enjoyable games and a company that supports its hardware. As long as these two things are achieved, this could be considered success for both parties. Nintendo has nearly always accomplished these two things.

-His claim that "Everything released for the PS4 and XboxOne thus far (Killzone: Shadow Fall and Call of Duty: Ghosts for example) are essentially upscaled PS3 and Xbox360 games" is just wrong. The graphics work in Shadow Fall and games like Ryse, NBA 2K14, Killer Instinct, and a few others are clearly above and beyond what we saw last generation.

I disagree with you. I've played a lot of these games and was not moved by either the graphics or the gameplay. I understand that the start of a generation is very similar to the end of the last one, but in this case, there seems to be very little difference aside from some small bits of graphical detail. Many titles are also being released on the last generation consoles are well as the new ones, such as Titanfall, so the idea that the PS4/Xbone games are somehow different than last gen is simply untrue.

-He gets so close to understanding Nintendo's third party woes but still misses the boat. Ports of successful third party games sell poorly on Wii/Wii U because they are necessarily downgraded/B-team ports. It's that simple. He laments "Besides hardware compatibility and the rise of digital distribution, the number of ports between PC and console games is unprecedented! Companies need to make dat money..." and should thus port more carefully to Nintendo. It's just not economically advisable or technologically feasible to design a game for the PC/PS3/360 or (now PC/PS4/XB1) and have them all share the same assets and architecture as the Wii/Wii U port. People know that the Nintendo version of a cross platform is going to be far worse in almost every way measurable (graphics, online infrastructure, shoehorned control schemes, etc.) and smartly avoid them. The Wii indeed has many niche third party exclusives that are excellent, but they usually didn't sell well and aren't really worth the risk at all on the Wii U if there's no install base.

I would agree with this, though I also believe porting "old new" games to an eighth generation console is a pointless pursuit - see Tomb Raider and Batman Origins. I don't believe the gaming public has asked for these 360/PS3 ports to the Wii-U and it's no surprise that developers are shying away from them for reasons you already stated. For the most part, they're simply another way for developers to double-dip with their titles.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Nintendo's biggest and only flaw that I see is that their system forces companies to make original and exclusive content on their console. There is a hardware gap and companies are not willing to divert resources to create downgraded ported content, or create new content, based on poor sales of ports.

Also, the Nintendo hardware and software provided on the Wii U creates an issue for many companies, as they may not understand how to utilize the Mii-Verse, or the gamepad in fun and unique ways. I have always been under the impression that mainstream game companies want to tow the line as far as game design. Even worse is that the modern consumer wants the same thing.

You can see it in the sales. Games that utilize the game pad and the miiverse in all of it's glory have poor sales. Zombie U didn't breach a million in game sales. Wonderful 101 barely even breached 100,000 copies sold and even a Nintendo franchise people have been clamoring for, Pikmin 3, didn't even sell 1 million copies worldwide.

People do not want those games, but why?

[Xeogred]

Marketing would also help. I didn't really know Pikmin 3 existed.

Wonderful 101 hit shelves like a ghost.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Marketing would also help. I didn't really know Pikmin 3 existed.

Wonderful 101 hit shelves like a ghost.

I felt like they really were pushing wonderful 101 a lot, unlike Pikmin 3 which they didn't have nearly as much of a focus on. It is a shame, both games are amazing for completely different reasons.

[SpaceBooger]

-He gets so close to understanding Nintendo's third party woes but still misses the boat. Ports of successful third party games sell poorly on Wii/Wii U because they are necessarily downgraded/B-team ports. It's that simple.

DS - I agree and disagree with you. I enjoyed the article and agree with the main points the author is making even though his facts may be slightly off.

I do agree that the ports are poorly done and needed, but they don't have to be downgrades. I understand that the hardware is different, but a port doesn't have to be a different game or done with less effort - it should be ported to each system's strengths. The fact that the ports are done so poorly on recent Nintendo systems proves that a quality game is not important to the publisher and they are just trying to ride the cash coattails of the ported game, which leads into my next point.

I think the niche part referred to in the article is dead on. I bought my WiiU to play games - Nintendo games. I did not buy a PS4 because of my PS3 backlog, and more importantly, most new games I can play on my PC. Most, or many, of the PS4/XBone games are, and will be, ported to the PC and the same can not be said for Nintendo's games.

I personally see the WiiU as a "real (real in the traditional sense not physically real) game console" that is purchased to play specific games. The others are too similar, less unique and play most of the same games.

[BoneSnapDeez]

I personally see the WiiU as a "real (real in the traditional sense not physically real) game console" that is purchased to play specific games. The others are too similar, less unique and play most of the same games.

This is essentially why I'll be getting a Wii U, but not the PlayBone. Wii U is a game console, the others are PCs with limited functionality. I'm sure I'll miss out on some quality titles (maybe the Xbone will get some great shmups, and the PS4 could become a JRPG powerhouse) but a Wii U + my backlog will keep me busy for years to come.

[dunpeal2064]

maybe the Xbone will get some great shmups

God I hope not.

[RCBH928]

I think for a console manufacturer that sold 100m+ units last generation, its a bit too early too call it niche yet. Also, as the numbers reported prove, many of the Nintendo games like Mario Kart sold many million units so is that niche?

Ouya is niche, Raspberry Pi is niche, maybe Catherine for PS3 is niche but not Mario Kart.

If you mean by niche that its a console that plays only Nintendo games, well then sure, I guess it is but no previous Nintendo console did that all previous Nintendo consoles had great non-Mario games.

Nintendo's biggest and only flaw that I see is that their system forces companies to make original and exclusive content on their console. There is a hardware gap and companies are not willing to divert resources to create downgraded ported content, or create new content, based on poor sales of ports.

How would you suggest Nintendo would differentiate itself from the competition and give a reason to buy its console then? I do not have the answer, but if for example I will get the same Call of Duty on PS3, XboxOne, Wii U then what would make me buy one or the other console?

[BogusMeatFactory]

Nintendo's biggest and only flaw that I see is that their system forces companies to make original and exclusive content on their console. There is a hardware gap and companies are not willing to divert resources to create downgraded ported content, or create new content, based on poor sales of ports.

How would you suggest Nintendo would differentiate itself from the competition and give a reason to buy its console then? I do not have the answer, but if for example I will get the same Call of Duty on PS3, XboxOne, Wii U then what would make me buy one or the other console?

I agree..It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.