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

I give it to Nintendo...
By MrBlastman on 1/17/2014 11:25:21 AM , Rating: 2
... The controller was a neat idea. I don't game on consoles at all--well, other than playing games from the 80s, I just don't. But I'm always for new ways to interface with technology to increase the gaming experience.

Nintendo screwed up by making the hardware underpowered... yet again.

With the cost of games being what they are these days, companies can't afford to develop "ports" for multiple platforms with multiple revisions/interfaces/graphics levels like they used to.




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.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Motoman on 1/17/2014 12:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nintendo screwed up by making the hardware underpowered... yet again.


No they didn't. They blew the other consoles out of the water in the previous generation with "underpowered" hardware. As in the previous gen, if you're actually someone who considers the hardware to be "underpowered," you're not the person they're targeting with their product. They're not going after the XBox/PS crowd. They're going after the casual gaming crowd - which they showed conclusively to be a vastly bigger market than the "hardcore gamer" market in the previous gen.

The problem is this, as far as I can tell: the original Wii was bought by essentially everybody who could possibly be interested in casual gaming. For all intents and purposes, they reached market saturation.

The Wii U just simply isn't a significant upgrade in capability - or really, enjoyability - to get those people to upgrade. Sure, it's actually HD now. And the little handheld tablet thingy is...new. So the hardware was updated and the graphics are a bit better. The problem is that those things don't make the gameplay any more enjoyable for casual gamers. It just doesn't.

The Wii was a market-changing phenomenon. The Wii U is simply not compelling to much of anybody, granted that the Wii already happened.

It wouldn't matter if the hardware was twice as powerful as an XBone. Their market still wouldn't be intersted.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By FITCamaro on 1/17/2014 12:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
The Wii sold tons of hardware. It's problem was that it didn't sell tons of games.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By MrBlastman on 1/17/2014 12:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the games that came out on the Wii were licensed poo, as far as I see. The lack of hardware power only exacerbated the problem.

I modified my Wii so I can run 3rd-party software on it such as media centers and can play DVDs on it, so at least I get use out of it. Many people bought it and forgot about it.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Motoman on 1/17/2014 1:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of the games that came out on the Wii were licensed poo, as far as I see.


That's because, again, YOU'RE NOT THE TARGET MARKET FOR THE WII.

You may as well be a semi-truck driver complaining that a Ford Focus just doesn't have enough cargo room.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By MrBlastman on 1/17/2014 1:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
The anger! I feel it! Let it flow through you, young Jedi!

Just because I don't like how you see things doesn't mean you get to yell at everyone you choose.

Wouldn't it be logical to consider that if a console sold really well and... had a LOT of hit games, the next one would sell as well or better? I don't even need to use logic; all I need to do is look to history.

First, look at the original Nintendo and how it sold... and the game franchises on that system. The rest is history. The Super Nintendo carried off of its success.

Then, look at the Atari 2600. It sold great, had many good titles until... ET happened. Then it was downhill from there due to the video game crash of the early 80s. The 5200 couldn't sell and the 7800--well, you were lucky if you ever saw one of those.

The Playstation 1 is another example. It sold like crazy and had a gigantic software library to back it up. The Playstation 2 naturally sold like mad after that.

A system is only as good as its software in the end. If you have no software, you have no point. If the Wii had better hardware initially, it might have had a deeper selection of titles--maybe more quality titles, which would have led to the next system doing well, too.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By karimtemple on 1/17/2014 1:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
Both the Wii's installed base and software attach rate are through the roof; hallmarks of a first-rate sales victory. The Wii did excellent financials, quantitatively and qualitatively. You are entirely mistaken. The math is simple. If you want to argue whether or not you like the Wii (I do not), that's a different matter.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By superstition on 1/17/2014 3:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, look at the original Nintendo and how it sold... and the game franchises on that system. The rest is history.

The original Nintendo competed against a technically inferior Atari lineup but a technically superior Sega lineup. The Nintendo's introduction to the US market had some very special advantages.

The first is that the crash led swept away American hardware and game development -- leaving only old systems to be resurrected and eliminating what could have been strong competition (ColecoVision II).

Nintendo managed to convince stores to stock the NES only because of an innovative policy of promising to buy back unsold units.

Aside from a small number of titles like Phantasy Star, the SMS didn't offer as much in terms of quality software.

The Sega wasn't vastly superior to the NES in terms of hardware, unlike the NES versus the Atari systems.

Nintendo had good marketing and above all, it had the advantage of mature high-quality games like Zelda and Metroid to capitalize on -- games that were more advanced than the earliest NES titles like Pinball which were very primitive -- games that were more complex than Atari's "arcade action" focus. It had both high-depth titles and simple titles for very casual gamers. Even the extremely primitive Pinball sold fairly well. Nintendo did an excellent job of balancing simplistic arcade action and adventure depth with its bundling of Super Mario and then Super Mario with Duck Hunt. Super Mario was easy enough for beginners in early levels and challenging enough to give many skilled gamers issues.

Even the NES control pad represented a big improvement in terms of precision and complexity, as compared with Atari's joysticks. Finally, the system looked sleek and futuristic. All of these factors combined to make the system a success. A big part, too, was Nintendo's control over the quality of the games that were released. A major factor in the crash of 1983 was a glut of software that was poor quality. A few good games were blocked from the US market, but the Nintendo policy was a success overall.

Atari's recycling of the 1979 Atari 400/800 hardware with the XEGS was another major failure. The games were too simplistic. The joystick was too limited. The keyboard was extremely mushy and unimportant. The light gun was inaccurate. The bundled games were a bad joke when compared with Super Mario (never was a fan of Duck Hunt but I recognize the mass appeal).

Nintendo added "long games" to the market (depth, complexity, and character growth), something that was only very poorly attempted with titles such as SwordQuest Earthworld by American console developers. The improved hardware helped a lot, but also the Japanese RPG mentality which is probably liked to manga, anime, and the like.
quote:
Then, look at the Atari 2600. It sold great, had many good titles until... ET happened. Then it was downhill from there due to the video game crash of the early 80s.

ET wasn't that bad. It was quite an ambitious title for such a primitive system. It tried to add the "long game" to the console, and do it better than the Swordquest series had. The trouble is that the system just wasn't advanced enough to handle the long game. ET's biggest problem is that it's either too easy or ridiculously difficult -- depending on the setting. There isn't much middle ground.

ET wasn't the cause of the crash, either. That was the flooding of the market with cheap handheld systems and similar tech -- according to professional historians. The glut of many very poor-quality titles for the Atari, the horrible 5200 system (with its garbage controllers), and competition from home computers also contributed. There were a lot of systems and games being sold and the market became over-saturated.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By superstition on 1/17/2014 4:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from the major issue of lacking backward compatibility, the 5200 fared poorly also because of its lack of games with depth. The interesting thing is that its Donkey Kong (the 400/800 is the same hardware) has more depth that the NES version -- with the extra pie level. Both Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong Jr. are better quality on the Atari 400/800 platform than on the NES. This suggests to me that perhaps the Atari 5200 (and XE) could have supported NES-like games (Metroid and Zelda quality in terms of depth, complexity, and sophisticated graphics/sound).

However, as we saw again with the Jaguar, Atari's idea of video games tends to be simplistic arcade stuff and that's it. The bundled title Cybermorph was pretty deep for an Atari game, but many players felt it was dull. At the time it was impressive when compared with SNES titles like Donkey Kong Country in terms of graphics, but there was no Zelda, Final Fantasy, or Metroid to sell the system.

Another thing that hurt Atari was losing the lawsuit against Coleco. Coleco was able to sell adapters to play 2600 games on its ColecoVision system. Since a huge portion of 2600 games were made by 3rd parties that hurt Atari's profitability a lot -- although the company shouldn't have been relying on such an ancient system to generate much revenue in the first place.

By the way, the gaming commentator who dubbed the Jaguar controllers the worst ever knows nothing about video game history and is piling on the Jaguar because it's an easy target. Clearly the worst controllers were the 5200 controllers, followed by the Intellivision controllers. If you want to including home computers the worst of all-time are the Color Computer joysticks. The Jaguar controllers were amazing in comparison with those, and were much more comfortable, and more complexity-friendly, than the NES controllers. The Jag controllers also had softer D Pad plastic than the NES and Playstation so they were less likely to cause blisters.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By superstition on 1/17/2014 4:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the 7800--well, you were lucky if you ever saw one of those.

The 7800's graphics were inferior to those of the NES and it had terrible sound because Atari recycled the ancient sound chip from the 2600 instead of using its Pokey chip from 1979. Atari was really an incompetent company. Stupendously incompetent.

Even so, there were some good arcade-style games for the 7800 which are fun despite the poor-quality controllers and low-grade sound. Xevious is actually better than on the NES, even though the graphics and sound are clearly worse -- in part because the ships can't fly as fast.
quote:
The Playstation 1 is another example. It sold like crazy and had a gigantic software library to back it up.

Sony can thank two companies for its success: Nintendo, for being underhanded with Philips and Sony over the SNES CD -- as well as choosing to stick with cartridges for the N64, and Square, for Final Fantasy VII.

The Playstation hardware was also pretty advanced, although the 2x CD-ROM was sluggish and the console started the bad trend of selling unprotected optical disks for systems used by kids (rather than optical discs in a shell, like DVD-RAM used).


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/17/2014 4:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
The Colour Computer joysticks, while fragile, gave great control. Rather than the 8 directional joysticks of the other systems, the analogue control was the precursor to the thumbsticks on modern controllers.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By superstition on 1/18/2014 1:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
Non-centering joysticks are bad news for most gaming.

http://devilanse.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/6a00c...

Same issue with 5200 controller, although that one also had terrible tiny side buttons.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 8:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
The deluxe version had a switch on both the vertical and horizontal axis which allowed you to choose centering or non-centering. It was also sturdier.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By superstition on 1/22/2014 2:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't talking about the deluxe. That's a totally different stick.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By superstition on 1/22/2014 2:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
I should make a correction. I have looked into the specs differences between the NES and the SMS in more depth. The two systems are rather equivalent in terms of power, which is surprising since Sega had an extra two years to improve the system.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By CaedenV on 1/17/2014 1:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is a user expierence thing.

The Wii had lots of potential, but very little follow through in getting convincing motion controlled games. It made for a few fun party games (and broken TVs lol) but that was about it. So I think a lot of people realized that they dropped some $3-400 on a console for 2-3 games and decided that it was not worth repeating.

As for myself, I was interested in the WiiU even it is was for the sake of a few first party titles. But at the end of the day the tablet controller and short battery life were boundaries that kept me away. 1 screen is enough, having multiple screens is too much like work.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By wempa on 1/17/2014 10:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is this, as far as I can tell: the original Wii was bought by essentially everybody who could possibly be interested in casual gaming. For all intents and purposes, they reached market saturation.


Not only did they reach market saturation with casual gamers, but think about how much higher cell phone and tablet use is now compared to when the Wii was released. The Wii came out in 2006. The release of the iPhone and iPad got the whole tablet / smart phone craze going. So, a lot of those casual gamers are probably happy playing their gadgets. The WiiU has a lot stacked against it when its target market doesn't show much interest.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By djdjohnson on 1/18/2014 11:32:47 AM , Rating: 2
They sold a ton of hardware initially. By the time the Wii U was announced nobody was buying the Wii any more. Why? (1) Its graphics look absolutely terrible on HDTVs because it is underpowered -- not extremely common with the masses when the Wii first shipped, but quite prevalent later in its life, (2) it didn't have many of the popular games on other consoles because it was underpowered (or, if it did have them, they were lobotomized), (3) It had a weird controller that only worked well for a certain type of game. Sure you could buy the Pro controller (an extra purchase most people would never make), but then you're tethered by a cable to another controller to make it work. Not fun. (4) Its social (online) capabilities were a joke.

Sure the Wii sold a ton up front when people first figured out that it was different and offered a type of gaming that anyone could figure out. It was also cheap. But both the games and the hardware didn't have any longevity. The games that took advantage of the innovation of the hardware lacked depth and thus long-term playability. The Wii was very much one of those "I want to try this out and see what it's really like" and "Okay, I'm bored... I've got other things to do with my time" products.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Dr K on 1/17/2014 1:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
"The controller was a neat idea"

It was "an idea" that Nintendo has failed to exploit in a meaningful way. I once heard a Ringo Starr (of Beatles fame) talking about creativity, and he said, "There's a fine line between clever and stupid." In my opinion, Nintendo crossed the line.

Why would I want to hold a big, clunky tablet controller while I'm playing on my console?
my answer: I wouldn't. I might be convinced to have my Nexus 7 tablet running an app (a la the Xbox app) that gives me access to some useful info, a map, etc., but don't make me hold the darn thing and try to use it as a controller.

Why do I want a second screen?
my answer: I can only look at one screen at a time, the "multi-player" possibility wasn't compelling, and the only game that came close to exploiting the 2nd screen in an interesting way was Zombie U... and it's a zombie game, and I lost interest in anything with zombies in it about 3 years ago -- yes, I'm slow.

What exclusives does Wii U have?
my answer: these are slowly coming out, but it's the 1st party Nintendo titles only because no one else is willing to sign on to this sinking ship. The Nintendo titles (Zelda etc.) are the only things that might convince me to pick up a Wii U at some point.

Can I play the non-exclusive games I'm excited about on the Wii U?
my answer: In some cases "yes," and in some cases "no" because it either doesn't exist or it's a dumbed-down version of what I can play on another console or my PC.


RE: I give it to Nintendo...
By Silver2k7 on 1/23/2014 1:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well the name Wii U sounds like an accessory to the Wii.
It should probably been called Wii 2 or something else.

Also its a bit underpowered. It should have had all the games running in 1080p. Perhaps with an upscaling feature to upscale to 4K for the new TV-sets that will soon be the new standard.

Also for multiplayer you need to buy the *regular style* Wii controller and a Nunchuck for the games that require those. That should probably have been included in the package. So you could have 2-player with from the get go. I seem to recall the old marketing with a family playing together.

Maybe Nintendo could save face by releasing more powerful hardware thats backwards compatible with the Wii and Wii U games. That would be interessting.


They need to copy Sega.
By Flunk on 1/17/2014 11:18:53 AM , Rating: 4
Super Mario 3D World for PS4 please.




RE: They need to copy Sega.
By inighthawki on 1/17/2014 11:37:40 AM , Rating: 3
As a fan of Nintendo games, I would strongly prefer they did not attempt to stay exclusive to one console. +Xbox and +PC if possible as well.


RE: They need to copy Sega.
By inperfectdarkness on 1/18/2014 7:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
How about no? How about the only company with a bevy of GOOD 1st party games stays entitled to pushing their own hardware, and all of the me-too competitors who can't decide if they want to be more like Nintendo or a PC--can go stick it where the sun don't shine.

I'm so fricking tired of all the BS complaints about the Wii or WiiU being "underpowered". Did we learn nothing from the last generation? POWAAA!!!!! isn't required for creating truly immersive, innovative and highly replayable games. Are your collective attention spans so short that they COMPLETELY forget games like Super Mario Galaxy and Mario Kart Wii?

If that's who you are, then you don't DESERVE Nintendo's wonderful games. I would rather see Nintendo go down in flames, holding onto its own hardware, than sell out the likes of a wannabee company that has nothing compelling to offer in its own right.

Sony has been so busy focusing on playstation that it's let most of its other markets practically fall off the face of the earth *cough TV's, etc.*. Microsoft has been so busy focusing on Xbox that it's completely screwed the pooch on windows 8--among other things. Sorry, but I'd much rather have a good OS for my computer than have a tepid, potentially DRM laden, underpowered PC clone that plays the same x86 games as my $2000 laptop, but with barely half the grapic capability.

As to those who scoff at multitasking? I guess you've never juggled between a game window an a GameFAQ. What a sad life you must lead.


RE: They need to copy Sega.
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 10:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As to those who scoff at multitasking? I guess you've never juggled between a game window an a GameFAQ. What a sad life you must lead.


I don't. I tend to want to use my own mind to find the solution, rather than reading a walkthrough.


RE: They need to copy Sega.
By inperfectdarkness on 1/18/2014 12:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
How wonderful for you. Tell me again how you've never played an RPG in your entire life.


RE: They need to copy Sega.
By karimtemple on 1/18/2014 1:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
lmao, Please stop. I'm not sure you realize what this looks like. Readers are likely to infer that you can't beat RPGs without help.

I've always had the same sentiment as troysavary, in this.


RE: They need to copy Sega.
By troysavary on 1/18/2014 5:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Been playing CRPGs since about 1982 or so. Not sure how you jump from "I don't like walkthroughs" to "I don't play RPGs". We didn't have an internet to look up walkthroughs back then. We had dial up BBS services, but posting game spoilers was frowned upon.


RE: They need to copy Sega.
By inighthawki on 1/18/2014 3:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, way to push your own personal opinion as fact. So some people dislike the Wii/WiiU but enjoy Nintendo's quality first party titles. God forbid they make a wishful statement about what they'd like to see.

Seriously... wow


By inperfectdarkness on 1/19/2014 2:27:33 AM , Rating: 2
God forbid those who like Nintendo's games actually buy the fricking system they were designed for. If you dislike the system, don't play the games. If you like the games, then you buy the system.

I would much rather MS and Sony go back to being software companies. Hardware innovation would not suffer at all.


wii was ok
By KOOLTIME on 1/17/2014 11:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
wii was ok it was a good younger kids console system and the 1st out at the time with the wand type games.

Wii just needs to make a nice multi media wii something box. online games movies / tv / music / shopping at a solid price point.




RE: wii was ok
By Digimonkey on 1/17/2014 11:38:17 AM , Rating: 4
I think they just need to get out of making hardware altogether. Focus more on their game titles and release those to multiple platforms. With the advent of the steambox I'd love to be able to buy some Mario/Zelda games through steam, and I'm sure a lot of the other 75 million steam users would as well.


RE: wii was ok
By inperfectdarkness on 1/18/2014 8:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
NO. No, no, no.

That may fit into your cheapskate agenda, but it's entirely missing the whole idea WHY Nintendo making its own hardware is something WE ALL WANT.

Let's think about this. If nintendo only made software & didn't make any hardware, what would probably not exist in console gaming as we know it (or if it did, wouldn't have happened till years later)?

-D-pads
-Control Sticks
-Force feedback
-RF wireless controllers
-Motion controllers (Even before Wii, there was PowerGlove)
-Portible gaming (not those sissy Tiger Electronics games)
-Shoulder buttons

I could go on and on. Nintendo without hardware is a great games company, but one completely hamstrung to truly innovate and without power to utterly change the way we game. I don't want that--and if you're a die-hard game lover, you don't want that either.

Nintendo--for better or worse--needs to stay the same. MS, Sony, Steambox, etc...they can all die off COMPLETELY, and the world of gaming won't be impacted much at all. Nintendo, even converting to just a software company, is a grave wound on the face of gaming worldwide.


RE: wii was ok
By Digimonkey on 1/18/2014 9:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
Nintendo has done a lot for gaming. I can't argue that, however all but one of the things you listed had to do with a controller. On the PC you can put out any controller you want, if it's good/great people will buy it. I believe consoles in general are an out dated concept though, I'm not just picking on Nintendo


RE: wii was ok
By inighthawki on 1/18/2014 3:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
And the vast majority of people find all the new "innovations" that Nintendo puts out as gimmicky at best.

The Wii's motion controls were pretty poorly done in 95% of the titles on the console. The best implementation I've seen of it was Skyward sword, and even that was all but unnecessary to make the game good.

Nintendo DS was intriguing to have two screens, one of them as touch, but the touch component was far oversold and ruined a number of games for me. Phantom Hourglass was such a miserable experience because of the forced touch controls that I gave up midway through and never even considered buying Spriit Tracks. That's a great sales model, right? Make your customers not want to buy games from one of their favorite series? Had it not had touch controls, I would've bought it in a heartbeat. The last decent game I played on my DS was the new golden sun. And guess what, it didn't require touch!

The 3DS. Gimmick at its best. Their brand new next generation handheld was nothing more than a slightly power DS with, get this: 3D. A feature that is fairly split between users as even good, and gives many people headaches, eye strain, etc.

Next up, the Wii U. A slightly more powerful Wii, except now with a touchscreen tablet-esque gamepad that can stream game data from the console. This can create some interesting game mechanics, and might be undersold a bit, depending on the game, but let's face it, there is nothing inherently unique that required the Wii U to implement. Xbox One and PS4 can just as easily implement their own streaming to a standard tablet (If I recall PS4 already can to a Vita?). So why not replace the very specialized tablet-like device with an actual tablet - a device that many now own, and are becoming incredibly popular, and can also do more than the entire Wii U itself can do.

Nintendo's innovation continues to stem from their first party titles, not their hardware or unique controls. Their games are top quality, better than the vast majority of games out there, and that's what they need to focus on. Otherwise if they expect me to buy another console down the road, I need a good reason to. It needs to be competitive with other devices I own, because I'm not going to go spend a few hundred dollars so I can play a small handful of games that, at their core, are just as fun without all the new gimmicky controls as without.


RE: wii was ok
By inperfectdarkness on 1/19/2014 2:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't blame shovelware for the Wii's motion controls. MS and Sony didn't jump on the motion control bandwagon because it was unpopular. The Wii just had the unfortunate distinction of bearing the full brunt of the initial 1st generation of poorly implemented, badly integrated motion-control 3rd party games. I can't fault Nintendo for that at all.

Innovation may come from 1st party titles, but without those "gimmicky" controllers & all the stuff that you complain about, Nintendo is severely hampered in bringing that innovation to the market. It would be Nintendo designing games inside an MS or Sony created box--rather than Nintendo imagining and creating games WITHOUT boundaries, and then designing a box that those games fit in--afterwards.

It is a near-sighted and mistaken impression that the innovation of Nintendo games would continue unabated if Nintendo transitioned to a software-only company. The caliber would remain the same, but the innovation would dwindle.

At best, I would suggest the compromise to be that either MS or Sony collaborate with Nintendo, and Nintendo gets to specify the types of peripheral interfaces & minimum hardware requirements. Then MS or Sony can throw on all the BS bells and whistles of powerhouse GPU's, flashy hi-def that doesn't matter worth squat, etc. Remember, Nintendo doesn't just create a gaming experience, it changes the ways in which we interact with those games. It's a sacrilege to deny Nintendo this.


need lower prices
By Captain Awesome on 1/17/2014 11:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
They need a $199 bundle that comes with a Mario or Zelda game. They had those around Christmas which was tempting, but not tempting enough to forget what a garbage console the Wii was.

But for $199? Who can say no...




RE: need lower prices
By Flunk on 1/17/2014 11:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
You have a point, even I nearly bought one.


Tablets
By gppinky on 1/17/2014 12:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
Tablets and smartphones are gaining a big portion of casual gamer market. This is not good news for Nintendo as people don't find it worth while anymore to buy a dedicated gaming system. There are also a lot of really good free games on those systems which makes it even worse for Nintendo...




RE: Tablets
By sorry dog on 1/17/2014 4:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
I second this reason as one of the major reasons for the sales decline.

I see it with my kids. They still play their 3DS's on occasion, but the tablet games are getting 2/3's of their portable game time. I sorta think Nintendo missed the boat on this possibility. If Nintendo had made a 7" tablet that still runs DS games but also runs tablet apps with a gaming controls I would have probably been on the hook for two of them at least by last Christmas.


Come on Nintendo!
By CaedenV on 1/17/2014 12:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
Give up on the console race and become your own private Steam-like service. There are soooo many sales being lost to emulators on PC and mobile devices, and while you would not win everyone back, there are plenty of us who would be more than willing to pay a few extra $$ to do things legally to get our Mario fix.

Surely it would be worth it right?




Hate to say it
By synapse46 on 1/17/2014 4:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a fan of Nintendo, I've purchased every system they have released up until the wiiU. That being said, I was planning to get my kids new Gameboys for Christmas but at the last minute switched to tablets.




Take the SEGA route
By geogerf on 1/20/2014 5:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
The big N just needs to accept losses and become a software-only provider. They've already tried the blue-ocean strategy by catering to casuals with the original Wii. Casuals don't upgrade their consoles though.

N's internally developed (and licensed - like the latest Donkey Kong games) games are still unmatched and would hugely be crossover hits if they were built for today's consoles. Sure, these titles implement the latest controller/gimmick that N uses, but the games can easily function 'traditionally' if they were designed to do so.

Nintendo still has a great brand - no one complains about lack of creative innovation on the latest mario, mario kart, donkey kong, etc. games because they are still so damn fun.

Nintendo needs to realize their strength and build to that. They are 'too far behind' on the 3rd party support.




The failure isnt PPC
By unimatrix725 on 1/18/2014 1:52:39 PM , Rating: 1
I see no real loss using PPC. It is a more efficient platform. The real reason they are losing is content. I ditched them years ago when they failed to go optical. My main gaming reason "Final Fantasy" went to PSX so did I just because of this one game. They should have taken Sega up on their offer back then. Everyone knows that Nintendo is for kids. The only thing that made me consider it again was the report of a Zelda like no other. Where is it now? Who know. Nintendo has a gift for making titles not hardware. The only hope left is to reduce cost further and possible truly remaster the classics to a HD level. That was the last equation was they had no HD system and the CRT is dead. Has anyone noticed how shitty Nintendo looks on a LCD? I cant comment about the U in this aspect.




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive











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