backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by Silver2k7.. on Jan 23 at 1:18 PM


Wii U  (Source: Engadget)
The company also revised 3DS sales expectations from 18 million to just 13.5 million units sold

While gamers have spent months comparing the new Xbox One and PlayStation 4 consoles before and after their November releases, Nintendo's Wii U remains forgotten, as if it doesn't even qualify to be apart of the console race. 

A new statement from Nintendo has made this point even clearer. The game company announced that its anticipated units sold from April 2013 to March 2014 will be changed from a previous 9 million to just 2.8 million. 

This represents a staggering 69 percent drop. Wii U software doesn't look any better, with sales expectations falling from a previously-reported 38 million to just 19 million. 

But at least Nintendo still has the 3DS handheld system to fall back on, right? Wrong. The company also had to revise those sales expectations, dropping from 18 million to just 13.5 million units sold. 

As for the original Wiis, Nintendo is cutting their sales expectations from a previous 2 million to 1.2 million. 

With so many sales revisions, Nintendo is also decreasing its financial forecast, which includes a loss of 25 billion yen ($240 million USD) -- down from a previously-reported 55 billion yen profit. 

Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata said in an interview that Nintendo will have to make some major changes, possibly including an entirely new business structure. The company is looking to focus on mobile devices like smartphones, reportedly. 

Iwata attempted to explain his company's financial and sales shortcomings in a statement you can read here, but this is just a taste:

Giving a detailed explanation on our sales performance in and leading up to the year-end sales season by platform, Nintendo 3DS continued to show strong sales in the Japanese market. The unit sales for Nintendo 3DS in the previous calendar year amounted to approximately 4.9 million units, falling short of our aim of five million units by a small margin. However, as I explained before, given that every gaming device from the year 2000 onwards apart from Nintendo DS and Nintendo 3DS did not reach sales of four million units even in their peak years, we can say that the sales figure for Nintendo 3DS in the last calendar year was indeed very high. However, outside Japan, while its market share increased as we continued to release compelling titles throughout the year, Nintendo 3DS did not reach our sales targets in the overseas markets, and we were ultimately unable to achieve our goal of providing a massive sales boost to Nintendo 3DS in the year-end sales season. Using the U.S. market as an example, Nintendo 3DS became the top-selling platform in the last calendar year, according to NPD, an independent market research company, with its cumulative sales exceeding 11.5 million units; however, the estimated annual sales of the Nintendo 3DS hardware remain significantly lower than our initial forecast at the beginning of the fiscal year. In Europe, while the individual markets showed different results, France was the only market in which we experienced relatively strong sales, and we failed to attain our initial sales levels by a large margin in other countries.

Wii U sales, on the other hand, showed some progress in the year-end sales season as we released various compelling titles from the summer onwards, launched hardware bundles at affordable price points and also performed a markdown of the hardware in the U.S. and European markets; however, they fell short of our targeted recovery by a large margin. In particular, sales in the U.S. and European markets in which we entered the year-end sales season with a hardware markdown were significantly lower than our original forecasts, with both hardware and software sales experiencing a huge gap from their targets. In addition, we did not assume at the beginning of the fiscal year that we would perform a markdown for the Wii U hardware in the U.S. and European markets. This was also one of the reasons for lower sales and profit estimates.


Source: Nintendo



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By inighthawki on 1/17/2014 11:41:43 AM , Rating: 5
Not just revisions/interfaces/graphics levels, but hardware architecture. Wii U is still PPC while PS4 and Xbox One sacrificed backwards compatibility for unifying development with PC on x86. For this reason I strongly suspect that very few games will be ported across that boundary (XBO/PS4/PC <-> WiiU).

The only thing that will drive sales for Nintendo this time around will be some quality first party exclusive titles that will sell the hardware specific for those games.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Da W on 1/17/2014 1:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect they got caught by surprise by MS/Sony's move to x86. They could always throw the towel, go to AMD and ask them the same SoC as in the PS4.
The more i use it, the more i think the controler IS a great idea. Having a powerful console STREAM a full game on your gamepad while you wife watches her boring TV shows, there is a market for that. Why do you think Nvidia sells its Shield?
But as far as i'm concerned, that's the only games i will have on this console: Mario Bros U, Mario 3D World, Mario Kart 8, Super Smash Bros and the next Zelda, and my old Wii titles.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/17/2014 1:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with Motoman on this one. The reason is none of those things: it's simply that the controller sucks. Period.

The day it was announced, Nintendo's stock took a noticeable hit. Everyone's response to the controller was "Okay, but... why??"

I can only imagine that a bunch of people were sitting around a table at some Nintendo board room going "The DS and 3DS have done very well for us. Let's just turn people's TVs into gigantic DSes."

As a core element of a console platform it's awful. As Motoman said it simply does not translate functionally to a widespread audience. And financially it's a disaster because without it the $300 system would be $150 (yes, the controller alone is practically half of the BoM on a U). AND the system would perform better -- half of the RAM is taken up by the OS, to be able to run that peripheral and screen with low latency at all times.

It could've stood to be a bit more feature-rich in terms of hardware power, but the true culprit of the Wii U's failure is the GamePad. The Wii U will never recover from the damage its controller causes it. It's over. The only way to recover would be to ditch the controller, which is possible (and would be insanely surprising), but not even in the same universe as likely.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/17/2014 2:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
Have you actually used the controller? It adds a lot of new gameplay elements. The Wii U is the only one of the new gen of consoles that interested me. Why get an underpowered PC when I have a real one. At least the Wii U gives an experience that is different than what I get on the PC.

The major issue, I think, was lack of marketing. A lot of people didn't even know Nintendo had a new system. They assumed that this was some sort of add-on for the Wii. Plus the name didn't help. Wii became associated with the system grandma played. Nintendo should have used a new name, and better marketing. They also should have had system-sellers like Smash Bros and Mario Kart out a lot sooner.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/17/2014 2:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you actually used the controller? It adds a lot of new gameplay elements.
Yes I have used it. It's an accessory, not a core peripheral. They did it wrong. The made the Virtual Boy, they made the weird trident thing on the N64 controller, they made the 'C-Stick' on the GCN controller, and now they've got this. They're not strangers to failed hardware designs.
quote:
Why get an underpowered PC when I have a real one.
1) It costs half the price. 2) It has more titles. 3) It has more reliability. 4) It's a simpler experience.
quote:
The major issue, I think, was lack of marketing.
That was an issue. It's definitely not at the top of the list. #1 is the GamePad. Another bigger problem than the marketing is that the system costs too much, which is also the fault of the GamePad, so back to #1.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Da W on 1/17/2014 3:59:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yes I have used it. It's an accessory, not a core peripheral. They did it wrong. The made the Virtual Boy, they made the weird trident thing on the N64 controller, they made the 'C-Stick' on the GCN controller, and now they've got this. They're not strangers to failed hardware designs.


N64 controller was praised. The cartridge format was N64 downfall, even there, they did well against PSone.

CGN controller was the best controller ever, all consoles conmpared.

This, the gamepad, obviously you haven't used it for real. You wouldn't actually badmouth the Wii-U if you bought one. After a couple of tries it becomes second nature. MS, Sony and Nvidia don,t try to enter the tablet+companion app / streaming for nothing, except an Xbox+tablet is really expensive as is a Shield+ Nvidia GPU.

Nintendo foresaw correctly the tablet crase. Their mistake is that they didn't see how fast really GOOD tablets would arrive tot eh market that make the Wii-U gamepad look like a cheap toy.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/17/2014 6:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
N64 controller was praised.
It was years before anyone else had analog thumbsticks. No one would praise it as compared to superior successors. And no one did.
quote:
CGN controller was the best controller ever, all consoles conmpared.
In terms of innovation, sure. And I was the GCN's most vocal fan. But the Xbox 360/One ripped off the GCN controller to superior effect. Nobody liked the "take-my-strong-hand!"-ness of the C-Stick.
quote:
You wouldn't actually badmouth the Wii-U if you bought one.
No True Scotsman. I've played it plenty and it's terrible as a core peripheral. You'll note that I've never badmouthed the GamePad, just its use as a core peripheral. It costs too much and it's just too esoteric. Therefore, the Wii U costs too much and is too esoteric.
quote:
Nintendo foresaw correctly the tablet crase.
Then maybe they should've put out a tablet, lmfao. The GamePad is not a tablet, and the Wii U is dead. Congratulations.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By inperfectdarkness on 1/18/2014 7:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
This. In my opinion, the one thing missing for the Wii U is DS game compatibility. They will start selling like hotcakes if Nintendo offers this feature.

I really don't get the Nintendo hate. Nintendo--in the 30 years they've been in the home-console market--has done more to innovate than all of its competition COMBINED. Don't make me break out the history books.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/18/2014 11:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
You'll note that I have not once said that I hate Nintendo, nor said anything that could even be loosely construed that way. I'm just trying to explain that the GamePad is the downfall of the Wii U . It's this decade's Virtual Boy. And that means, no, DS games would not save the Wii U.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By The0ne on 1/20/2014 2:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
The hate is from consumers who think they know it all but sadly it's not from research or in depth knowledge of the market. They're gamers that really can't appreciate what it means to game, the technology behind it and the "potential" it can have.

Wii U is suffering because it lacks 3rd party support and in games. You can't expect consumers to want to buy a console when there are hardly any choices for them to choose from. And the longer you prolong this mistake, which they are still doing, more consumers will move elsewhere for their needs, as is in this case. Worst of all you allow competitors (phones, tablets, consoles, porn, D&D board games, etc.) to come in and take marketshare away.

Strategically I think the release was good. The execution was, to say the least, extremely poor. At this point they are expecting consumers to buy the Wii U for their re-released retro games. This should be secondary as a support feature, not a main selling point. Then again, Earthbound :D

In my opinion, Wii U is doomed to it's fate unless Nintendo can come up with more support and quicker releases. There are far way more options for any one consumer to digest and satiate themselves to wait for Nintendo to please them as in the past. I call it arrogance myself but that's just me.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By phatboye on 1/18/2014 3:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on the N64 controller. I never understood why so many people complain about it. For me I think it was one of the best controllers ever released.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/17/2014 4:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
You're delusional if you think any console has more titles than the PC. PC has more games than all the consoles put together.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By inighthawki on 1/17/2014 5:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) It costs half the price. 2) It has more titles. 3) It has more reliability. 4) It's a simpler experience.

1) He said he already has a PC, so that's just an extra cost
2) No, it definitely does not lol
3) A PC with good drivers and no crapware installed is about as reliable
4) Simplicity is overrated, and not for everyone. I like to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Try to write a document and watch TV on a second display at the same time. Oh right, you can't.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/17/14, Rating: -1
RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/2014 6:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now you're just trolling.


You're joking right?

If PC's had failure rates even half of what the Xbox 360 did, the world would collapse! Consoles aren't even close to having the reliability that PC's do.

quote:
Consoles always get more AAA titles than PC does within their lifetimes. That's just a fact of life. There's no use arguing.


Prove it.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/2014 7:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like you are trolling. I bring up a legitimate example and you try to lmfao it away.

On top of the 360 both next gen consoles from Microsoft and Sony are having significant reported issues.

You hardly ever hear of this kind of shoddy manufacturing with PC components. Much less whole systems.

If you refuse to deal in facts, YOU are the troll here.

quote:
One of you guys made the argument of counting all PC games together against all console games together, but I think you'd find that if you did that the console list would be FAR, FAR longer.


Again, prove it.

There are over 3,000 titles on Steam alone.

I think you're full of crap, and until you can back some of it up, I label you troll.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/18/14, Rating: 0
RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By inighthawki on 1/18/2014 12:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
let's just get this out of the way: I am talking about AAA titles

Yeah, so stop ignoring all the ones that already exist. AAA games don't suddenly disappear from statistics when a new console arrives.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/18/14, Rating: 0
RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 8:08:12 AM , Rating: 3
There are more people gaming on a PC at any given time than on consoles. Competitive PC gaming is practically the national sport of Korea, for instance. Steam as approximately as many users as Xbox Live. World of Tanks alone has as many users as Xbox Live, for that matter. China, Philippines, and other Asian countries have their gaming dominated by PCs in net cafes. Free-to-play MMOs are huge in that market.

Then there are the professional DOTA2 and LOL leagues, where people can actually make huge money if they are good. Or SimRaceway, which also has cash prizes for winning races. Professional gaming is much bigger on PC than on consoles.

Add in the indie games market and the modding community, and consoles don't even come close to touching the scope and depth of the PC gaming market. And since many of these are either free or low cost, the cost difference between a PC and a console is quickly made up.

Maybe most people YOU know game on consoles, but overall, the PC gaming market is larger, has more players, and makes more money.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2014 8:20:33 AM , Rating: 3
Blizzard alone probably made more money off World of Warcraft than all his "AAA" (boring shooter of the week) console titles alone. And had more players.

Consoles have their place. But anyone arguing that they are the driving force in gaming or whatever he's saying, is just disillusioned.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 10:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
Up until just a few months ago, WoW was making in excess of $200 million per month. They have been bleeding players recently and are down to a "mere" $90 per month. Compare that to EA's 2013 revenues of $1.3 billion on consoles and $900 million on PC. So EA had approx. $400 million more on console than on PC, but 2 months of WoW subs covered that. Activision made more off of WoW than they did on any of their AAA console titles. WoW had been saving Activision several years when they didn't have big console numbers.

Console blockbusters make great headlines. $500 million in 24 hours is headline material, but I'd take $200 million per months for several years over that. It just isn't as sexy for news headlines when it happens every month. The thing is, most PC game sales are not from retail brick-and-mortar stores, so NDP and other retail tracking outfits don't have proper data. PC game sales have been mostly digital download for years now. Besides, game sales are no longer the bulk of PC game revenues anyway. Subscriptions, and micro-transactions in free games, are where the money is.

Steam is growing fast too. Since Oct, they have apparently added 10 million new users. They are making it easier for indy devs to publish too. The Steam Greenlight process is going away, which means that devs no longer have to get the community to notice them and ask for Valve to publish them, so I expect both the number of games and number of users to grow significantly in the near future.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/18/2014 11:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
LMAO! You guys. Christ Jesus.

There are fewer PC gamers: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/201205030053...

And fewer PC gaming dollars: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2614915

What this causes is fewer options on PC for great game experiences. It's a simple point I made to a simple question. A well-known, provable fact that has never not been true.

In fact, the numbers you see in the research above are at an all-time high due to improvements made in the PC gaming space (and aging of the last console generation).

Like I already said, right now I only game on PC. I am no console ideologue. I was just stating a simple fact to make a simple point to a simple question. That's all that's going on here. I promise.

As an aside , WoW is an anomaly, which is why you brought it up (like the 360 hw failure thing). It's not indicative of the space and it still doesn't raise PC gaming revenues to a level that would change my point. Blizzard found a lifehack and is literally just siphoning cash out of people's brains for no reason. The game is tedious and boring, which is why I don't play it and why it was so hilarious for Reclaimer to mention it and "boring FPS" in the same post.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 5:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
I've already addressed guesses companies like Gartner make. They are based on retail sales, which the PC games industry has basically left behind. Console only have a handful of blockbuster titles each year. That doesn't come close to the hundreds of millions of dollars spend in cash shops alone. It is really easy to get an estimate of how many console gamers there are, based on console sales. Titles like LoL alone have more players than there were Xbox 360s sold in total. I don't think you realise how large the Asian market is, and how little presence consoles have there, except Japan where the PS and Nintendo are popular. But the rest of Asia plays PCs almost exclusively.

Maple Story, Lineage, Perfect World, etc. have tens of millions of players each. There are ultra-competitive players in these games who spend hundreds per month on potions and other consumables in the cash shops in order to win at PvP. There is a reason why these games are called pay-to-win. None of this is accounted for in Gartner's PC game figures.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 6:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
I should have read that business wire article before I typed the last response. It estimated 54 million "enthusiast" gamers, defining those who spend over $1000 on a gaming PC. Apparently, you didn't actually read the article before you linked it, just getting to the 54 million part and think that wins you argument. What about the much larger number who spend less than $1000 on a PC, or who game on a PC that was bought for other purposes, but still get used for gaming? What about the tens of millions of Asian players who play from net cafes? Many of the games in the Asian market allow players to rent game time by the hour so they play without owning the game or the PC it is played on. There are Chinese MMORPGs that have over 100 million accounts.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2014 8:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
You have an interesting style. Anything that defeats your talking points, just gets thrown out. The Xbox 360? Oh well those failures don't count. World of Warcraft and other cash-cow MMO's? Oh those are an "anomaly", they don't count either.

So I'll just adopt your proven strategy: Everything you are saying doesn't count.

Have a nice day :)


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By inighthawki on 1/18/2014 3:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? Your argument is that a console has more AAA titles than a PC. That is AT BEST accurate if you count only games released within the window of a consoles lifetime. You can't just discount the hundreds of games already released on one platform to aid your argument.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/18/2014 3:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=34157...
quote:
This is a red herring. If you want to add "old games" to the list of reasons to buy a PC instead of a console, go right ahead. The reasons to buy a console remain. The buyer can decide which is more important (hint: most people game on consoles).


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By inighthawki on 1/18/2014 3:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's the post I replied to, idiot. It also doesn't mean anything. It's not a red herring (do you even know what that means?)


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/18/2014 5:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It also doesn't mean anything.
It's extremely tedious to have to explain the discussion's minutiae just so you can follow along. This was an extremely simple point I was making, and somehow it turned into all this.

- I said consoles get more games.
- You said "nuh uh!"
- I said yes, consoles get more games during their lifetimes.
- You said not if you count games that came out before their lifetimes.
- I said that's a red herring.
- You said "nuh uh!"

But it's true. Once again, something I already said is if you're going to put an "old games" bullet point in the Why Buy A PC Instead list, feel free. But that doesn't change anything about my Why Buy A Console list.

You can see me saying that here: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=34157...

Here is the text:
quote:
If you want to add "old games" to the list of reasons to buy a PC instead of a console, go right ahead. The reasons to buy a console remain.


Obviously if you buy a console, you're not buying it to play old games. You're buying it to play current and new ones, more of which are put on consoles. Again, very simple point I was making. It's not this difficult.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 6:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
But consoles do not get more games, even in there lifetimes. There are thousands of PC games made very year. The indy market is huge, and things like Kickstarter have made it so indy games can even have a large budget now. Plus, there pis more freedom in the indy market. It ranges all the way from casual Farmville-like games, to ultra-hardcore stuff that would make console players cry for mommy. Since they are making the games they like for people like them, there is no bowing to shareholders who want proven formulas. That alone makes PC gaming better. Innovation. Not being stuck with CoD 14 and the like is a huge plus.

A lot of the old-school RPG makers that made huge games with hundreds of hours of play back in the 80s and 90s are back in the game with self-published crowdsourced games now. Chris Roberts is making the space combat sim he always wanted to do but never could achieve do to technological limitations. Stardock is doing another Galactic Civilizations, one of the premier 4x space strategy series. You can't find stuff like that on the consoles.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By inighthawki on 1/18/2014 11:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's extremely tedious to have to explain the discussion's minutiae just so you can follow along. This was an extremely simple point I was making, and somehow it turned into all this.

Because what you're saying isn't true

quote:
- I said consoles get more games. - You said "nuh uh!" - I said yes, consoles get more games during their lifetimes. - You said not if you count games that came out before their lifetimes. - I said that's a red herring. - You said "nuh uh!"

Why wouldn't you count games before a consoles lifetime? You're arbitrarily throwing out a huge library of games.

quote:
Obviously if you buy a console, you're not buying it to play old games. You're buying it to play current and new ones, more of which are put on consoles. Again, very simple point I was making. It's not this difficult.

Of course you're not, that's because most of them CAN'T. This is not a selling point for a console, it is a limitation.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2014 7:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
That's biased. An auto mechanic would probably tell you cars are unreliable junk. But that's only because he works on broken ones all the time. Most of them are VERY reliable.

Anyway this is getting silly so, meah, whatever. Go on with your console master race bit, have at it. You refuse to deal in facts and statistics, so I don't see the point.

quote:
One of us could make a PC game literally in minutes.


Just...wow. LOL okay man.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 8:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well, there are some PC vendors with persistent quality issues. Acer for example. But the market is punishing them for that.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 7:58:16 AM , Rating: 2
I think by AAA, he means over-blown shooters with more cut scene than gameplay. If that is AAA, then he can keep it.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By inighthawki on 1/18/2014 12:20:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Consoles always get more AAA titles than PC does within their lifetimes. That's just a fact of life. There's no use arguing.

Assuming that's true, AAA games are a small minority of total games, and by far not the total sum of fun ones.

On top of that, you cannot just discount all AAA PC games that occurred before a console's lifetime. AAA games that were released prior to PS$/XBO don't suddenly not exist, and just because they didn't come out right now doesn't make them any less AAA. I still play plenty of games that are 10+ years old that are WAY better than the cr*p that comes out today and labeled "AAA"

quote:
Now you're just trolling.

Not at all. Buy quality hardware with quality software and drivers. Very rarely does my computer glitch, hang, crash, etc. Sorry if you have a sh*tty PC to compare with.

quote:
You're right, I've always longed to write documents on my game consoles. One can only hope and pray that one day the technology will get there. Thank you, PC Master Race. Please save us.

Simplicity was your argument, not mine. I like to be able to do complex tasks. You clearly do not. I can understand why you would want that, but you're throwing your personal opinion in as fact. I play many of my games in fullscreen windowed mode so I can use my second display to do other tasks inbetween rounds of a game, for example.

I love how you've taken my own counter examples and turned that into me being a "PC master race" user. Do I prefer PC? Yeah. Do I hate consoles? No. They have legitimate purposes, but don't twist what I say to your advantage. Your insecurity with peoples' differing opinions is astounding.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/18/2014 12:32:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still play plenty of games that are 10+ years old that are WAY better than the cr*p that comes out today and labeled "AAA"
I literally just got finished playing a 10-year-old game on a console that came out after the game did (X360). The Wii does this, too (and technically the Wii U). Three days ago I played a PS2 game on a PS2. So I'm not entirely sure what you're on about.
quote:
Buy quality hardware with quality software and drivers.
The question was "why buy a console." The answer is "so they don't have to buy components and make sure they're 'quality' and install the drivers."
quote:
Simplicity was your argument, not mine.
It's not an argument, it's an answer -- again, to the question "why buy a console." The answer is "simplicity."


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2014 8:44:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I literally just got finished playing a 10-year-old game on a console that came out after the game did (X360). The Wii does this, too (and technically the Wii U). Three days ago I played a PS2 game on a PS2. So I'm not entirely sure what you're on about.


You don't have to worry about "backwards compatibility" with a PC.

Older console games are made irrelevant because you can't play them on the newest consoles.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 10:36:14 AM , Rating: 3
But you can play older console games on the PC. Funny thing, isn't it?


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/18/2014 11:25:16 AM , Rating: 2

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=34157...
quote:
This is a red herring. If you want to add "old games" to the list of reasons to buy a PC instead of a console, go right ahead. The reasons to buy a console remain. The buyer can decide which is more important (hint: most people game on consoles).


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By inighthawki on 1/18/2014 3:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I literally just got finished playing a 10-year-old game on a console that came out after the game did (X360). The Wii does this, too (and technically the Wii U). Three days ago I played a PS2 game on a PS2. So I'm not entirely sure what you're on about.

Backwards compatibility on consoles is generally pretty limited. At best they can usually play games from one generation prior, but is not even the case for the newest consoles.
"Three days ago I played a PS2 game on a PS2" - so? What is the point of this comment? You needed to also buy a PS2. With a PC, you don't need to buy a separate PC to continue playing games that came out 15 years ago. The Xbox One does not play PS2 games. If you start arguing PC vs ALL consoles, then you need to sum up the cost of every console youre talking about. Buying every new console that comes out will cost you a lot.

quote:
The question was "why buy a console." The answer is "so they don't have to buy components and make sure they're 'quality' and install the drivers."

Congrats, that is a valid counter argument, but not at all what you originally said.

"They're more reliable" and "you don't have to worry about quality components and install drivers" are two TOTALLY different things.

quote:
It's not an argument, it's an answer -- again, to the question "why buy a console." The answer is "simplicity."

Again, this is only the case if that's what the user wants. I find, for the most parts, that consoles are too simple and too restrictive for my use as my primary gaming platform.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/18/2014 3:41:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Buying every new console that comes out will cost you a lot.
Unless you can find me a computer from 15 years ago that can play games from today, even last year, or the year before that, this argument is invalid.

quote:
Congrats, that is a valid counter argument, but not at all what you originally said.
quote:
4) It's a simpler experience.

quote:
this is only the case if that's what the user wants.
And most users want it, which is why more of them game on a console.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By inighthawki on 1/18/2014 3:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless you can find me a computer from 15 years ago that can play games from today, even last year, or the year before that, this argument is invalid.

Of course not, but I can get you a computer today that can run all the games from the past 15 years (and more).


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By nikon133 on 1/19/2014 4:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
1) He said he already has a PC, so that's just an extra cost

Unless he wants to play exclusives. In that case, it is a must. Being a PC and PS3 gamer, it saddens me to say that, unless you count all the legacy games on PC, nowadays you do get more exclusive console titles than PC titles. Even with PS3 and X360, most traditional PC games had console version, and with new consoles moving to x86 architecture (and removing limitations of low RAM count), I'm expecting even more PC-only games to go multiplat.

It is not that PCs cannot do better than these new consoles. It is simple fact that MS and Sony are spoiling their exclusive developers to keep this trend, while - to my knowledge - no PC manufacturer bothered to do exclusive contract with any game developer so far.

2) No, it definitely does not lol


I think I already covered this. If we don't count original Dooms, Duke Nukeems etc... I can think of number of great exclusives I did play on PS3 (and would play on X360, had I one) and only a few PC exclusives I could not play on consoles. This is down to gaming preferences, though - for people who play more RPG and RTS, equation is not that bad. But for people who prefer more driving, platforming, 1st and 3rd person shooting/action/hack&slash/fighting/... genres, console is really better choice. Regardless of PC's hardware superiority.

The only games I play on PC right now that cannot be played on consoles are Planetside 2 (but it is coming soon to PS4) and Left 4 Dead 2. Everything else I do play or did play recently - BF3, Bioshock Infinite, Far Cry 3, Dishonoured, Dead Space 3 - do exist multiplat, even if some are inferior on consoles. But then, there are Gran Turismo 6, GTA5, Infamous 2, God of War 4 that I play these days... that I cannot get on PC at all.

3) A PC with good drivers and no crapware installed is about as reliable

That is true, I cannot remember having problem with my PC since Vista SP1 days... and probably some time before. It does require more maintenance than console, though, and for people who do not share any enthusiasm for hardware and OS platform, but just want to sit and play something, console is much easier to manage. This is not unlike people with basic requirements moving from PC to tablet.

4) Simplicity is overrated, and not for everyone. I like to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Try to write a document and watch TV on a second display at the same time. Oh right, you can't.

I do that on occasion as well. But after a stressful day at the office, I do like to fall into my favourite recliner, ask my lady to pass me a cold drink, grab controller and play couple of rounds of GT6 on decent-sized TV without moving any part of my body but two thumbs and two index fingers, for a while ;). I usually move to my PC for some online Planetside 2 carnage with my friends later in the evening.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki