Which is why I said BF3.
Or Crysis 2, with its complex GI lighting on PC and poopy cut-down version on consoles. If you're just wanting a taste for what real improvements will come, there are
some to see (and perhaps people are a bit shocked at how diminshing returns means all that extra power doesn't equate to much prettier images?). Why look to Nintendo?
Some, indeed.
With the vast majority of them being console ports.
Why should console gamers care about the PC experience? And if PC gamers want the bestest experience, they could vote with their wallets. Turns out more people are happy to have 720p, low IQ, low framerate games over the better experience from better hardware.
It's not a separate entity is my point. PC gamers no longer get software that is tailored specifically for the cutting edge of what is possible (mostly due to rampant piracy). Thus the baseline of whatever is established in the nextgen (Nintendo/Sony/MS) will be the baseline of what is also established for PC because the PC games will (until piracy is under control) be essentially console ports with slightly improved graphics.
I already mentioned this myself. But attracting that sector will be very costly, and at what returns? And at what real evidence people would switch, considering they haven't switched for the better experience they can already get on PC? The USP of Wuu is the tablet. The tablet isn't an afterthought, "oh, let's put some gimmick on our awesome console just in case its awesomeness isn't enough for the core gamers to leave their PS360s." As such, the design is centred around the economical choice for cost/margins in implementing the tablet tech, with fingers crossed that the software can justify it. If the tablet doesn't work, no amount of Hardcore Power is going to save the platform, which would just make it Hardcore Money down the toilet for Nintendo.
The wiimote gimmick was also not used in many of Nintendo's own 1st party titles. Kirby Yarn, DonkeyKong and a few other sidescrollers did not make use of the wiimote. This is also true of other gimmicks such as the 6 axis on ps3. How many games fully supported that feature?
The point is that a already well exposed and developed gimmick such as a touchscreen will not be enough for Nintendo in WiiU. And as I said, trying to lure the casual gamer will not be an easy task as they have a ton of competition in that space and they won't be waiting 7 years between iteration.
In fact, it will be quite likely that a tablet will be available at one point during the WiiU's life that can do everything WiiU can do without being tethered to the house and without the limitations of just being a Nintendo console.
As far as the cost of luring the hardcore gamer in, I don't think anyone would suggest that Nintendo needs to go bankrupt to appease fans with a uber system, but if Nintendo thinks they can continue on their old formula and remain as successful, they are in for a very rude awakening.
If they want to go with a traditional powerful console, they need to avoid gimmicks to save costs and focus money on what's needed to make a potent platform. They aren't doing that, so its pretty obvious they aren't going to go with a full-on generational advance.
Indeed.
I would have suggested as much after the unveiling of Kinect (if after talks with MS, it was found that licensing the technology would be cost prohibitive).
The tablet gimmick is utterly uninspired, but having said that, that does not mean they need to completely drop the ball and aim so low as to render their machine a direct comparison to 2005 hardware.
I fully understand the apprehension of loss leading hardware, but it is unfathomable to think that Nintendo could not put together a 4 core Xenon with a HD7770 and a tablet and successfully put it on the shelf for a break even MSRP.
That's the absolute minimum they should be pursing with a gimmick-centric device. If that total hardware BOM consisting of ~180mm2 die is too costly, then the ridiculous tablet idea should have been scrapped from the get-go.
Now if their hardware choices are dictated by some desire to have margins in the 50%+ range as they undoubtedly were on Wii, then it's time for Nintendo to wake up and smell the competition and realize they are not in a position brand-wise or IP-wise to command such a ransom.
As they say, you reap what you sow.
Nintendo have spent a lifetime branding themselves as affordable family fun. Expanding upward into PS3 pricing territory would be unheard of as they've never been there and they don't have the supporting ecosystem to establish them there. They've also repeatedly shown to be unsupportive of 3rd party devs and 3rd party software sales have supported this notion.
Like I said, it's do or die time for Nintendo and though it would be tough sledding in establishing themselves as a real competitor for Sony and MS, I think they have a much better shot there than trying to compete with Apple, Google, and facebook/free-to-play.
