Anyone still think Wii U will "win" "next gen"?

[Arwin]

The thing I like about Ninty is that they always have stuff up thier sleves. They are not just re-releasing prettier versions of angry birds or call of duty. Back in the day you could not even dream of playing mario with 4 players simultatiously. yeah its the same old mario but the game is fundamentaly better - instead of "oh halo 4 has better lighting that halo 1".

As long as they keep expanding how we play I don't see them "failing". Especially with the BC and support for multiple controllers. PS4/Next will probably kill all B/C because their hardware will be so new.

Doesn't Halo 4 have 4 player co-op as well? Or the original LBP (and any following, including the Vita version), where on console you could also play both local and online or mixed?

I think you're not wrong, but you're praising the wrong things. Nintendo is to be lauded for stuff like motion controls, asynchronous multi-player. And to some extent also for getting remote play 'right' ...

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Doesn't Halo 4 have 4 player co-op as well? Or the original LBP (and any following, including the Vita version), where on console you could also play both local and online or mixed?

I think you're not wrong, but you're praising the wrong things. Nintendo is to be lauded for stuff like motion controls, asynchronous multi-player. And to some extent also for getting remote play 'right' ...

Hell there is 4 player coop in call of duty, off line and online.

I think owens bash Against cod is just him not playing the game, cod4 revolutionized online shooters this generation...

Mario games this generation has been better versions of the same old thing

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I suppose Owen's point really comes down to Nintendo being able to reuse the same IP over and over (or unwilling/unable to come up with anything new, from the other perspective). It's always Mario and friends in every game genre, where on other consoles the genres have their own franchises and characters, etc. The upshot of that is franchise loyalty and a willingness to interest people in a game just because of the characters, similar to named actors drawing people to watch a film. I suppose the downside is that Nintendo produce a pretty niche set of content. That fun, friendly style is essential and no-one should be without it, but Nintendo don't bring any other entertainments. Sports, shooters, gritty games, story games, etc., have to come from third parties. If Nintendo don't get third parties on board, any console they produce will only be good for its Nintendo games, where the competition offer a broader variety (even if on the fun, friendly side they can't compete with Nintendo, which is a whole other discussion!).

If you want a family console, Nintendo's way up there. If you want a broad entertainment device, Nintendo strike me as completely out-competed. They'll have to do something utterly amazing to change that with Wuu.

 

[TheLump]

I suppose Owen's point really comes down to Nintendo being able to reuse the same IP over and over (or unwilling/unable to come up with anything new, from the other perspective). It's always Mario and friends in every game genre, where on other consoles the genres have their own franchises and characters, etc. The upshot of that is franchise loyalty and a willingness to interest people in a game just because of the characters, similar to named actors drawing people to watch a film. I suppose the downside is that Nintendo produce a pretty niche set of content. That fun, friendly style is essential and no-one should be without it, but Nintendo don't bring any other entertainments. Sports, shooters, gritty games, story games, etc., have to come from third parties. If Nintendo don't get third parties on board, any console they produce will only be good for its Nintendo games, where the competition offer a broader variety (even if on the fun, friendly side they can't compete with Nintendo, which is a whole other discussion!).

If you want a family console, Nintendo's way up there. If you want a broad entertainment device, Nintendo strike me as completely out-competed. They'll have to do something utterly amazing to change that with Wuu.

Well put. I actually do think they have the franchises to do it though. Metroid is crying out for a more gritty approach. Retro managed to make it look fabulous on GC and even more on Wii - they need to milk this franchise for all its worth if they want "Teh Hardcorz" crowd to give Nintendo a chance. F-Zero also has the potential to appeal to a broader demographic - but they seem to have dropped their only franchise (outside of Mario Kart) which could attract an arcade/racer fan.

I'd also like to point out the irony in this situation (not aimed at anyone and not in reply to Shifty. A bit OT really but it always makes me chuckle): In my experience the more "mature" games like COD, GTA, KillZone, GoW are actually aimed directly at the 12 - 18 age range, marketing wise at least. No matter the quality of the underlying game; Guns, Violence, Sex and Explosions are marketing 101 when trying to appeal to the adolescent male. I'm 26 and even to me the way these sorts of games are marketed is starting to come accross as cheesy and kinda funny. I still love the games, and I still buy them - but not because of their core marketing. A few years ago I would have seen the advert for Farcry 3 for example and said "Cool, that looks freakin' awesome" - now I saw it and said "Probably a good game, but Mohawk guy with a scar and squeeky voice is hilarious" That is clearly not aimed at me any more. I'm now old and less important to advertisers. On the flipside, you get 12 - 18 year olds feeling the same way about Mario games. They're "for kids" or are too cutesy and not cool enough. They actually appeal more to the mid to late 20's gamer who is either looking at them through nostalgia tinted glasses or just likes platformers and is too old to feel silly or embarassed about their tastes.**

Nintendo's problem is that this younger demographic (teenagers) is the main consumer right now. And they just don't do enough to appeal to them in general. Nowadays, with social networking and the immediacy of reviews/critiques, image is more important than ever. Its tought to shake off a label for a company, and Nintendo won't shake off the "Kiddy/Casual" label unless they bring out the other big guns early (Metroid/Zelda/F-Zero).


**these are obviosuly huge generalisations. There are many exceptions to each side of course. And either side of that age range (below 12ish and above 30ish) things probably flip round the other way again. Its just interesting how "mature" games are often more vaunted by younger crowds, and visa versa.

 

[dagamer]

Game consoles are not like cell phones where the average person only buys one and ignores all others. It is very possible if not likely that many gamers, especially hardcore ones, will own multiple consoles. I think a huge hurdle most people have with the Wii was that it was not HD (I know I did). I vehemently refused to buy a console that looked so terrible on my then 46" HDTV when I could play far better looking games on the PS3/360. And I don't even think that raw graphical power with bump mapping and all those whizbang features really mattered either. I played Zelda: Skyward Sword using Dolphin and cranked up the internal rendering resolution to 1080p and the game looked great simply because of the great art direction.

The sales of the Wii (with a 30+ million lead) pretty much prove that people aren't buying consoles for graphics. In fact, I cannot remember the last time when the console/handheld with the best graphics "won" a generation. Not the N64/Dreamcast, not the Xbox, not the PSP, not the PS3/360, not the Vita. I'm beginning to see a trend here...

I'd also say that what really screwed the Wii up from a "hardcore" gamers perspective is that the 360 launched first a year earlier. It was already dated and had it's first AAA original title in Gears of War, whereas Twilight Princess was a Gamecube port. Not a great way to attract that particular crowd. But again, even SSB: Brawl rendered at 1080p would be good enough for 99% of gamers out there. Standard def is just painful to look at!

 

[dagamer]

I've been told by "people that like platformers" that latency is incredibly important, and one of the major reasons "Mario works" is latency.

In terms of multiplatform, I suspect Iwata's private response is "meh". Third parties don't make Nintendo much money, and Nintendo doesn't make much money from third parties... I also think that Nintendo is the 'wholesome/clean' console, I don't think they necessarily want a Nintendo "best for COD: super death kill" display inside a store.



Maybe the DS tablet would be extremely cheap and games focused - the WiiU would give it the ability to connect to the internet and browse?

It's been known that Sony/Nintendo were trying to tie their console & mobile devices together (hence 'expensive' suggestions that something like the vita would be a controller for the PS4). Maybe Nintendo have made half the jump, and their console-pusher is a device we haven't seen yet?

People buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games. I don't think they've been the preferred platform for 3rd party developers since back in the SNES days and that's 20 years ago. However, Nintendo has almost always been the #1 "2nd" console because there's little point in buying a new console that lets you play almost the exact same games as the one you currently have. No platform exclusive or first party IP Microsoft or Sony has trumps Mario and Zelda for the general public. And there are fewer and fewer 3rd party developers releasing a game only on one non-Nintendo system these days, and I expect even fewer with the PS4/XB3 considering they will come out at roughly the same time.

 

[Rodéric]

It's much harder to sell the Wii U concept than it was to sell motion control.

The Wii U padlet is really good, it really feels like you have a window to another world in your hands, and can interact through it, if they release an accessory to turn it into a FPS Gun, it could lead to a very immersive experience.

Asymmetric gameplay is also a bit harder to sell than the window to another world/FPS Gun concept IMO, but it's really an interesting idea.

I think a lot of people will still want the usual experience (PS4/XBox next), not everyone has 15+ years of gaming behind him and his tired of playing the same thing with worse controls and less interactivity as time pass...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How would an accessory turn the Wuublet into a gun? A rifle with that mounted on the top sound kinda unwieldy.

 

[MystWalker]

I have no idea who the Wii U is supposed to appeal to, or why. It seems to me to be completely opposite in design philosophy to the Wii.

1. The tablet vs the remote. - The idea of the Wii was to get people who used to play or never played to pick up a controller. It had few buttons, and playing Wii Tennis was as simple as swinging the controller to hit the ball. The Wii U pad, by contrast, is arguably the most complex pack-in controller in the history of console gaming. Even worse, the popular Wii remote has been relegated to the status of a peripheral, which means we can expect few games to support it. I have no idea who's supposed to find the tablet particularly appealing, or how Nintendo is expecting fans of Wii Sports to be attracted to this thing.

2. Nintendoland vs Wii Sports - Nintendoland is a franchise nostalgia trip embodied as a theme park for five-year-olds, saturated to the gills with cloying chibi aesthetics. Wii Sports was sports with an unassuming, age-neutral style. Wii Sports was designed to appeal to everyone. Nintendoland is designed to appeal to small children, and to people with such a deep love of Nintendo franchises that they don't feel embarrassed playing a game designed to appeal to small children.

IMO the Wii U is a 180 turnaround from the Wii (the only similarity is that it's not very powerful) and goes back to the path they were on with the Gamecube. And I expect it to have a similar level of "success" as that console did.

No offense meant here, but have you played the game? The difficultly, at least on the team games, starts out fairly tame, but there is a pretty big spike as you get into the higher levels. Additionally, once you complete the main 16 levels for say Metroid Blast, but this applies for any team, there are an additional 8 bonus levels which are challenging even for a "hardcore" gamer. It took me and a friend a good 8-10 tires to beat the bonus final boss level, and both of us are pretty competent gamers.

Getting a little off track here, but I would say that NintendoLand is targeted more at gamers and Nintendo fans than casuals. There are a couple events, though, that are pretty clearly targeted at a more casual audience. For example, Octopus Dance or whatever it's called. IMO, it seems Nin. was targeting "something for everyone," but the game ended up being more slanted towards gamers with a dash of casual thrown in. Unfortunately for Nin, the "PS360" gamers don't seem to be paying much attention.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Unfortunately for Nin, the "PS360" gamers don't seem to be paying much attention.

Because it's a £300 console! It's the same whenever an interesting exclusive comes up on the console you don't own. You take a look, wish games were cross platform, and go buy something else that is on your console. As there are plenty of games, the absence on one of other isn't a big deal and certainly little reason for any but the most serious gamer to buy a whole new box to serve the same general purpose.

 

[Platon]

The sales of the Wii (with a 30+ million lead) pretty much prove that people aren't buying consoles for graphics. In fact, I cannot remember the last time when the console/handheld with the best graphics "won" a generation. Not the N64/Dreamcast, not the Xbox, not the PSP, not the PS3/360, not the Vita. I'm beginning to see a trend here...

Of course there are more factors than just the graphics that count. For example PS2 vs xbox. Sure the xbox was more powerful, could pump out better graphics but it lacked in the game department. Of course people that want to play their favorite games will not jump on a platform that does not have them, especially such a new and unproven platform, then you go the "safe" route. And you have the snowball effect, once a console start selling well, people will buy it just because your friends and so on have it as well.

However, you can't disregard the graphics though, otherwise we would still be stuck with pong, space invaders and pacman. Although the "winner" of the console generation might not be the graphics king, there haven't on the other hand been generational differences within the generation, graphics have been close enough to each other.

Granted, the Wii was one of those exceptions, where you basically had "last gen" tech compared to the competition. However, the Wii is the exception in many things. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from it, and I generally don't like it being brought up all the time as an example for anything basically. It was a fluke and to me just shows that yes, there are other things than the best graphics for a large part of the population, not that graphics don't matter.

What conclusion are we to draw from the fact that 360 has been selling more than it for two years straight and that in a month sold more both Wii and its next iteration together, that in the end power and graphics actually win? Sure the Wii had a great run drawing non gamers into to gaming and expanding the market beyond the core and casual gamers out there, will it be able to keep that momentum though.

The problem with non gamers is that you will have to go from the one fad to the next. They are very fickle and you can't count on them for future business, unless you can keep on coming up the one fad after the other. One can see this in the mobile space where a game or app receives all the attention and everyone uses it to all of the sudden noone cares again. Is that what awaits the WiiU? We will see...

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Most of Early 2013’s Biggest Games Seem to Be Skipping Wii U

Here's the list of popular multiplatform games that do not have a Wii U version announced:
- Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel
- BioShock Infinite
- Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2
- Crysis 3
- Dead Island Riptide
- Dead Space 3
- Devil May Cry (Reboot)
- Fuse
- Grand Theft Auto V
- Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
- Metro Last Light
- Remember Me
- South Park: The Stick of Truth
- Splinter Cell: Blacklist
- Tomb Raider (reboot)


But fear not, Nintendo optimists! The Wii U still has exclusivity with "Game & Wario" to compensate for all of this.

Actually, the thing that amazed me the most is the fact that almost all these games have a PC port.
This is excellent news for PC enthusiasts.


Too many developers are saying that making a Wii U version would be too much work, probably because working around the slow CPU and severely castrated memory bandwidth isn't a small feat.
To me, it's pretty obvious by now that the Wii U will not be able to get ports from the next-gen consoles, rendering it obsolete in a year. Maybe it'll manage a couple of ports from the PS Vita?

I think the Wii U will succeed as much as the Wii did in the past 4 years. As soon as the other consoles are released, the Wii U will be like a Wii without the novelty factor.
While being sold for so much money, it'll probably be profitable for Nintendo. Maybe not as much as Gamecube, but profitable nonetheless. But the huge losses on market/mindshare may push Nintendo into making only handheld consoles or worse: downsizing into a software company.

Some people are already hoping for a new Nintendo console in 2014. Not going to happen. Not because they shouldn't, but because they're too damn proud for shelving the console that early in the game.

 

[AzaK]

Most of Early 2013’s Biggest Games Seem to Be Skipping Wii U
]

Here's the list of popular multiplatform games that do not have a Wii U version announced:
- Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel
- BioShock Infinite
- Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2
- Crysis 3
- Dead Island Riptide
- Dead Space 3
- Devil May Cry (Reboot)
- Fuse
- Grand Theft Auto V
- Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
- Metro Last Light
- Remember Me
- South Park: The Stick of Truth
- Splinter Cell: Blacklist
- Tomb Raider (reboot)


But fear not, Nintendo optimists! The Wii U still has exclusivity with "Game & Wario" to compensate for all of this.

Actually, the thing that amazed me the most is the fact that almost all these games have a PC port.
This is excellent news for PC enthusiasts.

Yeah it's pretty sad to see so many games not coming to the system but as I mentioned in the other thread, I bet it's to do with anything but the power of the machine.

Too many developers are saying that making a Wii U version would be too much work, probably because working around the slow CPU and severely castrated memory bandwidth isn't a small feat.
To me, it's pretty obvious by now that the Wii U will not be able to get ports from the next-gen consoles, rendering it obsolete in a year. Maybe it'll manage a couple of ports from the PS Vita?

It's really hard to predict whether it will get downports; it could go several ways.

1) Wii U is a third SKU when development of next-gen games come. Best outcome for Nintendo (And me as an owner)

2) Wii U is considered the third SKU along with 360/PS3 and it's support will dry up as it does for those consoles. I can't recall the game but I read something the other day about a AAA game that's being done on 720/PS4 by one team and the 360/PS3/Wii U version is by another team. This is a little concerning.

3) Wii U is considered the bastard child and basically gets Vita versions.

4) Wii U is perceived as the typical "Casual" game machine and gets completely different versions of games (DeadSpace extraction), and completely different IP's (Fitness etc)

I think the Wii U will succeed as much as the Wii did in the past 4 years. As soon as the other consoles are released, the Wii U will be like a Wii without the novelty factor.
While being sold for so much money, it'll probably be profitable for Nintendo. Maybe not as much as Gamecube, but profitable nonetheless. But the huge losses on market/mindshare may push Nintendo into making only handheld consoles or worse: downsizing into a software company.

The Wii U has more than a novelty factor. The GamePad is actually more versatile than the Wii Remote and I can see it becoming well known for this versatility. Not only in the variations on games it can do, but also for the simple things. Things like the remote control (I use mine ALL the time), the web browser (Not the best but definitely more than just functional) and off TV Play.

I'm not sure if you have one, but after playing for one for a week it's really starting to become part of the furniture at my place.

Some people are already hoping for a new Nintendo console in 2014. Not going to happen. Not because they shouldn't, but because they're too damn proud for shelving the console that early in the game.

Those people are just trolls that want to see Nintendo fail hard. If Nintendo released a new console in 2014, that would destroy them on so many fronts. They will not do it. They'd much rather have a GameCube generation (That was profitable for them) than do that.


In the end it's looking like my worst fears are slowing coming to fruition. Basically Wii U turns into a Nintendo + Japanese + Casual gaming machine with middling western support. For Nintendo that could be perfectly fine and very profitable, but for me as someone who like the "Western" titles, it will mean I take my money elsewhere and get a 720.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Some people are already hoping for a new Nintendo console in 2014. Not going to happen. Not because they shouldn't, but because they're too damn proud for shelving the console that early in the game.

They weren't too proud to drop the 3DS price or shelve Virtual Boy after 6 months, so I don't know where this is coming from. Nintendo are very business savvy. They'll make a profit, and if that requires a new machine, one will appear.

 

[ERP]

They weren't too proud to drop the 3DS price or shelve Virtual Boy after 6 months, so I don't know where this is coming from. Nintendo are very business savvy. They'll make a profit, and if that requires a new machine, one will appear.

While I agree, I think another console as early as 2014 would be impractical.
You've got to develop hardware, the system software and the games, plus any infrastructure that's new or improved. I just don't hink you could do it in 2 years start to finish and end up with a successful launch.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

In some way, if they can keep wiiu going for 4 years they might be in a really good position to launch a new console. If rumors are true it will take until ~halfway 2014 for ps4 and x720 to both be on the market. If Nintendo eeks out another 2.5 years the wiiu will be on the market for a bit over 4 years, bit short but not too bad. Besides it wont be off the market right way (as long as there is money in it).

I suspect the next sony and ms consoles will have to last for atleast 7 ~ 8 years again. If Nintendo launches a new console 3 years after them, wouldnt that put them in a good position to compete with ms and sony? 3 years in they could probably design a console that is atleast as fast but will be a fair bit cheaper to build so if they play it smart there shouldn't really be any problem in getting all the multiplatform releases and they would have atleast another 5 year cycle with what could be a competative but cheaper device.

 

[BRiT]

. If Nintendo launches a new console 3 years after them, wouldnt that put them in a good position to compete with ms and sony?

Knowing Nintendo, they will design a console that costs more to make and performs slightly worse or on-par to MS/Sony console. In other words, DCA (decade continues apace).

 

[JasonLD]

Does Nintendo has to "win" the next generation battle to stay relevant? Main focus is to stay profitable and Nintendo has done fairly well in that regard (Well, maybe not last year but it was their first non-profitable year in last 30 years).
If Nintendo can maintain Wii U and 3DS respectable for next 4 years, they should be fine. After that, Nintendo may come out with a true hybrid home/portable console that has both Wii U and 3DS compatibility.

 

[DoctorFouad]

I suspect the next sony and ms consoles will have to last for atleast 7 ~ 8 years again. If Nintendo launches a new console 3 years after them, wouldnt that put them in a good position to compete with ms and sony? 3 years in they could probably design a console that is atleast as fast but will be a fair bit cheaper to build so if they play it smart there shouldn't really be any problem in getting all the multiplatform releases and they would have atleast another 5 year cycle with what could be a competative but cheaper device.

are you kidding ?
after 6 years they couldnt achieve that goal with WiiU (compared to ps3/xbox360), WiiU is less powerful than both sony and microsoft last gen offerings + it is more expansive to buy. so how do you want them to achieve better results in 3 years time ?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Lets say technically it shouldnt be an issue