Nintendo Wii U

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Who are Ubisoft to complain? They had Rayman finished and ready for February and pushed it back until it releases on PS3 and XBox 360 as well. Otherwise, they could complain, but with that, I don't have sympathy for them.

They pushed Rayman back precisely because ZombiU didn't even break even. Why would they release a game exclusively for a system where you don't even expect to cover your development costs? The WiiU is flopping hard and you can't expect third-parties to just be nice guys and release for the system. They aren't running charities.

[GrimJack]

I would buy a wii u if they would bring DragonQuest X to North America and I have never bought a Nintendo home console before hint hint

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Dextro

The WiiU is flopping hard and you can't expect third-parties to just be nice guys and release for the system. They aren't running charities.

True but the problem is on both ends of the spectrum. Nintendo launched a poorly marketed system and one that is underpowered compared to its soon to launch competition. It still has not successfully sold the public on the touch screen, its defining feature, nor has it produced any compelling software to draw people in. And after E3, this is even truer, even if the games do look fun.

On the other hand, third parties have little reason to complain about their fortunes on Nintendo systems. They haven't (with a few exceptions) seriously supported a Nintendo system since the Gamecube, arguably. To find strong third party support that wasn't just shovelware, you'd have to go back to the Super Nintendo. And that was mostly because Nintendo was the top dog, at the time.

But if we just look at the Wii, the DS, and 3DS, we can see that developers have shifted toward the West and have embraced Sony and Microsoft even if it meant their own demise. The notion that only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems is false, the truth is that many third parties have either passed on or offered poor support.

Just look at the Wii: The Wall of Shame. This chart was made back in 2010, but it captures the bulk of the third party efforts given toward the Wii.

What would make any third party developer think that they'd just snap up big sales now that the Wii U was out? The gaming audience has basically been trained to think that most of their stuff on Nintendo was shit, and that the "real" games are on the PS and Xbox. And in many cases, they're completely right. No one asked for a Dead Space rail shooter, a Soul Caliber adventure game, or a Castlevania fighting game, among other "wtf" ideas.

And it's true that the system was woefully underpowered compared to those two, and the standard controllers were different. But the system supported multiple controller configurations; you didn't have to use motion controls. And despite being underpowered, you could deliver great games for the system, especially if you built it from the ground up.

But this is an industry were companies were spending huge amounts of dollars making AAA games and going bankrupt for it. Releasing sequel after sequel even if the sales weren't there. And pushing things like DLC and Online Passes even when customers despised it. That's the ecosystem built on the the HD twins: go AAA or go home. Many studios risked everything and lost hoping to be the next big thing, and "B" grade titles vanished. If it weren't for the rise of "indie" games, nothing would exist beyond overly budgeted, focus tested, aggressively marketed titles. Imagine if the only movies that Hollywood made were Summer blockbusters, and you get the idea.

So yeah, I can sympathize with consumers and third parties baffled by Nintendo's decisions. I can also sympathize with Nintendo's bafflement with an industry seemingly focused on spending itself out of existence. This last generation, one of the few winners was Nintendo, who gimmick or not, managed to rake in billions while its competitors "won" the generation but did so by losing billions and damaging their companies.

Is it any wonder why they chose that path again? You can't win an arms race with companies determined to spend "whatever it takes" to win, even going bankrupt, and you can't always win with gimmicks or by relying on third parties determined to push graphical fidelity and "cinematic immersion" even when many of those titles will be critical successes and commercial failures.

Nintendo's problem is that it exists outside the industry that has been created since the Playstation, and it can't compete with the money that Sony and Microsoft and many third parties are willing to spend to "win".

Clearly the Wii U is not the lightning in a bottle the Wii was, but Nintendo has nothing to gain by pretending they are something they're not. There is now two markets in the gaming industry: Nintendo, and everyone else. They're going to have to figure out how to manage that market if they want to remain in business. And there is a market for them, a big one....possibly even bigger than the "everyone else" market. But they'll have to learn and adapt faster than they've been, although there are some signs they're doing just that.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Dextro

They pushed Rayman back precisely because ZombiU didn't even break even. Why would they release a game exclusively for a system where you don't even expect to cover your development costs? The WiiU is flopping hard and you can't expect third-parties to just be nice guys and release for the system. They aren't running charities.

Who said they had to keep it exclusive? They could have still brought it over to PS3 and XBox 360 later this year. But they have it done for Wii U and were about to release it and postponed it to release with the PS3 and XBox 360 versions. Ubisoft is trolling at that point.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by GDB

Not that they couldn't have still released it later for PS3/Bone after releasing it in Feb/March for WiiU...

Ubisoft gambled that Nintendo would be able to build up the Wii U base enough for a September release to have a chance. I think they gambled poorly.

Originally Posted by GrimJack

I would buy a wii u if they would bring DragonQuest X to North America and I have never bought a Nintendo home console before hint hint

Currently Square Enix is too shy to export anything other than sure-fire hits, so there's probably no DQX in the offing.

Originally Posted by Solace

True but the problem is on both ends of the spectrum. Nintendo launched a poorly marketed system and one that is underpowered compared to its soon to launch competition. It still has not successfully sold the public on the touch screen, its defining feature, nor has it produced any compelling software to draw people in. And after E3, this is even truer, even if the games do look fun.

I think that it's less that the Wii U is a poorly marketed system in the sense of being poorly advertised, as it is a poorly marketed system as in it has no audience other than Nintendo fans. They also seemingly didn't feel the need to cater the Wii U to what the third parties wanted which compounds the problem.

Originally Posted by Solace

On the other hand, third parties have little reason to complain about their fortunes on Nintendo systems. They haven't (with a few exceptions) seriously supported a Nintendo system since the Gamecube, arguably. To find strong third party support that wasn't just shovelware, you'd have to go back to the Super Nintendo. And that was mostly because Nintendo was the top dog, at the time.

Where do titles like Let's Dance and Skylanders fit in? These titles may not be thought of as big titles for hardcore gamers, but they're the ones that the Wii audience bought, and they did so in large number.

Originally Posted by Solace

What would make any third party developer think that they'd just snap up big sales now that the Wii U was out? The gaming audience has basically been trained to think that most of their stuff on Nintendo was shit, and that the "real" games are on the PS and Xbox. And in many cases, they're completely right. No one asked for a Dead Space rail shooter, a Soul Caliber adventure game, or a Castlevania fighting game, among other "wtf" ideas.

And it's true that the system was woefully underpowered compared to those two, and the standard controllers were different. But the system supported multiple controller configurations; you didn't have to use motion controls. And despite being underpowered, you could deliver great games for the system, especially if you built it from the ground up.

The answer probably lies in the risk vs. reward analyses that the publishers did. They said that efforts like those that graced the PS3 and 360 would not be rewarded with commensurate sales on the Wii. It'd be even more true of the Wii U, and so most of the third parties have jumped ship.

You could say that they were wrong to do so, but wrong or not, it seemed a superior course of action.

Originally Posted by Solace

Is it any wonder why they chose that path again? You can't win an arms race with companies determined to spend "whatever it takes" to win, even going bankrupt, and you can't always win with gimmicks or by relying on third parties determined to push graphical fidelity and "cinematic immersion" even when many of those titles will be critical successes and commercial failures.

Nintendo didn't really choose the same path as the Wii though. The Wii U is much more expensive to develop for, and with its architecture and lack of power, it may actually cost more than some PS4 and Xbone games. At the same time, they developed a console which has no real audience, and so all the third parties have either abandoned them or will do so in the next six months. This time round, even the mid-lower tier Japanese developers seem to be following suit.

[Westlo]

Originally Posted by Solace

On the other hand, third parties have little reason to complain about their fortunes on Nintendo systems. They haven't (with a few exceptions) seriously supported a Nintendo system since the Gamecube, arguably. To find strong third party support that wasn't just shovelware, you'd have to go back to the Super Nintendo. And that was mostly because Nintendo was the top dog, at the time.

Third parties abandoned Nintendo in droves as soon as they could, that tells you everything you need to know about how Nintendo work. Japanese devs made the jump as soon as Sony came onto the scene.

Nintendo's problem is that it exists outside the industry that has been created since the Playstation, and it can't compete with the money that Sony and Microsoft and many third parties are willing to spend to "win".

They have a ton of capital they are sitting on, Wii was pure profit from day 1 and it wasn't until the Wii U that Nintendo have sold a console @ loss. Their failure to spend is why they're outsourcing games like Smash to Namco and are having trouble getting games done in the HD era. Every other company already did the difficult HD jump except Nintendo, now they're suffering.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I think that it's less that the Wii U is a poorly marketed system in the sense of being poorly advertised, as it is a poorly marketed system as in it has no audience other than Nintendo fans. They also seemingly didn't feel the need to cater the Wii U to what the third parties wanted which compounds the problem.

I don't buy that at all. You can't say it doesn't have an audience other than Nintendo fans when the efforts given by third parties on the Wii U have been mostly lackluster. This is the same argument given in the link I provided, and I stick with it. If third parties want to create a market for their games on Nintendo consoles, they have to build that market.

As for Nintendo (not) building the system for third parties, I also disagree. The online is more robust, the eshop is much more accessible, the system isn't ridiculously difficult to develop for and budgets are no more demanding than any other system.

Now if you're pointing out that they didn't jump on DRM, like MS did and Sony was rumored to, or that they didn't tie themselves to a third party platform like Origin, you got me there. Nor did they seem to want to chase high end specs....we should be reminded here that the PS4 and One will sell for a loss initially, something Nintendo seems hesitant to do even if it's circling around to cause them losses anyway.

Where do titles like Let's Dance and Skylanders fit in? These titles may not be thought of as big titles for hardcore gamers, but they're the ones that the Wii audience bought, and they did so in large number.

It's no secret that Nintendo consoles are more family friendly (in terms of public perception). That said, these titles also sold well on rival systems. I think more than anything these titles simply prove third parties don't have to make every game tailored to the 18+ male demographic to do well.

The answer probably lies in the risk vs. reward analyses that the publishers did. They said that efforts like those that graced the PS3 and 360 would not be rewarded with commensurate sales on the Wii. It'd be even more true of the Wii U, and so most of the third parties have jumped ship.

You could say that they were wrong to do so, but wrong or not, it seemed a superior course of action.

Seemed, perhaps. I feel they were wrong though.

Nintendo didn't really choose the same path as the Wii though. The Wii U is much more expensive to develop for, and with its architecture and lack of power, it may actually cost more than some PS4 and Xbone games. At the same time, they developed a console which has no real audience, and so all the third parties have either abandoned them or will do so in the next six months. This time round, even the mid-lower tier Japanese developers seem to be following suit.

It's a supercharged Wii, same as the Wii was a supercharged Gamecube. The architecture is more advanced, but the principles haven't changed much in a decade. The power gap is far less than it was for the Wii, and it supports or can support every major engine should developers decide to make games for it. I sincerely doubt making games for it costs any more than it would for the other systems.

The problem, as you point out, is that third parties see no audience, don't really want to build an audience, and would rather develop for the higher specced PS4 and One. Either way I think we both agree the Wii U was handled poorly and as a result it has created a chain reaction of lack of interest and pulled support that Nintendo will have to fix if they want any future consoles to have better success.

Lots of fingers and blaming, but the net result is a console that pretty much failed out of the gate, and will only have moderate success because of Mario. It's something Nintendo can't rely on forever though, so we'll see if they can finally get it right in a few years.

Originally Posted by Westlo

Third parties abandoned Nintendo in droves as soon as they could, that tells you everything you need to know about how Nintendo work. Japanese devs made the jump as soon as Sony came onto the scene.

That was a different era, well documented at that. It's now about where the (potential) money is, which is why support isn't there now.

They have a ton of capital they are sitting on, Wii was pure profit from day 1 and it wasn't until the Wii U that Nintendo have sold a console @ loss. Their failure to spend is why they're outsourcing games like Smash to Namco and are having trouble getting games done in the HD era. Every other company already did the difficult HD jump except Nintendo, now they're suffering.

I won't argue this. The company is conservative to a fault maybe, but like I said there are signs they're addressing this. For example they're building a huge studio in Kyoto and hiring a huge amount of developers. Iwata assuming control of NOA (which has been a joke since Lincoln left, sorry Reggie) is also a big step. They've also spent billions in R&D, which no one knows what for. It likely wasn't for the Wii U considering the conservative design behind it.

Still, they're one of the healthiest companies in the gaming industry. They can afford several Wii U's, not that they'd want to.

My guess is they'll just ride this out and try again in 2016, when both the 3DS and Wii U will simply be too long in the tooth to support for much longer by that point. 2016 reveals, 2017 to market, is what I think.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Westlo

They have a ton of capital they are sitting on, Wii was pure profit from day 1 and it wasn't until the Wii U that Nintendo have sold a console @ loss. Their failure to spend is why they're outsourcing games like Smash to Namco and are having trouble getting games done in the HD era. Every other company already did the difficult HD jump except Nintendo, now they're suffering.

Yeah, there's no excuse for that. How many games has Nintendo released on their own platform so far? 3, including Game & Wario?

Originally Posted by Solace

I don't buy that at all. You can't say it doesn't have an audience other than Nintendo fans when the efforts given by third parties on the Wii U have been mostly lackluster. This is the same argument given in the link I provided, and I stick with it. If third parties want to create a market for their games on Nintendo consoles, they have to build that market.

The main problem is that Nintendo never satisfactorily answered the question, "Who is going to buy the Wii U?" Because of the Wii U's power, PS360 gamer had no real reason to switch to it other than to play Nintendo games. CoD players are perfectly happy on the 360 and Uncharted players won't find what they're looking for on the Wii U under any circumstance.

Any late adopters are in a similar boat as they have to compare the cheaper prices of the PS360 and their much deeper libraries vs. a Wii U purchase. I'm having a hard time thinking of a Wii U buyer who isn't doing so for Nintendo games unless he buys all the consoles. Personally, I have some interest in the Platinum games and X, but not enough to plunk down $350.

If the Wii U had significantly better looking games or if it were cheaper than the PS360, then it might be a different story, but that's not the position Nintendo positioned it in. None of these problems are for the third parties to fix - nor can they really.

Originally Posted by Solace

As for Nintendo (not) building the system for third parties, I also disagree. The online is more robust, the eshop is much more accessible, the system isn't ridiculously difficult to develop for and budgets are no more demanding than any other system.

Now if you're pointing out that they didn't jump on DRM, like MS did and Sony was rumored to, or that they didn't tie themselves to a third party platform like Origin, you got me there. Nor did they seem to want to chase high end specs....we should be reminded here that the PS4 and One will sell for a loss initially, something Nintendo seems hesitant to do even if it's circling around to cause them losses anyway.

The most important requirement for third parties is a platform that attracts the audience that's receptive to their games. All 2.5 million Wii U buyers are in it for Nintendo games, so that's not what happened. Better online and the eShop are nice, but they don't make up for the lack of audience.

Also, the Wii U sold for a loss at launch, and it's effectively selling at an even greater loss right now. There have been 3.45 million units shipped by March, with no reports of further shipments since then. That means that any production from March on has been going straight into Nintendo's warehouses with no hope of a sale in the foreseeable future. It also means that production of new units has probably ramped down so there are few cost decreases in the offing.

Originally Posted by Solace

It's a supercharged Wii, same as the Wii was a supercharged Gamecube. The architecture is more advanced, but the principles haven't changed much in a decade. The power gap is far less than it was for the Wii, and it supports or can support every major engine should developers decide to make games for it. I sincerely doubt making games for it costs any more than it would for the other systems.

Miyamoto Shigeru pointed out that Wii U games require twice the human resources to make as a Wii game. This would put it in the same territory as the PS360, with the added burden of the developers having to learn a new platform and (at the time) immature development tools. The Wii U's significantly different architeture also means that it actually requires a lot of effort to port any titles over to it.

Meanwhile, the PS4 and Xbone are much easier to develop for than their predecessors. There are stories of skeletal teams successfully porting to the PS4 - Octodad in one month, and Warframe in three. Mark Cerny came out and said that the "Time to Triangle" was 6-12 months on the PS3, but only 1-2 months on the PS4. Much less information is available on the Xbone, and their development environment is further behind, but it shouldn't be all that much slower by year's end.

Originally Posted by Solace

The problem, as you point out, is that third parties see no audience, don't really want to build an audience, and would rather develop for the higher specced PS4 and One. Either way I think we both agree the Wii U was handled poorly and as a result it has created a chain reaction of lack of interest and pulled support that Nintendo will have to fix if they want any future consoles to have better success.

I'd say that the Wii U is more poorly designed than poorly handled. Given its specs and current and future competition, it was given no chance of success. Either Nintendo had to pull in the casual crowd again or it had to somehow entice a PS360 owner to do that, but it seems that they only half-tried at each approach. The former group needs cheap and intuitive while the latter needs power and (maybe) innovation. Which appetite does the Wii U satisfy?

Originally Posted by Solace

My guess is they'll just ride this out and try again in 2016, when both the 3DS and Wii U will simply be too long in the tooth to support for much longer by that point. 2016 reveals, 2017 to market, is what I think.

Nintendo is already planning their next console. Let's hope that they learned the proper lessons from it - this being perhaps wishful thinking. However, a 2016 reveal will mean that they're basically going to abandon the Wii U at the end of 2015. How will the Nintendo fans take that?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I'm having a hard time thinking of a Wii U buyer who isn't doing so for Nintendo games unless he buys all the consoles.

Well, I'm one. I bought it for Nintendo games, obviously, but I also bought it because I skipped the last console generation. I was mostly a PC gamer. So it's doubled for Wii backward compatibility, virtual console stuff, and it's my media device. The touchscreen makes it really nice for that. ^^

I didn't buy a PS3 or 360 because most of the "must haves" I either already played on the PC or didn't have much interest in. The few titles I could think of didn't seem to justify the 300+ dollar purchase price.

The most important requirement for third parties is a platform that attracts the audience that's receptive to their games. All 2.5 million Wii U buyers are in it for Nintendo games, so that's not what happened. Better online and the eShop are nice, but they don't make up for the lack of audience.

Right. Two things here. One, I mostly agree with your points, so I'm being a bit more selective in my quoting. We're basically agreeing on the same stuff, just going around it in different ways, so there's no point in arguing if we agree.

Second, the parts here that I do disagree with is the "All 2.5 million buyers" part, and the "receptive to our games" part. The first is just too sweeping of a generalization, and the second still bring me back to "you need to create an audience first". You've already detailed why people who like CoD or Uncharted aren't rushing to Nintendo systems, but those fans weren't there from day one, the audience was grown.

Miyamoto Shigeru pointed out that Wii U games require twice the human resources to make as a Wii game. This would put it in the same territory as the PS360, with the added burden of the developers having to learn a new platform and (at the time) immature development tools. The Wii U's significantly different architeture also means that it actually requires a lot of effort to port any titles over to it.

Meanwhile, the PS4 and Xbone are much easier to develop for than their predecessors. There are stories of skeletal teams successfully porting to the PS4 - Octodad in one month, and Warframe in three. Mark Cerny came out and said that the "Time to Triangle" was 6-12 months on the PS3, but only 1-2 months on the PS4. Much less information is available on the Xbone, and their development environment is further behind, but it shouldn't be all that much slower by year's end.

This is speculation mixed with fact. We really don't know much about how difficult it is to program or port beyond statements from the industry which often conflict. For example, this conflicts with what you said: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...USD1-3-million

I'd say that the Wii U is more poorly designed than poorly handled. Given its specs and current and future competition, it was given no chance of success. Either Nintendo had to pull in the casual crowd again or it had to somehow entice a PS360 owner to do that, but it seems that they only half-tried at each approach. The former group needs cheap and intuitive while the latter needs power and (maybe) innovation. Which appetite does the Wii U satisfy?

I'd say the system is wonderfully designed, on a technical level. It's poorly handled in terms of future proofing and marketing. So we can bicker on words but we do agree in the meaning.

Nintendo is already planning their next console. Let's hope that they learned the proper lessons from it - this being perhaps wishful thinking. However, a 2016 reveal will mean that they're basically going to abandon the Wii U at the end of 2015. How will the Nintendo fans take that?

I'm sure Nintendo fans will get over it just like people have gotten over the Xbox DRM issue. People are more willing to forgive major screw ups if the company owns up to its faults and makes an effort to listen. People praise Sony for the PS4, but the PS3 nearly killed the company. People cheer Microsoft, but they rushed a defective product to market which cost billions to address. Every company screws up, sometimes at a high price. I certainly wish Sega was still making consoles.

And wishful thinking here maybe, but even the Wii U isn't completely unsalvageable. It's not even been a year, and Nintendo has proven it can at least make profit from a "failed" product, if nothing else. Nor can we predict the future of Sony and MS, especially in this economic climate. That's the fun of generation changes in the industry, you never know what to expect.

[serenade_beta]

Originally Posted by Solace

People praise Sony for the PS4, but the PS3 nearly killed the company.

Isn't SCE like, pretty much already dead? Financially.
Last time I checked, they had far more debt than their total assets equaled to. And they are still picking fights with Microsoft (home console) and Nintendo (handheld).

[Nightengale]

Originally Posted by serenade_beta

Isn't SCE like, pretty much already dead? Financially.

You're talking SCE or Sony?

SCE isn't exactly all bright & bubbly, but it's a reasonably healthy part of the company.

Originally Posted by serenade_beta

And they are still picking fights with Microsoft (home console) and Nintendo (handheld).

It's picking a fight with the Xbox division. Microsoft, as a whole has bigger fights to pour more resources to, not that a billion dollars is a small amount.

As for Nintendo, I don't think Sony remotely believes they ever stood a chance against Nintendo in the handheld space to begin with. To me, Sony's presence in the handheld space always felt like a "we can't afford to lose the entire market to Nintendo, let's scrap whatever we can!"

Them Pokemon games, man. Sony could only dream in their wildest dreams to have Pokemon on their handhelds.

[Shadow5YA]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The most important requirement for third parties is a platform that attracts the audience that's receptive to their games. All 2.5 million Wii U buyers are in it for Nintendo games, so that's not what happened. Better online and the eShop are nice, but they don't make up for the lack of audience.

Also, the Wii U sold for a loss at launch, and it's effectively selling at an even greater loss right now. There have been 3.45 million units shipped by March, with no reports of further shipments since then. That means that any production from March on has been going straight into Nintendo's warehouses with no hope of a sale in the foreseeable future. It also means that production of new units has probably ramped down so there are few cost decreases in the offing.


Miyamoto Shigeru pointed out that Wii U games require twice the human resources to make as a Wii game. This would put it in the same territory as the PS360, with the added burden of the developers having to learn a new platform and (at the time) immature development tools. The Wii U's significantly different architeture also means that it actually requires a lot of effort to port any titles over to it.

Meanwhile, the PS4 and Xbone are much easier to develop for than their predecessors. There are stories of skeletal teams successfully porting to the PS4 - Octodad in one month, and Warframe in three. Mark Cerny came out and said that the "Time to Triangle" was 6-12 months on the PS3, but only 1-2 months on the PS4. Much less information is available on the Xbone, and their development environment is further behind, but it shouldn't be all that much slower by year's end.

I think this has to do more with the fact that Sony already has an established fanbase that's connected with third party developers than the actual console specs themselves.

If ease of development was the main problem, then most third parties shouldn't have stayed with Sony and/or Microsoft in the Wii/PS3/360 era either, but they did.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I'd say that the Wii U is more poorly designed than poorly handled. Given its specs and current and future competition, it was given no chance of success. Either Nintendo had to pull in the casual crowd again or it had to somehow entice a PS360 owner to do that, but it seems that they only half-tried at each approach. The former group needs cheap and intuitive while the latter needs power and (maybe) innovation. Which appetite does the Wii U satisfy?

An already established PS360 owner needs to see more than just power to prompt them to buy something different from what they are already familiar and comfortable with.

The Wii did fine as a secondary purchase console where people did buy it only for Nintendo games. The bigger problem is that the WiiU doesn't even have that.

Aside from the short and easy to make 2D Mario titles, the WiiU currently doesn't have much going for it for "hardcore" gamers. The newest Zelda game is going to the 3DS, Smash Bros won't be out until 2014 at the soonest, no 3D Mario adventure has been announced, no Metroid has been announced... I could go on.
The closest "big" Nintendo title is Pikmin 3, and that won't be out for another month, so even as a person who wants to buy a WiiU for Nintendo WiiU games I am prompted to wait. Why buy a console at full price for games that aren't even close to being released when I can play my 3DS which does have games in the meantime and buy a WiiU at a cheaper price later when it does have games?

[GDB]

Actually, I think a 3D Mario was announced. There's one on Gamestop's site, at least. But yeah, Nintendo's biggest issue is they think they can ride another rehash of New Super Mario Bros (same game basically that was on the DS, Wii, and 3DS) for 18 months or so until Pikmin comes out, then ride that until the end of the year when a remake of a Gamecube Zelda comes out, and then ride that until God knows when the 3D Mario or Super Smash Bros comes out next year. That's far too few games, far too spread out. There's absolutely nothing enticing people to buy early.

And I don't know about others, but I got tired of Mario back in the Galaxy series. I never really got into Pikmin. Thus, the earliest I'd even consider a WiiU is when Smash Bros comes out, 2+ years after the system was released. And even then, is it worth it with the 3DS getting it too? Not like I played Brawl online all that much, which seems to be the only thing the WiiU verison has going for it.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Solace

Well, I'm one. I bought it for Nintendo games, obviously, but I also bought it because I skipped the last console generation. I was mostly a PC gamer. So it's doubled for Wii backward compatibility, virtual console stuff, and it's my media device. The touchscreen makes it really nice for that. ^^

I'd say that buying a Wii U to play Wii games is a pretty sure sign of a Nintendo fan. That is unless you were looking to just playing Okami, MadWorld and No More Heroes.

Originally Posted by Solace

Right. Two things here. One, I mostly agree with your points, so I'm being a bit more selective in my quoting. We're basically agreeing on the same stuff, just going around it in different ways, so there's no point in arguing if we agree.

Second, the parts here that I do disagree with is the "All 2.5 million buyers" part, and the "receptive to our games" part. The first is just too sweeping of a generalization, and the second still bring me back to "you need to create an audience first". You've already detailed why people who like CoD or Uncharted aren't rushing to Nintendo systems, but those fans weren't there from day one, the audience was grown.

I'm still not see a whole lot of non-Nintendo fans for the Wii U, but I'll admit that they might exist. I can qualify that to "95% of Wii U buyers are Nintendo fans" if you prefer, but I'm not sure how that modifies any of my points.

Originally Posted by Solace

This is speculation mixed with fact. We really don't know much about how difficult it is to program or port beyond statements from the industry which often conflict. For example, this conflicts with what you said: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...USD1-3-million

I don't know which of my points you consider as speculation. The part about Wii U games taking up more human resources is from here: http://nintendoeverything.com/miyamo...s-than-before/

Originally Posted by Miyamoto

When it comes to the scale of software development, Wii U with HD graphics requires about twice the human resources than before. Please allow me to explain that we may have underestimated the scale of this change and as a result, the overall software development took more time than originally anticipated just as we tried to polish the software at the completion phase of development. However, we are almost out of this phase, and we are also trying to create something unique utilizing an easier development approach called “Nintendo Web Framework.

We know that the development environment and the dev kit wasn't fully mature at launch. This last quote suggests that the tools still aren't fully up to spec.

The Wii U is surely easier to learn than the PS3, but the latter's inner workings are fairly well known by now. And so, developing on both is going to be either require about the same work, or slightly favor the PS3. This may change eventually, but it's likely going to be trivial.

I don't think that Guillemot's statement contradicts my points: at $60,000 per developer per year, $1.2 million represents 20 man-years of work. Pay the developers a bit more, and we're still looking at around 15 man-years. Ubisoft has been working on HD titles for a long time, so they were probably a lot more realistic about what would be required, hence the lack of concern. Moreover, I've heard tales that the Wii U version of Assassin's Creed III wasn't all that well optimized.

Originally Posted by Solace

I'd say the system is wonderfully designed, on a technical level. It's poorly handled in terms of future proofing and marketing. So we can bicker on words but we do agree in the meaning.

There's more to how well a platform is designed than how well it functions. As a game console, I'm sure it's perfectly fine and that it's features are well liked. However, it's very poorly designed as a product that's meant to sell to a large audience. It's hard to see a wider market for the Wii U, and it's sales reflect that.

Originally Posted by Solace

I'm sure Nintendo fans will get over it just like people have gotten over the Xbox DRM issue. People are more willing to forgive major screw ups if the company owns up to its faults and makes an effort to listen. People praise Sony for the PS4, but the PS3 nearly killed the company. People cheer Microsoft, but they rushed a defective product to market which cost billions to address. Every company screws up, sometimes at a high price. I certainly wish Sega was still making consoles.

Personally, I think that effectively killing a console in its fourth year is a lot more serious than any of that - it's hard to jump onto a new platform if you're unsure if it's going to see a decent amount of support.

Originally Posted by Solace

And wishful thinking here maybe, but even the Wii U isn't completely unsalvageable. It's not even been a year, and Nintendo has proven it can at least make profit from a "failed" product, if nothing else. Nor can we predict the future of Sony and MS, especially in this economic climate. That's the fun of generation changes in the industry, you never know what to expect.

We can see the difference in the enthusiasm gap between the three consoles. PS4 preorders have been selling out at many retailers, as Xbone preorders have been fairly strong as well. I don't see either console having 1 million units of unsold inventory six months after release. Sure, there's a chance that Nintendo can turn around the Wii U's position, but with no third-party support, and with no momentum at this point, I don't think this is likely.

Originally Posted by serenade_beta

Isn't SCE like, pretty much already dead? Financially.
Last time I checked, they had far more debt than their total assets equaled to. And they are still picking fights with Microsoft (home console) and Nintendo (handheld).

Most of Sony's losses have come from their TV & home entertainment and Mobile divisions. They've been making money mostly from their Financial Services division.

The Vita is mostly dead at this point, but it also not costing Sony all that much either. More third parties seem to be moving to Vita (possibly lost Wii U development?), so there's still some hope of a modest comeback.

Originally Posted by Shadow5YA

I think this has to do more with the fact that Sony already has an established fanbase that's connected with third party developers than the actual console specs themselves.

If ease of development was the main problem, then most third parties shouldn't have stayed with Sony and/or Microsoft in the Wii/PS3/360 era either, but they did.

My point about Wii U games' development costs is about how they hurt the release of Nintendo's games. Miyamoto's statements, and the lateness of their releases reflects that. If the Wii U was designed to avoid that problem, then they've surely failed hard at doing so.

Originally Posted by Shadow5YA

The Wii did fine as a secondary purchase console where people did buy it only for Nintendo games. The bigger problem is that the WiiU doesn't even have that.

Aside from the short and easy to make 2D Mario titles, the WiiU currently doesn't have much going for it for "hardcore" gamers. The newest Zelda game is going to the 3DS, Smash Bros won't be out until 2014 at the soonest, no 3D Mario adventure has been announced, no Metroid has been announced... I could go on.
The closest "big" Nintendo title is Pikmin 3, and that won't be out for another month, so even as a person who wants to buy a WiiU for Nintendo WiiU games I am prompted to wait. Why buy a console at full price for games that aren't even close to being released when I can play my 3DS which does have games in the meantime and buy a WiiU at a cheaper price later when it does have games?

The inability to release strong titles is precisely part and parcel of the Wii U's problem. The other part being that, even when these games are released, there's not much for people who aren't already Nintendo fans.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I'm still not see a whole lot of non-Nintendo fans for the Wii U, but I'll admit that they might exist. I can qualify that to "95% of Wii U buyers are Nintendo fans" if you prefer, but I'm not sure how that modifies any of my points.

Lot of back and forth here without a lot of understanding. From how I'm reading it, Solace is saying that while most of the WiiU base might be in it for Nintendo games at the moment, it's not like they're in it JUST for Nintendo games. It just so happens that the system doesn't have any 3rd party games worth their salt. "Build it and they will come", comes to mind. Can't buy 3rd Party games if there aren't any 3rd Party games.

However, it's very poorly designed as a product that's meant to sell to a large audience. It's hard to see a wider market for the Wii U, and it's sales reflect that.

Chicken or the egg. Do the sales reflect the lack of a wider market, or do the sales reflect it being poorly designed? There's no discernable reason that a company couldn't grab a market on the WiiU by porting their PS360 games to it. It certainly isn't significantly weaker than those systems.

We can see the difference in the enthusiasm gap between the three consoles. PS4 preorders have been selling out at many retailers, as Xbone preorders have been fairly strong as well. I don't see either console having 1 million units of unsold inventory six months after release.

Isn't the Bone also incredibly short-stocked? It's easy to sell out when you ship a fifth of what your competitors ship.

The inability to release strong titles is precisely part and parcel of the Wii U's problem. The other part being that, even when these games are released, there's not much for people who aren't already Nintendo fans.

If you discount third party games, since there's really no reason that they couldn't be on the WiiU other than stubbornness and perception, what does Microsoft or Sony offer? It offers stuff that only appeases Microsoft or Sony fans. Pretty sure there are more "Nintendo game" fans than "Microsoft game" fans and "Sony game" fans. So again, it comes down to perception and stubbornness.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by GDB

Lot of back and forth here without a lot of understanding. From how I'm reading it, Solace is saying that while most of the WiiU base might be in it for Nintendo games at the moment, it's not like they're in it JUST for Nintendo games. It just so happens that the system doesn't have any 3rd party games worth their salt. "Build it and they will come", comes to mind. Can't buy 3rd Party games if there aren't any 3rd Party games.

I don't think that I've ever implied that Nintendo fans don't buy any other games. What I do suggest is that they are the only ones buying Wii Us right now.

The best-selling third-party Wii U game is ZombiU. It failed to make a profit. I don't see what incentive there is for anyone else to make much of an effort.

Originally Posted by GDB

Chicken or the egg. Do the sales reflect the lack of a wider market, or do the sales reflect it being poorly designed? There's no discernable reason that a company couldn't grab a market on the WiiU by porting their PS360 games to it. It certainly isn't significantly weaker than those systems.

Well, maybe you can answer the question that Nintendo failed to - "Who is going to buy the Wii U?"

Originally Posted by GDB

Isn't the Bone also incredibly short-stocked? It's easy to sell out when you ship a fifth of what your competitors ship.

I'm not a fan of the Xbone, and yes, it has lots of supply problems. However, despite all of its problems, the demand for it is also fairly high.

Originally Posted by GDB

If you discount third party games, since there's really no reason that they couldn't be on the WiiU other than stubbornness and perception, what does Microsoft or Sony offer? It offers stuff that only appeases Microsoft or Sony fans. Pretty sure there are more "Nintendo game" fans than "Microsoft game" fans and "Sony game" fans. So again, it comes down to perception and stubbornness.

Take the Xbox 360: a lot of gamers will play only CoD or Madden, casual gamers might like Dance Central, or hardcore gamers can go for Skyrim or Bioshock. It's quite possible to enjoy the console without being a Microsoft fan. (Yes, Dance Central is published by Microsoft, but I doubt too many of its players care)

[GDB]

I said ignoring third party games. Call of Duty, Madden, and Skyrim are all on the PS3 as well, meaning those who bought the 360 could just as easily have bought the PS3, or if they were put on the WiiU could just as easily purchase that. From the sounds of it, Bioshock would be in the same boat.

Using that logic, the 360's selling point is... Dance Central. As opposed to Nintendo's Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pikmin, Pokemon, Smash Bros, Animal Crossing, etc etc.

This once again comes back to what Solace was saying before. The lack of third party support isn't because the fans aren't on the system, but because the third party developers don't develop for it. If they did, people would flock to it, because the console exclusives are better. The third party developers refusing to develop for it is what causes those fans to not look at Nintendo, not the other way around. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by GDB

I said ignoring third party games. Call of Duty, Madden, and Skyrim are all on the PS3 as well, meaning those who bought the 360 could just as easily have bought the PS3, or if they were put on the WiiU could just as easily purchase that. From the sounds of it, Bioshock would be in the same boat.

It's not reasonable to discount multiplatform titles because they're one of the main selling points for buying a 360, and people's perception of the platform are largely crafted by those titles. It's doubly unreasonable because those titles are mostly going to disappear from the Wii U, if they ever were there to begin with.

Originally Posted by GDB

Using that logic, the 360's selling point is... Dance Central. As opposed to Nintendo's Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pikmin, Pokemon, Smash Bros, Animal Crossing, etc etc.

The 360's current selling points are a good network infrastructure, a strong existing fan base for multiplayer games, good multiplatform titles, and a decent price point. What are the Wii U's selling points?

Originally Posted by GDB

This once again comes back to what Solace was saying before. The lack of third party support isn't because the fans aren't on the system, but because the third party developers don't develop for it. If they did, people would flock to it, because the console exclusives are better. The third party developers refusing to develop for it is what causes those fans to not look at Nintendo, not the other way around. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't think that would be entirely fair. The third parties did try, but they haven't been rewarded by any success so far - Assassin's Creed, FIFA, NBA2K, Madden, Call of Duty all had poor sales. While you can make the argument that their efforts were half-assed, that's true of most console launches. The real test will be when Ubisoft releases all of their fall games simultaneously across PS360 & Wii U. I expect the Wii U versions to bomb, and that will be the end of that experiment.

Nintendo's big problem is that most Wii U buyers already had either a PS3 or 360. I don't know why they would expect these buyers to purchase multiplatform games on a Wii U instead.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

It's not reasonable to discount multiplatform titles because they're one of the main selling points for buying a 360, and people's perception of the platform are largely crafted by those titles. It's doubly unreasonable because those titles are mostly going to disappear from the Wii U, if they ever were there to begin with.

But you aren't paying attention to the discussion at hand. Your argument is that the WiiU base doesn't buy third party games. Our argument is that there aren't any third party games for the WiiU. Therefore, if one were to look at this strictly in terms of console exclusives, Nintendo offers far more. Thus, if the third party developers got their heads out of their asses and actually put third party games on the system, people would buy it, because it would then offer both third party games and the best console exclusives.

The fact that people who want third party games do not buy the WiiU is precisely because third party developers do not make games for it. And a single game is not going to do it. A committment is necessary.

I don't think that would be entirely fair. The third parties did try, but they haven't been rewarded by any success so far - Assassin's Creed, FIFA, NBA2K, Madden, Call of Duty all had poor sales. While you can make the argument that their efforts were half-assed, that's true of most console launches. The real test will be when Ubisoft releases all of their fall games simultaneously across PS360 & Wii U. I expect the Wii U versions to bomb, and that will be the end of that experiment.

Like you said, that isn't "trying", that's half-assing. Ensure the fans that the games will come out. All of the games. Then, they will purchase it. Ubisoft, at least, sounds like they're giving it a legitmate shot. And I dearly hope that it succeeds, just to prove to the other idiots that you shouldn't neglect fans.

Nintendo's big problem is that most Wii U buyers already had either a PS3 or 360. I don't know why they would expect these buyers to purchase multiplatform games on a Wii U instead.

Source data on "most" WiiU buyers having a PS360?

[serenade_beta]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

Them Pokemon games, man. Sony could only dream in their wildest dreams to have Pokemon on their handhelds.

*sigh* In the past, Sony had games. Sure, maybe not Pokemon level, but they had all kinds of brands, like Crash (I liked that game). But Sony raise brands worse than I raise plants and they are left with depending completely on third-parties just to survive.