The Wii U is officially a flop: only 160k units shipped last quarter

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

I disagree that the Wii was just a fluke. People act like some magical fairy dropped motion control on Iwata's lap, he slapped together the Wii and just tossed it on store shelves and BOOM, sales. I would imagine there was alot of planning and brainstorming behind the system. Perhaps they built prototypes and such, and unlike the Wii U, Nintendo actually put some effort into marketing the Wii and advertising it to give attention to the system.

And if motion controls were such an easy idea for money, then why didn't Sony or Microsoft think to make something like the Wii? Sony did it with they EyeToy, though that was more of a side thing. Nintendo was the only one to actually dare and stray from the usual console cycle or just improving hardware and adding a few new features, and was the only one to try and appeal to a larger, wider audience outside.

The point is, while maybe the Wii was a fad, its not line Nintendo got that success by just sheer luck alone. They have likely put in alot of thought and work behind the system and actually had to show some initiative to look outside the gamer circle to get sales.

I will admit that Nintendo did lose focus on the Wii sometime after 2010 though. I'm guessing that after that point thy were already dealing with the 3DS and already planning on the Wii U (albeit poorly considering the system's abysmal sales and handling), and thus just kinda started supporting the Wii less as a result.

Grammaton-Cleric

I think you're giving Nintendo too much credit.

The Wii was a Hail Mary; a desperation move by a company that could no longer compete head-to-head with Sony or MS after being trounced for two consecutive generations. They shot for the casual gamer and tapped into an incredibly successful fad that lasted for about three years, then fizzled nearly as rapidly as it began.

Also bear in mind that Nintendo and their console benefited greatly from both MS and Sony making some significant mistakes early on, namely MS's confusing multiple hardware configurations and Sony's ridiculously expensive initial pricing of the PS3. Both companies also bet heavily on HD prematurely and their rush to get new hardware to the marketplace earlier than many consumers felt necessary made it easier for Nintendo to offer a weaker system at a much cheaper price.

It was the perfect storm: the competition screwing up while Nintendo simultaneously tapped into a new market. Unfortunately for Nintendo they discovered something about the ultra-casual consumer: they are not a sustainable source of revenue.

Further evidence of their incompetence can be seen in how poorly they handled the system once sales began to slow. As you mentioned, they began focusing on the 3DS and allowed the Wii to wither and die slowly, the system enjoying the occasional first party exclusive but ultimately left in the proverbial dust of their competition as both the XB360 and PS3 enjoyed a never-ending torrent of quality software. It's a rare thing to see the market leader in hardware limp across the generational finish line yet somehow Nintendo managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

In regards to consoles, I don't think Nintendo possess even a rudimentary understanding of what it requires to compete and clearly they didn't understand what propelled the success of the Wii because they clumsily tried to imitate their own console by once again offering up an underpowered system with a gimmicky input device as the central focus of the experience.

And guess what? They couldn't repeat the fluke.

yeah, I did forget about Sony and Microsoft messing up at the beginning of the gen, so maybe you got a point there. Although if Sony and Microsoft didn't mess up at the beginning I still think Nintendo may have won the gen in sales, albeit by not as much, since they were afterall targeting a different audience from Sony and Microsoft, and did a good job of it thanks to motion controls. But there's really no way to know now.

That ebing said, I do agree with you on that last paragraph. The Wii U pad wasn't as innovative as the Wii-mote, as tablets are something people in this age are used, while motion controlss, at the time of the Wii's release, not so much. Nintendo has done a piss-poor job trying to get attention to the Wii U, with the practically non-existant marketing and terrible name choice. Nintendo didn't have any megaton ready by the time of the Wii U's release; the Wii had Twilight Princess at launch, while the closest thing the Wii U had was Nintendo land or NSMBU; not bad games but nothing that will make people whip out their wallets either. The Wii U's bad pricing, ever since the PS4 was announced at $400, and Nintendo not giving a price cut or bundle. Nintendo's handling of Wiii U has been pretty baffling for me so far.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]MS in recent years became Nintendo like (offering core games based on only a handful of safe franchises) but its many third party supporters didn't and Xbox owners bought a wide variety of core games). On the PS3 Sony never stopped making original games and of course third parties are offering a wide range of games.CarnageHeart

It took several years for Nintendo's poor practices to catch up to them. Once a real competitor stepped up, Nintendo got used as toilet paper. I don't expect it'll be any different with Microsoft, honestly. Seeing all the plans they'd made for the Xbone it is apparent they have become egotistical and out of touch. The thing is, Microsoft is buoyed by a somewhat symbiotic relationship with Sony during the current generation, and while that may continue, Microsoft is making it extremely easy for people to switch sides. In other words, a symbiotic relationship can become cannibalistic really fast. There is absolutely nothing stopping a cheaper, more powerful alternative, with a more concentrated focus on games from using them as toilet paper too. And if there's one thing unique about Sony in this business, it's that they know how to dethrone a competitor and what's it like to be dethroned. That sense of perspective is completely absent from Microsoft, because they've experienced neither. In other words, while Nintendo is batshit crazy, Microsoft is just kind of stupid. They're the guy at school who starts wearing Volcom shirts because it's the popular thing, not because they really like anything about Volcom. They've become as "me too" a company as any I've ever seen before. I mean, even though Nintendo is the kid who starts wearing his underwear outside of his pants, at least you feel sort of sorry for him for being such a headcase, and at least he's unique, even if only in an awful kind of way. At the end of the day, I'd rather be neither, to be honest.

And yes, I agree -- in many ways Microsoft has done its best to imitate Nintendo's worst traits, from the shitty peripherals lauded as the "NEXT BIG THING" to the lack of software. Microsoft is worse in many ways, because it is like a fusion of Nintendo and something else, something that wants to be everything for everyone while delivering little to anyone. It's like they've become bipolar from a marketing standpoint.

While I'm sure its purely a coincidence its amazing that both MS and Nintendo are bundling their systems with controllers which cost as much as the base console.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/161365-xbox-one-dev-claims-kinect-costs-almost-as-much-as-primary-console

Crazy. 

The thing is, I think the life of cameras in consoles is going to be particularly short-lived. There's already a lot of negative connotations floating around about the government spying on people as it is, which has smeared devices with in-home cameras as untrustworthy at best, but a game console is something for the family -- and having seen the awful content shat out on Kinect, most of it is aimed at kids...

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/01/technology/security/tv-hack/index.html?iid=HP_River

It's only going to take one incident like that to shut the whole thing down on Kinect. Some little kid goes in the family room and says "Xbone on" and there on the screen is a giant picture of some hacker's junk and that's it -- finito. And it's gonna happen. 

It's funny how some people sit here all day and criticize Nintendo's business strategy yet I can guarantee they themselves have aren't leading any companies hardware division. Nintendo hardware doesn't need to be bleeding edge. You know why? Because there are 3 other devices that offer high end gaming options. On top of that, bleeding edge tech will require increased development budgets which results in less variety of games, less risk, more sequels and larger sales to break even which determines whether or not there will be a follow up sequel. If development costs less however, you have more games, more risks taken by introducing new IP's and new gameplay mechanics, and most importantly for a business, a lower bar to break even with sales.

Lets compare the 3DS to the PS3 development costs. It's not surprise that it costs less to develop games for the 3DS then the PS3 or Xbox 360. Lets look at sales. Fire Emblem Awakening has sold Global Total as of 20th Jul 2013 (units): 0.98m. Nintendo specified that if the game were to get 250,000 sales, a sequel would be guaranteed. Clearly they past that goal. Now lets look at Dead Space 3, on the PS3 it sold 540,000 and on the Xbox 360 it sold 700,000 while on the PC it sold 40,000. Doing the math you can see the game clearly outsold Fire Emblem however, due to bloated game development costs, EA has suspended the series because it wasn't profitable for them and that's what it comes down to. It would make no sense for Nintendo to release hardware where the game development would cost so much that they would literally have to sell millions just to break even. It would be a completely stupid decision business wise not only profit wise, but their Quantity and possibly Quality of product would suffer.

As for the users who claim that Nintendo failed, please elaborate. Show some numbers, show some sales, show some figures to back up these claims because lately I have seen nothing but users say "Nintendo's clearly made mistakes" yet fail to elaborate on that.

It's funny how some people sit here all day and criticize Nintendo's business strategy yet I can guarantee they themselves have aren't leading any companies hardware division. Nintendo hardware doesn't need to be bleeding edge. You know why? Because there are 3 other devices that offer high end gaming options. On top of that, bleeding edge tech will require increased development budgets which results in less variety of games, less risk, more sequels and larger sales to break even which determines whether or not there will be a follow up sequel. If development costs less however, you have more games, more risks taken by introducing new IP's and new gameplay mechanics, and most importantly for a business, a lower bar to break even with sales.

Lets compare the 3DS to the PS3 development costs. It's not surprise that it costs less to develop games for the 3DS then the PS3 or Xbox 360. Lets look at sales. Fire Emblem Awakening has sold Global Total as of 20th Jul 2013 (units): 0.98m. Nintendo specified that if the game were to get 250,000 sales, a sequel would be guaranteed. Clearly they past that goal. Now lets look at Dead Space 3, on the PS3 it sold 540,000 and on the Xbox 360 it sold 700,000 while on the PC it sold 40,000. Doing the math you can see the game clearly outsold Fire Emblem however, due to bloated game development costs, EA has suspended the series because it wasn't profitable for them and that's what it comes down to. It would make no sense for Nintendo to release hardware where the game development would cost so much that they would literally have to sell millions just to break even. It would be a completely stupid decision business wise not only profit wise, but their Quantity and possibly Quality of product would suffer.

As for the users who claim that Nintendo failed, please elaborate. Show some numbers, show some sales, show some figures to back up these claims because lately I have seen nothing but users say "Nintendo's clearly made mistakes" yet fail to elaborate on that.

JJ_Productions

160K global sales in a quarter is a disaster (90K sales in Japan, 60K in the US, 10K in the rest of the world including Europe). That number would be horrific if it characterized just US sales (the PS3 never sold anywhere near that low in the US).

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/186741/At_57K_sold_Wii_Us_January_performance_is_historically_abysmal.php

Also, Nintendo's hardware is extremely high cost due to the inclusion of the $173 dollar controller (half the cost of the most expensive version of the Wii U) which isn't impressing anybody (because tablets are old hat). Your most hilarious argument is that Nintendo needs to keep prices low to facilitate risk taking. Nintendo has offered fewer original games per generation than anybody despite weak hardware because Nintendo is pathological about hiding games behind old IPs and because most of Nintendo's core console fans turn up their noses at original games.

Why are you comparing handheld development costs to the development costs of a multiplatform (PC/Xbox/PS3) console game? The maker of Fire Emblem has stated that on the Wii U the series would need to sell 700K copies to be profitable.

http://www.fireemblemwod.net/articulo.php?subaction=showcomments&id=1369329094&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&

The problem wasn't necessarily that Dead Space wasn't profitable, but it didn't sell millions of copies. EA has resolved that unless a series sells 5 million copies they won't waste their time on it (they want to follow the Activision model of pushing a megafranchise or two).

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/15/dead-space-needs-around-five-million-fans-to-survive-according-to-ea/

Last but not least, due to fact Nintendo is less open about their hardware than its rivals, developing games on the Wii U is more expensive and troublesome for 3rd parties than developing games on the Xbox, PS3 or PC. Couple that with the fact that the Wii U has far and away the smallest installed base and its no wonder third parties are shunning it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed

While there's still room for plenty of debate about the Wii U hardware, the core fundamentals are now in place and effectively we have something approaching a full spec. It took an extraordinary effort to get this far and you may be wondering quite why it took a reverse engineering specialist using ultra-magnification photography to get this information, when we already know the equivalent data for Durango and Orbis. The answer is fairly straightforward - leaks tend to derive from development kit and SDK documentation and, as we understand it, this crucial information simply wasn't available in Nintendo's papers, with developers essentially left to their own devices to figure out the performance level of the hardware.

If the Wii were an easy to program for $175 dollar system with the power of a PS3, it might not be future proof, but it would be supported a lot better/selling a lot better than it is now. Instead Nintendo has made a system which costs more than last gen systems, is harder to develop for and as a result boasts horrible software support (many big multiplatform games are skipping the Wii U and many of those that show up are doing so in mutilated form). Is that enough elaboration for you?

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"]

It's funny how some people sit here all day and criticize Nintendo's business strategy yet I can guarantee they themselves have aren't leading any companies hardware division. Nintendo hardware doesn't need to be bleeding edge. You know why? Because there are 3 other devices that offer high end gaming options. On top of that, bleeding edge tech will require increased development budgets which results in less variety of games, less risk, more sequels and larger sales to break even which determines whether or not there will be a follow up sequel. If development costs less however, you have more games, more risks taken by introducing new IP's and new gameplay mechanics, and most importantly for a business, a lower bar to break even with sales.

Lets compare the 3DS to the PS3 development costs. It's not surprise that it costs less to develop games for the 3DS then the PS3 or Xbox 360. Lets look at sales. Fire Emblem Awakening has sold Global Total as of 20th Jul 2013 (units): 0.98m. Nintendo specified that if the game were to get 250,000 sales, a sequel would be guaranteed. Clearly they past that goal. Now lets look at Dead Space 3, on the PS3 it sold 540,000 and on the Xbox 360 it sold 700,000 while on the PC it sold 40,000. Doing the math you can see the game clearly outsold Fire Emblem however, due to bloated game development costs, EA has suspended the series because it wasn't profitable for them and that's what it comes down to. It would make no sense for Nintendo to release hardware where the game development would cost so much that they would literally have to sell millions just to break even. It would be a completely stupid decision business wise not only profit wise, but their Quantity and possibly Quality of product would suffer.

As for the users who claim that Nintendo failed, please elaborate. Show some numbers, show some sales, show some figures to back up these claims because lately I have seen nothing but users say "Nintendo's clearly made mistakes" yet fail to elaborate on that.

CarnageHeart

160K global sales in a quarter is a disaster (90K sales in Japan, 60K in the US, 10K in the rest of the world including Europe). That number would be horrific if it characterized just US sales (the PS3 never sold anywhere near that low in the US). The PS3's quarterly sales in the US alone have at their lowest point outdone the Wii U's global sales.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/186741/At_57K_sold_Wii_Us_January_performance_is_historically_abysmal.php

Also, Nintendo's hardware is extremely high cost due to the inclusion of the $173 dollar controller (half the cost of the most expensive version of the Wii U) which isn't impressing anybody (because tablets are old hat). Your most hilarious argument is that Nintendo needs to keep prices low to facilitate risk taking. Nintendo has offered fewer original games per generation than anybody despite weak hardware because Nintendo is pathological about hiding games behind old IPs and because most of Nintendo's core console fans turn up their noses at original games.

Why are you comparing handheld development costs to the development costs of a multiplatform (PC/Xbox/PS3) console game? The maker of Fire Emblem has stated that on the Wii U the series would need to sell 700K copies to be profitable.

http://www.fireemblemwod.net/articulo.php?subaction=showcomments&id=1369329094&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&

The problem wasn't necessarily that Dead Space wasn't profitable, but it didn't sell millions of copies. EA has resolved that unless a series sells 5 million copies they won't waste their time on it (they want to follow the Activision model of pushing a megafranchise or two).

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/15/dead-space-needs-around-five-million-fans-to-survive-according-to-ea/

Last but not least, due to fact Nintendo is less open about their hardware than its rivals, developing games on the Wii U is more expensive and troublesome for 3rd parties than developing games on the Xbox, PS3 or PC. Couple that with the fact that the Wii U has far and away the smallest installed base and its no wonder third parties are shunning it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed

While there's still room for plenty of debate about the Wii U hardware, the core fundamentals are now in place and effectively we have something approaching a full spec. It took an extraordinary effort to get this far and you may be wondering quite why it took a reverse engineering specialist using ultra-magnification photography to get this information, when we already know the equivalent data for Durango and Orbis. The answer is fairly straightforward - leaks tend to derive from development kit and SDK documentation and, as we understand it, this crucial information simply wasn't available in Nintendo's papers, with developers essentially left to their own devices to figure out the performance level of the hardware.

If the Wii were an easy to program for $175 dollar system with the power of a PS3, it might not be future proof, but it would be supported a lot better/selling a lot better than it is now. Instead Nintendo has made a system which costs more than last gen systems, is harder to develop for and as a result boasts horrible software support (many big multiplatform games are skipping the Wii U and many of those that show up are doing so in mutilated form). Is that enough elaboration for you?

Nintendo released their financial report today. 

(reported in Millions of yen)

1 USD ~ 97.89 yen 
1 Euro ~ 129.67 yen

Net Sales ---> ¥81,548 

Operating Loss ---> ¥4,924

Net Income ---> ¥8,624

dvader654

You might want to check your math and the exchange rate again.  You have net sales at roughly USD $800, an operating loss of roughly USD $50 and net income of roughly USD $86.  Nintendo will be gone soon with those numbers.

Seriously, though, the modest gains most Japanese exporters have been seeing in net income this year have been the result of exchange rates relative to the weakened yen due to the Japanese government's currency manipulation.  Unit sales tell the true story.

The point I was making is that bleeding edge tech requires a larger budget. I was speaking in response to those who try to claim that Nintendo is failing because their consoles is "under powered". I understand the differences between handheld and consoles but I am comparing development costs. Likewise with the WIi U, it will cost less to develop for then the PS4 and Xbox 1 (this is my speculation and I don't see why it wouldn't be). As for EA needing 5 million sales to continue developing the series, that is the problem I am addressing. The fact that the game managed to sell well over a million yet the series is place on hold because it didn't make the profit it was projected to. That's a future in gaming where I don't want to live, and that's the future Nintendo is avoiding by taking their current path that's why I see no issues. Yes the Wii U sales are horrible that's an undeniable fact, but Nintendo hasn't even released any heavy hitters for the Wii U yet. Games will solve this problem period. The 3ds has proved that. It is the number one selling piece of hardware globally as of right now more then 360 or PS3 thanks to games like Luigis Mansion, Animal Crossing and we have yet to see Smash bros come out for the 3DS.

JJ_Productions

Firstly, there's nothing bleeding edge about the XBONE or the PS4; both are modestly powered systems that operate at about the midrange spectrum when compared to the PC.

By contrast the Wii U is basically running with tech from 2006. While you might choose to focus on production costs and assume that these costs will be less on the weaker system (despite the fact that we saw development budgets soar during this current generation) what you fail to grasp is how such pitiful architecture negates any meaningful third party support for the system.

For somebody who claims software alone is the saving grace, you seem to forget just how little actual software is incoming. Maybe you personally think a few sporadic first party Nintendo games are enough to justify the bloated cost of this system but clearly, consumers see the matter differently and history has shown us that those Nintendo games, great as they may be, will not do anything more than guarantee Nintendo a last-place finish to the generation.

And your attempt to compare the 3DS to the Wii U is utterly pointless. Even setting aside the fact that the handheld market is an entirely disparate entity than the console market, the 3DS faltered and required a significant price cut to garner consumer interest and the system enjoys both excellent first party titles AND copious third party support. As I've stated repeatedly, Nintendo is brilliant when it comes to handhelds but they are flatly incompetent fools as it pertains to consoles.

And I find it odd that you ask for proof of this incompetence when there is a rich and storied history that clearly demonstrates Nintendo has had its own head up its ass for decades in regards to consoles.

Here's a brief and admittedly streamlined history of their console offerings:

NES: Brilliant and entirely dominant system that essentially reinvented console gaming.

SNES: Brilliant console that was released far too late and subsequently surrendered nearly 50% of the market share to SEGA. Regardless, an excellent system.

N64: Late to the party, bottlenecked by an idiotic decision to adhere to the cartridge format which subsequently led to an almost total abandonment of third party efforts. While this system enjoyed many classics they were few and far between and the PS1 outsold the system by a margin of 3:1.

GameCube: Powerful system once gain hobbled by inept decision to utilize a smaller-than-standard optical media format and a controller that belied any broad functionality. Also, despite being released after the XB1, the system was bereft of any manner of online functionality. The system was trounced and came in third place, selling even less than the N64.

Wii: A casual fad that admittedly sold very well for about three years then tanked and was effectively outsold by the competition after the bubble burst. I've written extensively about the Wii and what I find most vexing is how poor the system did in terms of delivering quality third party software despite being the best-selling console of this generation.

Wii U - The worst-selling console in the company's history coupled with abysmal third party support and an overall dearth of significant software released within the first year of the launch. Worse, there is no apparent plan in place to address these horrible sales.

If you care to refute any of what I've written I welcome the discussion but I can sincerely state that my summary of Nintendo's console history is heavily reinforced by historical facts and data.

Nintendo needs to leave the console market and stick to handhelds because they have no idea how to deliver a quality gaming system anymore.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"]

It's funny how some people sit here all day and criticize Nintendo's business strategy yet I can guarantee they themselves have aren't leading any companies hardware division. Nintendo hardware doesn't need to be bleeding edge. You know why? Because there are 3 other devices that offer high end gaming options. On top of that, bleeding edge tech will require increased development budgets which results in less variety of games, less risk, more sequels and larger sales to break even which determines whether or not there will be a follow up sequel. If development costs less however, you have more games, more risks taken by introducing new IP's and new gameplay mechanics, and most importantly for a business, a lower bar to break even with sales.

Lets compare the 3DS to the PS3 development costs. It's not surprise that it costs less to develop games for the 3DS then the PS3 or Xbox 360. Lets look at sales. Fire Emblem Awakening has sold Global Total as of 20th Jul 2013 (units): 0.98m. Nintendo specified that if the game were to get 250,000 sales, a sequel would be guaranteed. Clearly they past that goal. Now lets look at Dead Space 3, on the PS3 it sold 540,000 and on the Xbox 360 it sold 700,000 while on the PC it sold 40,000. Doing the math you can see the game clearly outsold Fire Emblem however, due to bloated game development costs, EA has suspended the series because it wasn't profitable for them and that's what it comes down to. It would make no sense for Nintendo to release hardware where the game development would cost so much that they would literally have to sell millions just to break even. It would be a completely stupid decision business wise not only profit wise, but their Quantity and possibly Quality of product would suffer.

As for the users who claim that Nintendo failed, please elaborate. Show some numbers, show some sales, show some figures to back up these claims because lately I have seen nothing but users say "Nintendo's clearly made mistakes" yet fail to elaborate on that.

JJ_Productions

160K global sales in a quarter is a disaster (90K sales in Japan, 60K in the US, 10K in the rest of the world including Europe). That number would be horrific if it characterized just US sales (the PS3 never sold anywhere near that low in the US). The PS3's quarterly sales in the US alone have at their lowest point outdone the Wii U's global sales.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/186741/At_57K_sold_Wii_Us_January_performance_is_historically_abysmal.php

Also, Nintendo's hardware is extremely high cost due to the inclusion of the $173 dollar controller (half the cost of the most expensive version of the Wii U) which isn't impressing anybody (because tablets are old hat). Your most hilarious argument is that Nintendo needs to keep prices low to facilitate risk taking. Nintendo has offered fewer original games per generation than anybody despite weak hardware because Nintendo is pathological about hiding games behind old IPs and because most of Nintendo's core console fans turn up their noses at original games.

Why are you comparing handheld development costs to the development costs of a multiplatform (PC/Xbox/PS3) console game? The maker of Fire Emblem has stated that on the Wii U the series would need to sell 700K copies to be profitable.

http://www.fireemblemwod.net/articulo.php?subaction=showcomments&id=1369329094&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&

The problem wasn't necessarily that Dead Space wasn't profitable, but it didn't sell millions of copies. EA has resolved that unless a series sells 5 million copies they won't waste their time on it (they want to follow the Activision model of pushing a megafranchise or two).

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/15/dead-space-needs-around-five-million-fans-to-survive-according-to-ea/

Last but not least, due to fact Nintendo is less open about their hardware than its rivals, developing games on the Wii U is more expensive and troublesome for 3rd parties than developing games on the Xbox, PS3 or PC. Couple that with the fact that the Wii U has far and away the smallest installed base and its no wonder third parties are shunning it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed

While there's still room for plenty of debate about the Wii U hardware, the core fundamentals are now in place and effectively we have something approaching a full spec. It took an extraordinary effort to get this far and you may be wondering quite why it took a reverse engineering specialist using ultra-magnification photography to get this information, when we already know the equivalent data for Durango and Orbis. The answer is fairly straightforward - leaks tend to derive from development kit and SDK documentation and, as we understand it, this crucial information simply wasn't available in Nintendo's papers, with developers essentially left to their own devices to figure out the performance level of the hardware.

If the Wii were an easy to program for $175 dollar system with the power of a PS3, it might not be future proof, but it would be supported a lot better/selling a lot better than it is now. Instead Nintendo has made a system which costs more than last gen systems, is harder to develop for and as a result boasts horrible software support (many big multiplatform games are skipping the Wii U and many of those that show up are doing so in mutilated form). Is that enough elaboration for you?

Are you claiming that the Wii U is less powerful than the PS3 and the X360?

Dead Space 3's problem wasn't that it wasn't making money (EA never expressed unhappiness with the sales of DS1 or 2), it was EA's newfound desire to be like Activision. More than a few niche series have died because their makers tried to mainsteam them (letting go of the bird in the hand in order to lunge after the two in the bush).

Also, multiple developers have talked about how easy it is to develop games on the PS4. Nobody has made that claim about the Wii U so its quite possible that despite the fact it has a lot less horsepower, Wii U development will be more expensive/time consuming.

It should also be kept in mind that no matter how cheap or expensive a system is to develop on, if consumers don't buy games developers have no reason to support it. Nintendo's core console fans have over the past few generations shown very little interest in core games without Mario, Zelda, Samus or Sonic in them.

As for your hope the Wii U will be like the 3DS, even as the 3DS struggled, the DS (which it was B/C with) was the bestselling handheld. Also, Nintendo acted with much more alarcity in the case of the 3DS than they have with the Wii U. Nintendo's slashed the price of the 3DS 33% within 5 months of launch and focused its software development efforts on the 3DS for a couple years. The Wii has been dead for three years (its now the worst selling of the three consoles) so there is no fanbase for the Wii U to inhereit. Also, the Wii U has been out 10 months and there is no price cut in sight and the 'heavy hitters' (the same franchises that allowed the GC to sell less than 22 million systems) aren't arriving until 2014.

From what I've seen on this board, people want Nintendo to be like Sony and Microsoft. I can't understand why.

From what I've seen on this board, people want Nintendo to be like Sony and Microsoft. I can't understand why.

Zen_Light

Seriously, this is news?Tell us something we DON'T know. :|

From what I've seen on this board, people want Nintendo to be like Sony and Microsoft. I can't understand why.

Zen_Light

I don't think anyone here is really saying or thinking that.

Personally speaking for myself here, I'm fine with Nintendo's consoles having weaker hardware and focusing more on changing how we play, and I like that Nintendo tries to follow its own path. I just wish they could do a better job of changing how we play or following a differnet path with their consoles. There were a small handful of Wii games that had any meaningful motion controls. I'm not entrely confident we will see a whole lot of genius use out of the Wii U's gamepad either. And outside of that, the Wii U has been lacking in real third party support (and I'm not really counting all the ports of last gen games in this either such as Arkham Asylum), weaker onlne compared to Sony and M$, and then the very low storage space even the deluxe Wii U model comes with.

From what I've seen on this board, people want Nintendo to be like Sony and Microsoft. I can't understand why.

Zen_Light

If you, speaking as a gamer, "can't understand why" people want these things, then I'm really baffled.  I think it's very easy to understand.  Nintendo could do so much better than they are currently and still offer something unique and unseen by the other companies.  Their being different is not an excuse for mediocrity, it's simply the only thing their defenders can come up with as an out for their ineptness.

[QUOTE="Zen_Light"]

From what I've seen on this board, people want Nintendo to be like Sony and Microsoft. I can't understand why.

MirkoS77

If you, speaking as a gamer, "can't understand why" people want these things, then I'm really baffled.  I think it's very easy to understand.  Nintendo could do so much better than they are currently and still offer something unique and unseen by the other companies.  Their being different is not an excuse for mediocrity, it's simply the only thing their defenders can come up with as an out for their ineptness.

It's absolutely hilarious how some of you Sony and Microsoft fanatics have the nerve to look down on Nintendo (and their fans) and act like those mediocre consoles, that end up being irrelevant hardware-wise two years after launch, are anything to be proud about while complaining about Nintendos hardware approach. At least they know what is important-- the games.

The only really negative thing I have to say about Nintendo is their game droughts. Not having Western-developed third party support exposes the long development cycle they have for their games. The lack of games for the first part of 2013 for Wii U has been absolutely unacceptable, but the second half of the year looks very promising.

Sony and Microsoft exclusives don't compare to Nintendo and PC exclusives. PC online gaming blows XBL and PSN out of the water, has tons more content and is mostly free. Mediocrity is exactly what Sony and Micrsoft consoles are all about, they attempt to be PCs but emulate them very poorly. They get downgraded versions of multiplats that can only do mods in the form of over-priced and variety-lacking DLC. Terrible frame rates, much lower resolution, crappy and antiquated thumbstick controls.

It's absolutely hilarious how some of you Sony and Microsoft fanatics have the nerve to look down on Nintendo (and their fans) and act like those mediocre consoles, that end up being irrelevant hardware-wise two years after launch, are anything to be proud about while complaining about Nintendos hardware approach. At least they know what is important-- the games.

The only really negative thing I have to say about Nintendo is their game droughts. Not having Western-developed third party support exposes the long development cycle they have for their games. The lack of games for the first part of 2013 for Wii U has been absolutely unacceptable, but the second half of the year looks very promising.

Zen_Light

I am terribly sorry but Nintendo exclusives aren't worth **edit**. You are being awfully silly if you even attempt to make such a claim. The Wii exclusive from Nintendo added very little to gaming and I am being stupendously generous. Wii and the Wii U are sad excuses for a console. Nintendo released last generation hardware as next gen for the Wii and they are doing the same moronoic thing with the Wii U. So I don't see how you can have audacity to criticise Sony or MS about their hardware being irrelevant when Nintendo's consoles are irrelevant before they are even released. The Wii is based on 2001 hardware, it was more a less six years old before the console was released. The Wii U is the same its over six years old before it was released. How absurd it is to claim Sony and MS hardware would be irrelevant and then immediately jump on the Nintendo archaic consoles in the same thought. 

Secondly Nintendo has absolutely no vision. They release the same IPs over and over. They haven't have a creative gaming bone in them for over a decade. They have made themselves irrelevant to gaming. No one cares about their consoles except for the "faithful". Sony's and MS first party games dominated with out restraints. Nintendo has been incapable of producing games that appeal to more than the nostalgic few and the Wii fit and Wii sports consumers. Their creativity is so staunched that they are caught re-releasing games and the next Nintendo game is a Zelda game in October. Nothing particularly new from the Nintendo camp, the usual suspects, Mario, Zelda and toss in a few sprinkles of Metroid, Pikmin and anything they can make with the least amount of effort. To make matters worse they did not have the foresight to release a new Zelda game this year so they decided to pacify the loyalist with a remake of a Gamecube game. 

So please don't try to lecture anyone about Nintendo's "greatness". :| 

[QUOTE="Zen_Light"]Sony and Microsoft exclusives don't compare to Nintendo and PC exclusives. PC online gaming blows XBL and PSN out of the water, has tons more content and is mostly free. Mediocrity is exactly what Sony and Micrsoft consoles are all about, they attempt to be PCs but emulate them very poorly. They get downgraded versions of multiplats that can only do mods in the form of over-priced and variety-lacking DLC. Terrible frame rates, much lower resolution, crappy and antiquated thumbstick controls.

It's absolutely hilarious how some of you Sony and Microsoft fanatics have the nerve to look down on Nintendo (and their fans) and act like those mediocre consoles, that end up being irrelevant hardware-wise two years after launch, are anything to be proud about while complaining about Nintendos hardware approach. At least they know what is important-- the games.

The only really negative thing I have to say about Nintendo is their game droughts. Not having Western-developed third party support exposes the long development cycle they have for their games. The lack of games for the first part of 2013 for Wii U has been absolutely unacceptable, but the second half of the year looks very promising.

Pedro

I am terribly sorry but Nintendo exclusives aren't worth **edit**. You are being awfully silly if you even attempt to make such a claim. The Wii exclusive from Nintendo added very little to gaming and I am being stupendously generous. Wii and the Wii U are sad excuses for a console. Nintendo released last generation hardware as next gen for the Wii and they are doing the same moronoic thing with the Wii U. So I don't see how you can have audacity to criticise Sony or MS about their hardware being irrelevant when Nintendo's consoles are irrelevant before they are even released. The Wii is based on 2001 hardware, it was more a less six years old before the console was released. The Wii U is the same its over six years old before it was released. How absurd it is to claim Sony and MS hardware would be irrelevant and then immediately jump on the Nintendo archaic consoles in the same thought. 

Secondly Nintendo has absolutely no vision. They release the same IPs over and over. They haven't have a creative gaming bone in them for over a decade. They have made themselves irrelevant to gaming. No one cares about their consoles except for the "faithful". Sony's and MS first party games dominated with out restraints. Nintendo has been incapable of producing games that appeal to more than the nostalgic few and the Wii fit and Wii sports consumers. Their creativity is so staunched that they are caught re-releasing games and the next Nintendo game is a Zelda game in October. Nothing particularly new from the Nintendo camp, the usual suspects, Mario, Zelda and toss in a few sprinkles of Metroid, Pikmin and anything they can make with the least amount of effort. To make matters worse they did not have the foresight to release a new Zelda game this year so they decided to pacify the loyalist with a remake of a Gamecube game. 

So please don't try to lecture anyone about Nintendo's "greatness". :| 

Kid Icarus Uprising, Punch Out Wii, Sin and Punishment 2, Donkey Kong Country Returns (the first one atleast), Xenoblade, Pushmo, Pikmin 3, Golden Sun Dark Dawn, Tetris DS, and harmoknight are rehashing? If you are talking about Nintendo EAD specifically then you have more of a point although I care more about first party offerings overall for a system moreso than the outpuut just from specific developer teams.

And to say that Nintendo is irrelevant is pretty silly when their handhelds are incredibly successful, with the DS being the second best selling game system behind the PS2, and the 3DS being incredibly successful as well, getting strong first and third party support just like the 3DS and also when Nintendo has made plenty of high selling, well received titles within the last 10 years. 

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

[QUOTE="Zen_Light"]Sony and Microsoft exclusives don't compare to Nintendo and PC exclusives. PC online gaming blows XBL and PSN out of the water, has tons more content and is mostly free. Mediocrity is exactly what Sony and Micrsoft consoles are all about, they attempt to be PCs but emulate them very poorly. They get downgraded versions of multiplats that can only do mods in the form of over-priced and variety-lacking DLC. Terrible frame rates, much lower resolution, crappy and antiquated thumbstick controls.

It's absolutely hilarious how some of you Sony and Microsoft fanatics have the nerve to look down on Nintendo (and their fans) and act like those mediocre consoles, that end up being irrelevant hardware-wise two years after launch, are anything to be proud about while complaining about Nintendos hardware approach. At least they know what is important-- the games.

The only really negative thing I have to say about Nintendo is their game droughts. Not having Western-developed third party support exposes the long development cycle they have for their games. The lack of games for the first part of 2013 for Wii U has been absolutely unacceptable, but the second half of the year looks very promising.

DJ-Lafleur

I am terribly sorry but Nintendo exclusives aren't worth **edit**. You are being awfully silly if you even attempt to make such a claim. The Wii exclusive from Nintendo added very little to gaming and I am being stupendously generous. Wii and the Wii U are sad excuses for a console. Nintendo released last generation hardware as next gen for the Wii and they are doing the same moronoic thing with the Wii U. So I don't see how you can have audacity to criticise Sony or MS about their hardware being irrelevant when Nintendo's consoles are irrelevant before they are even released. The Wii is based on 2001 hardware, it was more a less six years old before the console was released. The Wii U is the same its over six years old before it was released. How absurd it is to claim Sony and MS hardware would be irrelevant and then immediately jump on the Nintendo archaic consoles in the same thought.

Secondly Nintendo has absolutely no vision. They release the same IPs over and over. They haven't have a creative gaming bone in them for over a decade. They have made themselves irrelevant to gaming. No one cares about their consoles except for the "faithful". Sony's and MS first party games dominated with out restraints. Nintendo has been incapable of producing games that appeal to more than the nostalgic few and the Wii fit and Wii sports consumers. Their creativity is so staunched that they are caught re-releasing games and the next Nintendo game is a Zelda game in October. Nothing particularly new from the Nintendo camp, the usual suspects, Mario, Zelda and toss in a few sprinkles of Metroid, Pikmin and anything they can make with the least amount of effort. To make matters worse they did not have the foresight to release a new Zelda game this year so they decided to pacify the loyalist with a remake of a Gamecube game.

So please don't try to lecture anyone about Nintendo's "greatness". :|

Kid Icarus Uprising, Punch Out Wii, Sin and Punishment 2, Donkey Kong Country Returns (the first one atleast), Xenoblade, Pushmo, Pikmin 3, Golden Sun Dark Dawn, Tetris DS, and harmoknight are rehashing? If you are talking about Nintendo EAD specifically then you have more of a point although I care more about first party offerings overall for a system moreso than the outpuut just from specific developer teams.

And to say that Nintendo is irrelevant is pretty silly when their handhelds are incredibly successful, with the DS being the second best selling game system behind the PS2, and the 3DS being incredibly successful as well, getting strong first and third party support just like the 3DS and also when Nintendo has made plenty of high selling, well received titles within the last 10 years.

3DS sequel, Wii Sequel, Wii Sequel, Wii Sequel, Wii Sequel, Original e-shop only 3DS game, Wii Sequel. Wii U sequel, DS Sequel, DS sequel and original e-shop only 3DS game.

Now I'm going to quote an old post of mine.

-----------

Nintendo's problem is that it clings to a handful of mouldering franchises like a toddler to its mother's skirts. If it wants to attract new people, it doesn't need to offer more extreme content, but it can't just crank out the same old same old. The sales of the GC and the Wii U were/are being driven by ancient franchises and they did/are putting up the sorts of numbers one would expect.

Look at a list of the bestselling Wii games and one sees a lot of original (though casual) games which put up massive numbers such as Wii Sports, Carnival Games, Wii Fit, Wii Play and Wii Party.

Wii the Wii U Nintendo said they wanted to attract a wider range of core gamers, but they aren't making anything but the same franchises most core gamers tired of long ago.

[QUOTE="Zen_Light"]Sony and Microsoft exclusives don't compare to Nintendo and PC exclusives. PC online gaming blows XBL and PSN out of the water, has tons more content and is mostly free. Mediocrity is exactly what Sony and Micrsoft consoles are all about, they attempt to be PCs but emulate them very poorly. They get downgraded versions of multiplats that can only do mods in the form of over-priced and variety-lacking DLC. Terrible frame rates, much lower resolution, crappy and antiquated thumbstick controls.

It's absolutely hilarious how some of you Sony and Microsoft fanatics have the nerve to look down on Nintendo (and their fans) and act like those mediocre consoles, that end up being irrelevant hardware-wise two years after launch, are anything to be proud about while complaining about Nintendos hardware approach. At least they know what is important-- the games.

The only really negative thing I have to say about Nintendo is their game droughts. Not having Western-developed third party support exposes the long development cycle they have for their games. The lack of games for the first part of 2013 for Wii U has been absolutely unacceptable, but the second half of the year looks very promising.

Pedro

I am terribly sorry but Nintendo exclusives aren't worth **edit**. You are being awfully silly if you even attempt to make such a claim. The Wii exclusive from Nintendo added very little to gaming and I am being stupendously generous. Wii and the Wii U are sad excuses for a console. Nintendo released last generation hardware as next gen for the Wii and they are doing the same moronoic thing with the Wii U. So I don't see how you can have audacity to criticise Sony or MS about their hardware being irrelevant when Nintendo's consoles are irrelevant before they are even released. The Wii is based on 2001 hardware, it was more a less six years old before the console was released. The Wii U is the same its over six years old before it was released. How absurd it is to claim Sony and MS hardware would be irrelevant and then immediately jump on the Nintendo archaic consoles in the same thought. 

Secondly Nintendo has absolutely no vision. They release the same IPs over and over. They haven't have a creative gaming bone in them for over a decade. They have made themselves irrelevant to gaming. No one cares about their consoles except for the "faithful". Sony's and MS first party games dominated with out restraints. Nintendo has been incapable of producing games that appeal to more than the nostalgic few and the Wii fit and Wii sports consumers. Their creativity is so staunched that they are caught re-releasing games and the next Nintendo game is a Zelda game in October. Nothing particularly new from the Nintendo camp, the usual suspects, Mario, Zelda and toss in a few sprinkles of Metroid, Pikmin and anything they can make with the least amount of effort. To make matters worse they did not have the foresight to release a new Zelda game this year so they decided to pacify the loyalist with a remake of a Gamecube game. 

So please don't try to lecture anyone about Nintendo's "greatness". :| 

I disagree on two fronts:

First, Nintendo's IP's are very good. The problem is that they've gotten in the habit of making their platforms wait three or four years before they all show up. I'd totally have considered buying a Wii U at launch if DKC, Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Metroid, and a few others were available or coming soon around the launch window. Which drives me nuts, because if Nintendo knows the main driver of their systems sales is their own IPs, then goddamnit, why don't they have those ready, build up a solid base AND have something to attract some third-party support? 

Second, it's bullshit to hammer Nintendo about stale libraries and ignore Microsoft, which is trying EVERYTHING it can to be Nintendo and has been for three years. Nintendo released a bunch of garbage shit motion controlled games the name of which no one will remember in a year (if they still do) and the same four or five IPs that everyone already knew were coming. Sorry to point this out, but that's fvcking Microsoft too these days. I understand Microsoft has third-party support to save them, but so too did Nintendo at one point, and then they started acting like assholes, and then CRAZY assholes with the Wii by going after people who don't want to play games regularly. If we're going to start throwing around indictments here, let's at least be real about it.

Dude don't even listen to Pedro on Nintendo. Nintendo continues to be one of the best game developers on the planet regardless of what some people on a message board say. dvader654

Where's the flair?  Sure, Mario, DK, and Pikmin (despite being all sequels to well-tired IPs) have that Nintendo charm and feel, but as far as I see there lacks that immense creative spark that their games have always been so famous for.  I'm very much getting the feeling that Nintendo is close to being creatively bankrupt, and this impression is not helped when they come out and tout the inclusion of a catsuit or transparent pipes in the new Mario as some incredible gameplay innovation.  

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

[QUOTE="Zen_Light"]Sony and Microsoft exclusives don't compare to Nintendo and PC exclusives. PC online gaming blows XBL and PSN out of the water, has tons more content and is mostly free. Mediocrity is exactly what Sony and Micrsoft consoles are all about, they attempt to be PCs but emulate them very poorly. They get downgraded versions of multiplats that can only do mods in the form of over-priced and variety-lacking DLC. Terrible frame rates, much lower resolution, crappy and antiquated thumbstick controls.

It's absolutely hilarious how some of you Sony and Microsoft fanatics have the nerve to look down on Nintendo (and their fans) and act like those mediocre consoles, that end up being irrelevant hardware-wise two years after launch, are anything to be proud about while complaining about Nintendos hardware approach. At least they know what is important-- the games.

The only really negative thing I have to say about Nintendo is their game droughts. Not having Western-developed third party support exposes the long development cycle they have for their games. The lack of games for the first part of 2013 for Wii U has been absolutely unacceptable, but the second half of the year looks very promising.

Shame-usBlackley

I am terribly sorry but Nintendo exclusives aren't worth **edit**. You are being awfully silly if you even attempt to make such a claim. The Wii exclusive from Nintendo added very little to gaming and I am being stupendously generous. Wii and the Wii U are sad excuses for a console. Nintendo released last generation hardware as next gen for the Wii and they are doing the same moronoic thing with the Wii U. So I don't see how you can have audacity to criticise Sony or MS about their hardware being irrelevant when Nintendo's consoles are irrelevant before they are even released. The Wii is based on 2001 hardware, it was more a less six years old before the console was released. The Wii U is the same its over six years old before it was released. How absurd it is to claim Sony and MS hardware would be irrelevant and then immediately jump on the Nintendo archaic consoles in the same thought.

Secondly Nintendo has absolutely no vision. They release the same IPs over and over. They haven't have a creative gaming bone in them for over a decade. They have made themselves irrelevant to gaming. No one cares about their consoles except for the "faithful". Sony's and MS first party games dominated with out restraints. Nintendo has been incapable of producing games that appeal to more than the nostalgic few and the Wii fit and Wii sports consumers. Their creativity is so staunched that they are caught re-releasing games and the next Nintendo game is a Zelda game in October. Nothing particularly new from the Nintendo camp, the usual suspects, Mario, Zelda and toss in a few sprinkles of Metroid, Pikmin and anything they can make with the least amount of effort. To make matters worse they did not have the foresight to release a new Zelda game this year so they decided to pacify the loyalist with a remake of a Gamecube game.

So please don't try to lecture anyone about Nintendo's "greatness". :|

I disagree on two fronts:

First, Nintendo's IP's are very good. The problem is that they've gotten in the habit of making their platforms wait three or four years before they all show up. I'd totally have considered buying a Wii U at launch if DKC, Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Metroid, and a few others were available or coming soon around the launch window. Which drives me nuts, because if Nintendo knows the main driver of their systems sales is their own IPs, then goddamnit, why don't they have those ready, build up a solid base AND have something to attract some third-party support?

Second, it's bullshit to hammer Nintendo about stale libraries and ignore Microsoft, which is trying EVERYTHING it can to be Nintendo and has been for three years. Nintendo released a bunch of garbage shit motion controlled games the name of which no one will remember in a year (if they still do) and the same four or five IPs that everyone already knew were coming. Sorry to point this out, but that's fvcking Microsoft too these days. I understand Microsoft has third-party support to save them, but so too did Nintendo at one point, and then they started acting like assholes, and then CRAZY assholes with the Wii by going after people who don't want to play games regularly. If we're going to start throwing around indictments here, let's at least be real about it.

In the recent past MS has been every bit as bad as Nintendo but in fairness they did show off quite a few original Xbone games at E3 (think Project Spark, Crimson Dragon, Quantum Break, Ryse and Sunset Overdrive). Not all of those games look like they will be good *cough* Ryse *cough* but they all represent a willingness by MS to not just hide under old IPs.

Also, its worth keeping in mind that there is no sign MS will chase away third parties with a crap smeared, sharp stick the way Nintendo did in the N64 era.

I disagree on two fronts:

First, Nintendo's IP's are very good. The problem is that they've gotten in the habit of making their platforms wait three or four years before they all show up. I'd totally have considered buying a Wii U at launch if DKC, Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Metroid, and a few others were available or coming soon around the launch window. Which drives me nuts, because if Nintendo knows the main driver of their systems sales is their own IPs, then goddamnit, why don't they have those ready, build up a solid base AND have something to attract some third-party support? 

Second, it's bullshit to hammer Nintendo about stale libraries and ignore Microsoft, which is trying EVERYTHING it can to be Nintendo and has been for three years. Nintendo released a bunch of garbage shit motion controlled games the name of which no one will remember in a year (if they still do) and the same four or five IPs that everyone already knew were coming. Sorry to point this out, but that's fvcking Microsoft too these days. I understand Microsoft has third-party support to save them, but so too did Nintendo at one point, and then they started acting like assholes, and then CRAZY assholes with the Wii by going after people who don't want to play games regularly. If we're going to start throwing around indictments here, let's at least be real about it.

Shame-usBlackley

Well Mr Blackley, you are more than welcome and free to invest $350 or more on a system that would generally sport three IPs and these IPs would be the same IPs you have been playing for the past 2 decades. It is without a doubt that outside of the confines of this forum that the neral gaming population don't give a crap about Nintendo games because they have been off the radar for quite some time. We can get into a nonsensical argument over opinions and preferences with regards to the what they have to offer but one fact that cannot be argued is that they don't have much to offer when it comes to games. 

Secondly Nintendo has the stalest library out of any of the three console manufacturers. As I have said previously they are producing the games on the same IPs they have for eons. And please stay away from entity A copying entity B. Because it just silly. They all copy from each other. But for some odd reason Nintendo has not been able to copy the online success of MS. Nintendo is still living in an alternative dimension and acts as if the internet was invented last year.

BTW this thread is for hating on Nintendo not MS :P

Dude don't even listen to Pedro on Nintendo. Nintendo continues to be one of the best game developers on the planet regardless of what some people on a message board say. dvader654

Dvader, I am very much flattered that you think my words are so strong that it would stray one of your fellowmen from Nintendo. :D

Kid Icarus Uprising, Punch Out Wii, Sin and Punishment 2, Donkey Kong Country Returns (the first one atleast), Xenoblade, Pushmo, Pikmin 3, Golden Sun Dark Dawn, Tetris DS, and harmoknight are rehashing? If you are talking about Nintendo EAD specifically then you have more of a point although I care more about first party offerings overall for a system moreso than the outpuut just from specific developer teams.

And to say that Nintendo is irrelevant is pretty silly when their handhelds are incredibly successful, with the DS being the second best selling game system behind the PS2, and the 3DS being incredibly successful as well, getting strong first and third party support just like the 3DS and also when Nintendo has made plenty of high selling, well received titles within the last 10 years. 

DJ-Lafleur

I don't want to stray from the focus here. The content of my post was specifically targetting Nintendo's console presence. You are listing a hefty number of non console games, in addition some of these games aren't made by Nintendo further solidifying my point that they creatively barren. Adding to that, the success of the DS or any handheld device released by Nintendo has never had any beneficial effects on their console offering. So pointing to its success is irrelevant.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]Dude don't even listen to Pedro on Nintendo. Nintendo continues to be one of the best game developers on the planet regardless of what some people on a message board say. MirkoS77

The Wii-U is dead. I see no hope or reason for anyone to purchase this system with the Xbox One and PS4 on the horizon. Not only are the number of third party games abysmal but Nintendo's games are sharing the same fate.

Pedro

My feelings as well for better or worse. I definitely plan on getting one when both Wonderful 101 and Bayonetta 2 are out being a big Platinum Games fan. Still I'm shocked the Wii U is tanking this bad honestly. I didn't think NintendoLand would resonate like Wii Sports did but the complete lack of interest from casual audiences shocked even me. Then again when you completely abandon the hardcore gamer, you're asking for trouble for better or worse. The casual audience is a very fickle one and it didn't seem like Nintendo understood that. They thought they had created 100 million brand new hardcore gamers.

Well Mr Blackley, you are more than welcome and free to invest $350 or more on a system that would generally sport three IPs and these IPs would be the same IPs you have been playing for the past 2 decades. It is without a doubt that outside of the confines of this forum that the neral gaming population don't give a crap about Nintendo games because they have been off the radar for quite some time. We can get into a nonsensical argument over opinions and preferences with regards to the what they have to offer but one fact that cannot be argued is that they don't have much to offer when it comes to games. 

Secondly Nintendo has the stalest library out of any of the three console manufacturers. As I have said previously they are producing the games on the same IPs they have for eons. And please stay away from entity A copying entity B. Because it just silly. They all copy from each other. But for some odd reason Nintendo has not been able to copy the online success of MS. Nintendo is still living in an alternative dimension and acts as if the internet was invented last year.

BTW this thread is for hating on Nintendo not MS :P

Pedro

I didn't say I AM going to buy one, I said I would have considered it. But my point still stands, Microsoft is copying a company that obviously capitalized on a fad that has moved on, and everyone has gotten the memo except for Microsoft. They could have been forgiven for it when the Wii was riding high, fine -- but now? Jesus Christ, why would ANYONE follow Nintendo as any kind of role model in light of how they are doing? And in retrospect, it is clear that the Wii was a paper tiger -- big hardware numbers with no software follow through. 

Nintendo has plenty to offer with games; they just take their fvcking sweet time delivering it. And yes, they don't spend enough on new IPs, but neither does Microsoft. That's my entire point -- tech differences aside, the real choice between which to purchase is this: 

Shitty motion control games with Nintendo IPs?

Or shitty motion control games with Gears, Forza, and Halo?

Of course Microsoft still enjoys third party support, but that can change very quickly if they don't right the Xbone ship fast, symbiotic relationship with the PS4 or no. And let's face it, the $500 price isn't going to help a shitty motion control centered system either. History has been rather unkind to those who have tried it -- just ask Sony, Panasonic, and Neo Geo. :P

I didn't say I AM going to buy one, I said I would have considered it. But my point still stands, Microsoft is copying a company that obviously capitalized on a fad that has moved on, and everyone has gotten the memo except for Microsoft. They could have been forgiven for it when the Wii was riding high, fine -- but now? Jesus Christ, why would ANYONE follow Nintendo as any kind of role model in light of how they are doing? And in retrospect, it is clear that the Wii was a paper tiger -- big hardware numbers with no software follow through. 

Nintendo has plenty to offer with games; they just take their fvcking sweet time delivering it. And yes, they don't spend enough on new IPs, but neither does Microsoft. That's my entire point -- tech differences aside, the real choice between which to purchase is this: 

Shitty motion control games with Nintendo IPs?

Or shitty motion control games with Gears, Forza, and Halo?

Of course Microsoft still enjoys third party support, but that can change very quickly if they don't right the Xbone ship fast, symbiotic relationship with the PS4 or no. And let's face it, the $500 price isn't going to help a shitty motion control centered system either. History has been rather unkind to those who have tried it -- just ask Sony, Panasonic, and Neo Geo. :P

Shame-usBlackley

Well lets at least be fair. MS has not showcased; correct if I am wrong, the use of the Kinect 2 for their games. The inclusion of the Kinect 2 is being marketed for non-gaming purposes. These non gaming features are particularly spiffy for non gamers; to which its marketed to. Unfortunately we the gamers still have to pay the sticker price for it. So, I guess one can say that they did get the memo but they are now using it for another section of the market at the cost of core gamers. In the end they would survive in the same manner Sony have with the PS3. I will gladly jump on board (Xbox One)if I can easily make games for the system without any additional cost, in fact I would buy a WiiU now if I can immediately develope for it at no additional cost.

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

Kid Icarus Uprising, Punch Out Wii, Sin and Punishment 2, Donkey Kong Country Returns (the first one atleast), Xenoblade, Pushmo, Pikmin 3, Golden Sun Dark Dawn, Tetris DS, and harmoknight are rehashing? If you are talking about Nintendo EAD specifically then you have more of a point although I care more about first party offerings overall for a system moreso than the outpuut just from specific developer teams.

And to say that Nintendo is irrelevant is pretty silly when their handhelds are incredibly successful, with the DS being the second best selling game system behind the PS2, and the 3DS being incredibly successful as well, getting strong first and third party support just like the 3DS and also when Nintendo has made plenty of high selling, well received titles within the last 10 years. 

Pedro

I don't want to stray from the focus here. The content of my post was specifically targetting Nintendo's console presence. You are listing a hefty number of non console games, in addition some of these games aren't made by Nintendo further solidifying my point that they creatively barren. Adding to that, the success of the DS or any handheld device released by Nintendo has never had any beneficial effects on their console offering. So pointing to its success is irrelevant.

Okay. I agree that Nintendo is weaker when it comes to console, and that Nintendo's own team of devs are pretty over reliant on their IPs. I just thought you were talking about Nintendo as a whole. 

Nintendo always appear behind Sony technically, and their consoles are mostly kid-orientated. No surprise imo.

Source

[QUOTE="TheVerge"]

Nintendo made an operating loss of 4.92 billion yen ($50.19 million) on net sales of 81.5 billion yen ($832.85 million) in the first quarter of its 2013 financial year, the company announced today. Net profit was 8.62 billion yen ($88 million), and the company has made no alteration to its prior forecast of a 100 billion yen operating profit in the current fiscal year.

Just 160,000 Wii U consoles were shipped worldwide between April and June, along with 1.03 million software units. The figure is a 51.3 percent decrease on last quarter, and the console has now sold 3.61 million units around the world. Nintendo says that hardware sales still have a negative impact on the company's bottom line, implying that even with these unimpressive numbers the system is still being sold as a loss leader.

Vari3ty

Ouch. Any bets as to how soon we see the next Nintendo console?

I've known that the Wii-U is a flop since it first came out...

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

So they obviously deviated from the Blue Ocean strategy and instead opted for the Brown Septic Tank strategy instead.

Iwata shouldn't be fired, he should resign. He ruined the industry with the Wii, and now he can't even sell his own hardware as a result. Yes, it's time for Seppuku!

GodModeEnabled

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"]

The point I was making is that bleeding edge tech requires a larger budget. I was speaking in response to those who try to claim that Nintendo is failing because their consoles is "under powered". I understand the differences between handheld and consoles but I am comparing development costs. Likewise with the WIi U, it will cost less to develop for then the PS4 and Xbox 1 (this is my speculation and I don't see why it wouldn't be). As for EA needing 5 million sales to continue developing the series, that is the problem I am addressing. The fact that the game managed to sell well over a million yet the series is place on hold because it didn't make the profit it was projected to. That's a future in gaming where I don't want to live, and that's the future Nintendo is avoiding by taking their current path that's why I see no issues. Yes the Wii U sales are horrible that's an undeniable fact, but Nintendo hasn't even released any heavy hitters for the Wii U yet. Games will solve this problem period. The 3ds has proved that. It is the number one selling piece of hardware globally as of right now more then 360 or PS3 thanks to games like Luigis Mansion, Animal Crossing and we have yet to see Smash bros come out for the 3DS.

Grammaton-Cleric

Firstly, there's nothing bleeding edge about the XBONE or the PS4; both are modestly powered systems that operate at about the midrange spectrum when compared to the PC.

By contrast the Wii U is basically running with tech from 2006. While you might choose to focus on production costs and assume that these costs will be less on the weaker system (despite the fact that we saw development budgets soar during this current generation) what you fail to grasp is how such pitiful architecture negates any meaningful third party support for the system.

For somebody who claims software alone is the saving grace, you seem to forget just how little actual software is incoming. Maybe you personally think a few sporadic first party Nintendo games are enough to justify the bloated cost of this system but clearly, consumers see the matter differently and history has shown us that those Nintendo games, great as they may be, will not do anything more than guarantee Nintendo a last-place finish to the generation.

And your attempt to compare the 3DS to the Wii U is utterly pointless. Even setting aside the fact that the handheld market is an entirely disparate entity than the console market, the 3DS faltered and required a significant price cut to garner consumer interest and the system enjoys both excellent first party titles AND copious third party support. As I've stated repeatedly, Nintendo is brilliant when it comes to handhelds but they are flatly incompetent fools as it pertains to consoles.

And I find it odd that you ask for proof of this incompetence when there is a rich and storied history that clearly demonstrates Nintendo has had its own head up its ass for decades in regards to consoles.

Here's a brief and admittedly streamlined history of their console offerings:

NES: Brilliant and entirely dominant system that essentially reinvented console gaming.

SNES: Brilliant console that was released far too late and subsequently surrendered nearly 50% of the market share to SEGA. Regardless, an excellent system.

N64: Late to the party, bottlenecked by an idiotic decision to adhere to the cartridge format which subsequently led to an almost total abandonment of third party efforts. While this system enjoyed many classics they were few and far between and the PS1 outsold the system by a margin of 3:1.

GameCube: Powerful system once gain hobbled by inept decision to utilize a smaller-than-standard optical media format and a controller that belied any broad functionality. Also, despite being released after the XB1, the system was bereft of any manner of online functionality. The system was trounced and came in third place, selling even less than the N64.

Wii: A casual fad that admittedly sold very well for about three years then tanked and was effectively outsold by the competition after the bubble burst. I've written extensively about the Wii and what I find most vexing is how poor the system did in terms of delivering quality third party software despite being the best-selling console of this generation.

Wii U - The worst-selling console in the company's history coupled with abysmal third party support and an overall dearth of significant software released within the first year of the launch. Worse, there is no apparent plan in place to address these horrible sales.

If you care to refute any of what I've written I welcome the discussion but I can sincerely state that my summary of Nintendo's console history is heavily reinforced by historical facts and data.

Nintendo needs to leave the console market and stick to handhelds because they have no idea how to deliver a quality gaming system anymore.

Well I feel Pikmin 3 might boost sales somewhat, it's a very well-liked game right now.

Still think they should've waited, developed the console more, and released it when there were enough must-have games available for it.