What, no thread about the official Wii U release date and prices?

[Grall]

This hasn't been true until this generation. But I do agree in essence, given that MS' entrance in to the market with the Xbox has raised the bar siginifantly, and in turn developer expectations regarding dev tools supplied by a platform holder.

It hasn't been true until this generation (to some lesser extent, original xbox as well I suspect), but now this generation is here, it's been here for well over half a decade and it's going to last a while longer as well. Nobody - nintendo included - is going to be able to hide behind that historically, bad devsystems were the rule rather than the exception.

When a title for a current-gen console costs on the order of dozens of millions of dollars, devs are less than enthused if the development software (and hardware) is temperamental, quirky, inflexible, poorly documented, buggy, crash-prone, or any number of other similar things. Word of mouth travels fast, so if a dev makes a game and has a bad experience making it they probably won't make another unless sales were fantastic, and other devs will be less inclined to try as well.

So MS - being a software development juggernaut who knows exactly what developers need, want and expect - has indeed permanently changed the playing field.

It's one thing that puzzles me about western die-hard Nintendo fans, as they invest themselves and their emotions into a company that clearly cares nothing for them. It's like watching a teenage girl infatuated with her older lover, who cares nothing for her and slaps her around whenever he feels like it. S'a damned shame

Why, thank you for that mental image...!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The N64 controller had a fatal flaw with the joystick being unreliable, well it didn't fail but aged dramatically, even over just a year, it would make noises and have all that gravelly feel. The stick eroded and littered itself with tiny particles of plastic.

Sony's current crop of controllers seem to be the same. I friend noticed his controller sticking as we played FIFA, and it turned out there was a groove in the stem that physically got caught. I see my Dual Shock 3, with a couple of months moderate use, is also wearing away at an alarming rate.

 

[Rodéric]

When a title for a current-gen console costs on the order of dozens of millions of dollars, devs are less than enthused if the development software (and hardware) is temperamental, quirky, inflexible, poorly documented, buggy, crash-prone, or any number of other similar things. Word of mouth travels fast, so if a dev makes a game and has a bad experience making it they probably won't make another unless sales were fantastic, and other devs will be less inclined to try as well.

If that was true noone would have made games on the PS3...

 

[Prophecy2k]

They had quite a lot of trouble getting the Wii U controller to work at all. I think they just didn't have the time - they managed to get the webcam on the Wii U to work and round trip to the console and back into the displayed graphics in minimal time. It makes sense to believe that the Wii U pad, having a built in mic and camera, can be used for these things by default and that online experiences can rely on the user havnig a Wii U pad for him or herself.

So personally, I don't blame them. As for the in-gmae voice chat not being implemented, that's just like Sony, isn't it? It both does and does not make sense, depending on where your priorities are. I personally think they'd be better off if they did include it by default, though, but I am not surprised. There's a very tiny window where 360 owners would buy a Wii U as a replacement for their 360 in the first place if you ask me (never mind that they'd then have to do so en-masse), let alone wonder about monthly fees or whatever to cover the cost of exensive online services.

In-game voice chat works fine on the PS3, and did so from the start. You just paired the bluetooth headset with the console, and were on your way. Certainly not the inconvenient, ill-thought out and confused mess that is described in the OP. There's no cross-game chat PS3, but that's something that of a rather more subjective importance to gamers.

 

[Prophecy2k]

If that was true noone would have made games on the PS3...

This was true at first. Remember all those "de facto" xbox exclusives at the beginning of the gen? Some were indeed moneyhats of course, but the majority were such for the very reasons Grall stated.

In fact, much of the PS3's notoriety for being "hard to program for" was about the poor devs tools supplied by Sony, rather than the actual hw architecture itself (the split memory pool notwithstanding).

Sony's dev tools are now however miles better than they were at PS3's launch. Plus both game & hw sales globally are practically equal with the xbox 360, and so the platform justifies it development priority in the minds of third party publishers.

Had Sony not improved their dev tools, they'd be in a much worse off position right now.

 

[Grall]

If that was true noone would have made games on the PS3...

Basically nobody WANTED to make PS3 games, most devs (except sony 1st and 2nd party devs) did it because PS3 was a playstation, and carried a brand name reputation that WAS second to none at that time, due to the dominating position PS2 had been in.

If PS4 or whatever they choose to call it will be as wonky a system as PS3, sony can forget about ever getting another slice of gaming market pie, because nobody will put up with that one more time. Playstation as a brand isn't what it once was. Remember walkman? Another seemingly unconquerable sony brand which is now completely dead. This can happen to playstation as well; just because you HAVE been very successful is no guarantee for future success, especially when extremely arrogant navelgazing becomes the order of the day.

 

[Rodéric]

Just saying that if sales go well developers will invest time & effort in a new console.
(I think libgcm was written by game devs, not Sony, but I can't remember neither find it online.)

 

[fearsomepirate]

If PS4 or whatever they choose to call it will be as wonky a system as PS3, sony can forget about ever getting another slice of gaming market pie, because nobody will put up with that one more time.

If we get a repeat of this generation and ~50% of hardware sales go to Sony, the PS4 will be getting cross-platform games, even if the development tools are crap on toast. Bobby Kotick isn't going to say to Activision's internal teams, "Oh, you don't want to port this game to the PS4 because it's hard and frustrating? Well, the money we could make selling games to people who bought the machine is less important to me than your job satisfaction."

The only way the PS4 doesn't get games is if people don't buy it.

 

[Sonic]

I do remember devs explicitly saying PS3 will be hard to program for because of its architecture, not os muhc the RSX but because of CELL and the SPE''s. The tools Sony had to offer at launch only magnified the problem that much more. But devs evnetually came to grips with the system and started turning out some amazing looking games. PS2 was a bitch to program for as well, but ti didn't prevent the machine from dominating the industry at the time. If PS4 sells well then game will be made for it, simply put. Sony says they've learned from their past mistakes and may be trying to recapture the magic they had with PS1.

What is absolutely surprising to me is this: http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-MCBLWB6K50XU01-1QKUHEJ2OQTT78PSTPU6MBCDE9

I saw this on NeoGAF. If Nintendo is indeed going to sell the WiiU at a loss initially then they have failed miserably at designing their game hardware in a competent manner. Did their focus on absolute efficiency and cheapness bite them in the ass? If the tablet controller is what is making the thing so damn expensive to make then that means Nintendo is going to take a financial risk (bet) that the tabcon will be the next big thing. If they're wrong it could cost them dearly. The desire/fear to not directly compete with MS/Sony and innovate at the same time is a bad move if you ask me. I for one believe they'd be able to sell a moderately powerful system (think N64 to Dreamcast upgrade) for $400 while still keeping the tabcon as a central part of the system. I think they could sell it by the brick ton if the machine had much better graphics and launched with a flagship Mario game that utilized the controller effectively while simultaneously making console gamers drop their jaw. Too bad that's not going to happen. I doubt it will take a long time for the WiiU to be able to turn a profit at its current price point once economies of scale start to kick in. If they're forced to drop the price once Sony and MS launch their next consoles it could hurt them in a really big way if they're unable to make a profit off the new price point.

 

[babybumb]

The gamepad could easily aproach $100 though the fact that they cant make any decent margins on 3DS they might have trouble at supplychains because of obsolete components..

Nintendo hasnt done much die shrinks in the past like Sony/MS but they need with Wii U..

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Doubt that. You can buy tablets that include a whole lot more hardware than the wuupad does, for less than 100 dollars. And that 100 dollars isn't actual production costs.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The problem isn't that the hardware isn't terribly powerful. The tablet is the problem. How are they going to make something with the appeal of Wii Sports using this monstrosity? Wii Sports had huge appeal because everyone understands tennis and bowling, using the controller in those games was natural and straightforward, and they made great party games. I don't see them demonstrating any software with that level of appeal.

They're back to the ten-button controller, except now they've added a touch screen.

 

[oramay]

Right now, I'm considering a cheap Android tablet with 8" IPS 1024x768 capacitive touchscreen and dual-core CPU that retail for around USD115. I wasn't expecting to hear WiiU will be sold at a loss.

In any case, I've always felt an extra screen in my hands is a waste of resources that can be better spent elsewhere for home console gaming. I can only look at one screen at any time. I don't think having me move my head to see the small screen instead of what's on TV will make a game more compelling than showing those things on TV when I press a certain button.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If PS4 sells well then game will be made for it, simply put.

I think Grall's point is more that if it's a bitch to program in the beginning, devs will choose to ignore it because XB will offer a rival platform that'll sell every bit as well. And if the software isn't there, the console won't sell, meaning Sony won't have the install base needed to get devs to wrestle through the PS4 devtools to create products. That might well be true. There are lots of alternative platforms to PS now. Why take on extra work for yourself targeting an eclectic platform instead of developing on an easy platform? If it were me, I'd be inclined to say, "let some other chump write software to support the platform until it has a userbase worth chasing."

But all that said, I don't expect it to be hard to develop for. The hardware's a known quantity and Sony tools are supposed to be improving. I hope their dev tools are written by better coders than the rest of Sony's software which I associate with bugs and issues...

In any case, I've always felt an extra screen in my hands is a waste of resources that can be better spent elsewhere for home console gaming. I can only look at one screen at any time. I don't think having me move my head to see the small screen instead of what's on TV will make a game more compelling than showing those things on TV when I press a certain button.

There are definitely big positives in it's use. Issuing tactical order with a touch screen during an FPS is far more preferable to switching on the TV to a map screen and using the thumbsticks. In football you could touch a player you want to pass to. In an multiplayer RPG, accessing your inventory on the screen instead of interrupting the game would be very welcome (if you could use multiple Wuublets). I'm not sure requiring a specific tablet is the best solution though, and maybe phones and tablets will offer synergy that's used effectively on the other platforms?

 

[Rangers]

They're back to the ten-button controller, except now they've added a touch screen.

Somewhere in the mountain of comments about Wii U I read one that stuck, it said it's clear Nintendo didn't really have a plan with this. They more just made it and now we'll see what happens.

The Wii motion control they seemed to fundamentally think about, and know something we didn't. All those talks about blue ocean, and how traditional complex controllers actually intimidate most people, all very true stuff.

This thing, I am not sure they have much of a plan for.

I did read one, maybe the first, cool use of it. In Rayman apparently one player can draw platforms on the wuublet (TM Shifty), that the other can then jump on to get coins and such on the main screen. That's actually pretty neat.

 

[Rodéric]

I think we forgot about game engines, they are what many devs use nowaday, and Nintendo integrated Unity into the SDK...

 

[oramay]

There are definitely big positives in it's use. Issuing tactical order with a touch screen during an FPS is far more preferable to switching on the TV to a map screen and using the thumbsticks. In football you could touch a player you want to pass to. In an multiplayer RPG, accessing your inventory on the screen instead of interrupting the game would be very welcome (if you could use multiple Wuublets). I'm not sure requiring a specific tablet is the best solution though, and maybe phones and tablets will offer synergy that's used effectively on the other platforms?

Notice that I didn't say anything about the touch controls. I only talked about having an extra screen to look at. That screen is small, likely to be resting on someone's lap and require the head to move 70 degrees or more to look at. Some kind of touchpad or mouse replacement with appropriate feedback shown on TV can be done without that small screen.

I wonder if anyone find it convenient or even fun when they do some computer work on the desktop but also need to cross reference information in a book which is resting on their lap. :smile:

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I can only speak from experience, but I've never seen anyone game with a controller on their lap, either in real life or in video clips. The controller is held like a book around chest/waist height, lifted off the lap, and viewable with a change of eye direction only - I've known people do that when looking for where the square or triangle button is.

Unless the Wuublet weighs a ton, I don't see any issue with the ergonomics in normal use. the only alternative is either a small-screen insert in the main view, like a map window, which I find kinda obtrusive, or a cut-away to another view breaking the interaction. I'm all in favour of the second screen concept, and the touch interface. I just think the overall package of Wii U is lacking. I'm not sure where it's going and I doubt it'll offer significant advantages over the existing consoles to warrant the price, while I'd prefer that second-screen interface to work with existing touch devices, although the integration of controls and touch screen in Wii U would be a little more convenient.

 

[wco81]

Nintendo issued a warning the other day, slashing profits forecast due to poor Wii and 3DS sales.

They really need the Wii U to boost their immediate term finances.

 

[Grall]

I can only speak from experience, but I've never seen anyone game with a controller on their lap

I do that all the time... Much more comfortable that way.