Launch Post Mortem: PS4 ,XB1, Wii U (now includes poll)*
- Thread starter Nesh
- Start date
Its a very generic statement.
You honestly believe WiiU will be remembered for Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty....interesting
Ahm....yeah?
"Could?"
And game releases werent exactly the most amazing across all consoles this year? They will pick from what they have.
I explained why in the very post you quoted that from but left the explanation out.
Please reread the whole section
Irrelevant to quoted paragraph
They were busy enjoying their huge awesome DC library and writing positive reviews and articles for it's games and hardware. Others were busy pirating the library. The rest were just busy waiting for PS2
Last edited:
@Nesh
Ok, we will just have to agree to disagree. There are countless articles online making the same comparison that I made, but you seem to be somehow offended by the comparison, and believe the Dreamcast was infinitely superior to the Wii U in every way. So we will never see eye to eye, and that's ok. No sense in beating a dead horse.
Ok, we will just have to agree to disagree. There are countless articles online making the same comparison that I made, but you seem to be somehow offended by the comparison, and believe the Dreamcast was infinitely superior to the Wii U in every way. So we will never see eye to eye, and that's ok. No sense in beating a dead horse.
I am not offended. "Countless" articles may be just a few copying each other or just attracted to the idea. Its a nice comparison to make for an "interesting" read. People who write articles are like you and me and sometimes even worse. They arent authority and not always correct. Depending where they are coming from they will form the relevant assumption that feed their preference. In the very same articles you will find below in the comments many disagreeing. The idea of Wii U becoming the next DC legend is an idea likened mostly by the Nintendo fan club. The opposite fence disagrees or is indifferent.
I try to avoid forming opinions based on what the media want me to have. If I see something I disagree with I will point my finger at it
I can appreciate that, and I agree that articles are written by people just like us, so its of course they are just opinions, nothing more and nothing less than we do in the forums. I think the idea that the Dreamcast has "legendary" status is true amongst a small group of people. If you were to ask take a poll on which console deserves "legendary" status for that particular generation, the PS2 would win hands down. A blanket statement that all gamers hold the Dreamcast with such high regard is a fallacy, when the opposite is true, and only a small group of people even find the Dreamcast to be all that memorable.
We arent comparing the amount of people who eventually bought console A in relation to people who bought console B though.
Especially when one console died for reasons irrelevant to the quality and size of its library ( areas that the Wii U is quite lacking still)
An interesting point there is that Wii U is in its second year. It's first was pretty sparse, same of PS4+XB1 (and nigh every console ever!).
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
PlayStation 3 had a great launch year. We got Resistance, MotorStorm, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, ViruaFighter 5. Plus some great remakes - Lego Star Wars, Ninja Gaiden Sigma.
Not that this last year's been bad, either! Though, naturally it depends if you like the games.
PS3 launched in its second year. 
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
PS3 launched in its second year.
Ha! But considering for Europeans the launch started in March 2007 and I only listed games that launched before November 2007 (marking the official Japan launch). I barely had enough time to play those, plus there was absolute gems on the PSN store like Flow and Calling all Wars, Super Stardust HD.
Best six month launch year ever
That's not what I said, you implied that the Dreamcast has Legendary status. Im saying that it only has that status amongst a very small group of people and is not a popular opinion amongst the entire gaming community. Also, if your implying that Dreamcast was on the verge of being a major contender before its ultimate demise thanks to Sega running out of money, I suggest you take a harder look at the sales history. Sega had to cut the price in half in less than two years trying to keep sales going. This was well before Sega announced they would discontinue the Dreamcast. As many positives as you think the Dreamcast had going for it, powerful hardware, great library of games, and ahead of its time online capabilities, it was still going to be a niche product compared to the PS2. Perhaps it would have matched Gamecubes success, but that's about it. The "Legendary" status label would not be of popular opinion with the majority of gamers.
I suggest you make a gallop then.
I did not imply anything of the sorts. I clearly said the Dreamcast had bad market performance irrelevant of the quality and volume of its game library. The console wasnt targeting a niche experience. It was targeting a complete experience from niche to games with wider appeal. No reason to go in circles. We already went though this. The console failed because of SEGA's past mistakes that destroyed their reputation, uncontrollable piracy, EA not supporting the console (conflict of interest some say thus missing extremely important franchises like EA's Fifa and Madden), and extremely high expectations for the PS2. The DC became a niche because of its inevitable low market performance for the reasons pointed earlier. Not because Sega targeted a niche profile for the console. On the other hand the Wii U has a clearly niche profiling. Its performance is a result of both bad offerings and its reliance to primarily sell Nintendo games that are based on a very limited set of IP's that have been on going for decades with hardly any new IPs in the making. Its very few best games that define reason for purchase: Smash Bros', Zelda WW, Mario Bros, Mario Kart....all share the same family casual cuteness and the same universe. Even if we assume these games play like their more mature looking counterparts their presentation alone is a turn off for a huge group of people. Bayonetta 2 is an exception of the rule and its just one game.
Last edited:
Ok, now that is just completely absurd. Nintendo may have failed horrifically, but the Wii U was Nintendo's attempt at returning to the core market with a widespread appeal. Nintendo's goal with Wii U was never to be niche at all. How can you even think that? It released with some of the most popular IP's in the world. COD BO 2, Mass Effect 3, Assassins Creed 3, Madden, Fifa, and so on. It was Nintendo's intention for these IP's to remain on the console. Nintendo never had any intention of the Wii U being niche. Third party titles sold like crap on Wii U, and thats why they arent around anymore. Also, saying all of Nintendo's games are the same is like saying if you have played one first person shooter, you have played them all. Its just not true. Smash Bros has the same appeal that a 2D Mario game has? Pikmin 3 is just another Mario game? Zelda and Mario the same universe? Have you played a Zelda game? LMFAO Ok, we will never see eye to eye. Your right, Wii U will never be Dreamcast equal, its going to do much better than that. LOL
Yes. Nintendo wanted the Wii U to be the new Wii.
The Wii U was designed to accommodate Nintendo's vision (Probably Myiamoto's) for their own games and the tablet idea was supposed to be the Wiimote successor in terms of differentiator. For that exact reason the hardware was outdated, a development hell for third parties and the controller design isnt suited for the experience that third party developers are used to offer. Its ergonomically disastrous for most games. The console does not have the ideal design for third party developers to make and sell their games but it fits better Nintendo's profile. So yeah third party devs had to either adapt to Nintendo's vision or leave.
Third party devs was just a hopeful bet for them.
With such design and hardware choices, third party developers were left with limited options such as porting PS360 games (some of which old) that have nothing to be jealous from their originals. There was no way these games you mention would make the Wii U appear any better or make these games sell well.
If Nintendo truly aimed for a widespread appeal the Wii U would have been a completely different product and Nintendo would have been making other games too.
As for the part in bold I think you should go back and reread because I said nothing of the sorts so I ll just skip it.
Last edited:
The Wii U Controller Pro is very similar to the Xbox 360 controller, and the Gamepad only adds more options for developers. There were no control problems with the Wii U that developers had to work around. This is not the Wii Remote here.
You do realize that when the Wii U launched there was no PS4 and X1 right? They hadn't even been announced yet. PS3 and 360 were the primary platforms leading up to Wii U's launch. That brings me to this:
Famous Ubisoft quote, inexpensive to port their games to Wii U. So yes, Nintendo was short sighted on the fact that PS3 and 360 were on their way out, but from their point of view at the time, they were delivering consumers a console that not only offered their great first party games alongside a console that would offer you COD, Assassins Creed, Madden, Fifa, Mass Effect, Batman, and so on. Nintendo failed to execute this, I dont disagree with that, but just like Sega with the Dreamcast, Nintendo never intended it to be a niche product. They were banking on those third party games to round out the Wii U's library. You know, sort of like third parties round out the Xbox and Playstation library. No console manufacture can offer a complete and well rounded lineup by themselves. Here we are in 2014, and the 360/PS3 are still relevant. COD and Assassins Creed still hit those consoles this year. Madden and Fifa hit the console this year. The truth is, if software sales for these third party multi plats sold worth a damn on the Wii U, then Wii U would have a very well rounded lineup this year alongside some great first party games. As it turns out the sales sucked and publishers moved their resources to better investments.
I would hope its clear by now that Nintendo had intended the Wii U to be the console for everybody. They were going to do their own thing, as they always have, and were banking on games like COD, Madden, and AC to round out their lineup. They failed miserably to execute this plan, but I can assure you, having no third party support after two years was not their plan. LOL
My real gripe with Nintendo right now, is that there is no question the Gamepad adds a lot of cost to the console, and seeing as how they focused so much on it leading up to launch, its embarrassing that they have so few games that really make good use of it. There are a lot of nice features that make things more convenient, but not necessary. Other than Nintendo Land, Zombi U, and Rayman Legends, there really arent to many games that make much use of it. Off TV play is nice for those who have to share their TV, but for the emphasis Nintendo placed on the Gamepad, it honestly doesnt seem to have stemmed from their developers demands. Its almost like Nintendo thought they needed to have some sort of gimmick, and figured the dual screen worked for their portables, why not home console. Didnt really work out to well for them. I think there is potential there, Zombi U is a better survival horror game because of it, but Nintendo has done a very poor job of showcasing why it was the center-stone of their new console.
Which says nothing at all because it is NOT the primary controller. The Wiiblet is the main packed in controller.
The Wii U Controller Pro is very similar to the Xbox 360 controller, and the Gamepad only adds more options for developers. There were no control problems with the Wii U that developers had to work around. This is not the Wii Remote here.
Just to see how much more important the Wiiblet was for Nintendo, Nintendo knew it was costly and yet decided to invest more on that and less on hardware performance. Without it, the WiiU is a PS360 that plays Nintendo games. The pro controller is a throw in option (like they did with the Wii) otherwise it would have negated Nintendo's primary design decisions and business plan
So the Wiiblet is the console's MAIN hardware highlight, the main differentiation and the main controller. It is the main selling point, the accessory that is supposed to bring a whole new experience which didnt produce the desired results. The Pro is destined for a gamer profile that Nintendo doesnt see as primary because the majority are already on PS360 or will be/are on PS4/XB1.
Ahm yeah. That was supposed to be an advantage for Nintendo. This should have been producing a lot more unique/better/new games for the WiiU without next gen competition. It didnt. If PS4/X1 were sitting next to WiiU dring launch, the WiiU might have been at an even worse position.
Why dont you post the whole article which reveals a different picture than what you want to convey? You know what you were doing when you selectively posted a part didnt you?
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...says-wii-u-ports-costing-under-USD1-3-million
Which actually reveals the following:
- We wont invest as much on WiiU as we did with the current HD consoles. Such big projects are too costly and risky from a business perspective
- We will instead rely mostly on ports which are a lot more cheaper and less risky from a business perspective
- In terms of new games we will invest on projects with lower production values and try to compensate with "innovation" (that is supposed to come with the controller).
And then we have this
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-secret-developers-wii-u-the-inside-story
When a new console is released developers will test the waters. They tested with PS360 ports. The fact that these third party developers tested the waters is not proof that Nintendo made a console that was suitable for a wider audience.
Even if Nintendo DID plan to make the console suitable to all audiences including the PS360 profile of core ganers, they werent in touch with the design. The design of the console is more revealing:
They tried to mimic Wii's success. Wii may have been a huge success but it was a success, not because it provided a complete experience. It attracted a new kind of audience that Nintendo wanted to get back.
So Nintendo made
- A very underpowered console, expecting and leaving developers only with the Wiiblet( as the new Wiimote successor) to evolve their projects on from one gen to the next. The performance was very limiting for third parties to open up beyond what was possible on the older consoles. They dont have Nintendo's mentality. They make different games. Nintendo wanted the Wiiblet at the cost of performance. Not them
- They underestimated or ignored that 160 million people already owned a PS360 which is "close" in performance to the Wii U. In true honesty it sounds absurd to expect most of these gamers to upgrade to WiiU because of the Wiiblet.
- But Nintendo werent that absurd. They saw that 100 million bought a Wii before. Third parties werent the happiest but Nintendo was happy. They sold millions of Wii Sports and other Nintendo games. They wanted to replicate that. They bet their money on that. A console that would be a platform to sell their Nintendo games that nobody else would be able to replicate. When Nintendo designs a console they design it primarily with the feedback they get internally from their own studios. Myiamoto is a significant part of the decision making and Nintendo tries to be faithful to following a tradition of making games that are an amalgamation of Nintendo creativity combined with unique hardware features. In this case the Wiiblet. Providing mainstream experiences provided by competition is not their thing.
Last edited:
The Gamepad can do everything that the Controller Pro can, there are no limitations. There is no controller limitations, that's my point. This is not the Wii remote, the Gamepad can do everything the 360/PS3 controllers can, and more.
That was the gamble Nintendo made, they thought by bringing their hardware spec up to 360/PS3 standards, and have the Gamepad be the differentiator. Nintendo lost on this gamble.
We have a winner ladies and gentlemen. Seriously dude, your arguing things for the sake of arguing. Nintendo wanted to create a platform that had wide appeal, assuming that if COD and AC were there alongside Mario and company, then many of those interested in the Xbox or Playstation may consider a Wii U instead. They failed to execute this, and they fell on their face. We both agree that that Nintendo failed in that respect, but they did indeed have the intention of having widespread appeal.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I love my WiiU, but I'm inclined to agree with Nesh's post.
Last edited by a moderator:
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
But isn't that only true if you're defining "widespread appeal" to mean a games library that is rounded out by sloppy ports of last generation titles?
The problem with the WiiU is the same as that with the Xb0x, they choose to spend their budget on a unique controller interface and sacrifice performance. The key differences being that the gap between the WiiU and current generation systems is much wider than the gap between the Xb0x and the PS4, and that even with Kinect v2, the Xb0x still comes with a standard controller.
The problem with the WiiU is the same as that with the Xb0x, they choose to spend their budget on a unique controller interface and sacrifice performance. The key differences being that the gap between the WiiU and current generation systems is much wider than the gap between the Xb0x and the PS4, and that even with Kinect v2, the Xb0x still comes with a standard controller.
Similar threads
