Who is to blame for Nintendo's low-powered console approach?

  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by thom_maytees (3669 posts) -

I have kept this privately for some time and felt it is time to seriously discuss it.

I really do not remember before the Wii that Nintendo had a low-powered console approach, and it saddens me that it has been followed with the fledgling Wii U. I blame this approach for the systems being under-powered and deterring most third-party developers from taking them seriously.

Now, who is to blame for leading this low-powered console approach? Is it the CEO? The executives at Nintendo Co.? Corporate culture at Nintendo? Etc? Would removing this person or persons would end the low-powered console approach?

One last thing: please no System Wars discussion.

#2 Posted by metroidfood (11173 posts) -

Ben Bernanke

#3 Posted by Madmangamer364 (3586 posts) -

Where to begin...? Honestly, there are so many ways to look at this, it's hard to really pinpoint one reason, but I'll give it a shot.

First, I think it's important to mention that one's definition of "low-powered" in terms of the systems Nintendo has been making of late is a subjective matter. I really don't think the idea of the Wii being a "low-powered" system was even Nintendo's intention, either. Honestly, the gap in the Wii from the HD systems it were on the market with probably had more to do with those systems taking unprecedented jumps in hardware as it did Nintendo not pushing the bar far enough. Afterall, it's difference between the Wii and those two system why the perception is made moreso than the Wii itself being inadequate. The idea of selling consoles at $400-600 at a loss proves this, as it had never truly happened before (sure, you have the NeoGeo system in the 16-bit days, but it didn't really get anywhere). So perhaps you could blame for Sony and Microsoft for setting such a precedent in console design in order to generate buzz.

Of course, some might just believe that what the PS3/Xbox 360 have done is what needed to be done, and still wants to point the finger at Nintendo. (Not to mention you wanted to keep this from becoming System Wars territory, which I respect). Ok, for the moment, that's acceptable, since again, the whole point of a "low-powered" system is a matter of taste. So, if you're going to ultimately blame this on a Nintendo-made decision, it's only fair to look at its past systems to see where the inspiration came from. You really have to look no further than the DS, which was also released as a weaker system to its competitor, yet managed to dominate the portable market. Going back further, Nintendo's previous two systems were definitely competitive in the specs department, yet suffered commercially. Going back even further, the NES, the GameBoy brand, and even the SNES also had to deal with more capable hardware at some point in their relevance, yet they all still performed well enough. So in a way, you could simply blame history for what has taken place, especially with Nintendo's last two consoles.

Lastly, you could just blame the overall state of the industry forcing Nintendo's hand. Let's be honest here; as the costs of game development and building systems to play the on increases, it's only going to become more difficult for any company to remain successful. And unlike other hardware makers, Nintendo just doesn't have the luxuries of building gaming systems at a loss and hoping that a market forms slowly over time. That is why some people, myself included, didn't think the so-called "Wii HD" was ever an option for Nintendo. It's also why there has been so much buzz about the 3DS and Wii U costing more to make than to sell, as it's simply unprecedented in the company's history. Think about that for a moment. So many people considered the Wii U "underpowered," in spite of the reality that it's still bleeding money from Nintendo. Sure, the Gamepad's technology probably has something to do with that, but if such a system was released six years ago, that damage Nintendo is feeling now would be multiplied.

I'm sure there are even more examples, such as the simple notion that it simply wouldn't benefit Nintendo to go "all-out" on building a high spec console, but the three I've mentioned are what I think are pretty clear for anyone to see without trying to go through a lot of guesswork about what Nintendo is (or isn't) doing.

#4 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13981 posts) -

I think it just lacks games and innovation.

They release stuff and expect people to continue to buy their products. I've always bought Nintendo products because of their 1st party games being so enjoyable. Wii was a trend starter for bringing in new gamers, such as adults(parents) with the Wii Sports. Obviously, anything that is trendy dies eventually. Nothing trendy ever has a long life span. A lot of this hype for the Wii for bringing in new casual gamers died quickly as the target audience lost interests and went on with their lives(soccor moms and parents are busy, I guess?)

That's what kept its sales up IMO because of all of that hype. Nintendo should have approached the Wii U in a different manner to gain better sales. I personally don't think they should have released weaker hardware for the Wii U(I know graphics aren't what make games but it does bring in mechanics that are not possible on its previous console) and not all hardware is just graphics, it also comes with newer technology being used. And face it, a lot of 3rd party developers enjoy optimizing games for the next gen consoles.

#5 Posted by Madmangamer364 (3586 posts) -

I think it just lacks games and innovation.

They release stuff and expect people to continue to buy their products. I've always bought Nintendo products because of their 1st party games being so enjoyable. Wii was a trend starter for bringing in new gamers, such as adults(parents) with the Wii Sports. Obviously, anything that is trendy dies eventually. Nothing trendy ever has a long life span. A lot of this hype for the Wii for bringing in new casual gamers died quickly as the target audience lost interests and went on with their lives(soccor moms and parents are busy, I guess?)

That's what kept its sales up IMO because of all of that hype. Nintendo should have approached the Wii U in a different manner to gain better sales. I personally don't think they should have released weaker hardware for the Wii U(I know graphics aren't what make games but it does bring in mechanics that are not possible on its previous console) and not all hardware is just graphics, it also comes with newer technology being used. And face it, a lot of 3rd party developers enjoy optimizing games for the next gen consoles.

Gaming-Planet

What's ironic is I don't think Nintendo made the Wii U with the mindset of it being a "weaker" system at all. For much of the Wii's latter years, the industry was practically begging Nintendo and phase the system out and get its HD console out on the market. And to be honest, judging by how poorly the Wii was supported the last couple of years or so, I think Nintendo listened to its critics. The Wii U's multiplat-heavy lineup also suggests that the Wii U was trying to "make up" for the things the industry believed that Nintendo ignored with the Wii and wanted this system to cater more to the "dedicated" market out there. A system powerful enough to get multiplats and go back to more conventional gameplay. That's what the Wii U basically aims for. In actuality, the Wii U was approached very differently than the Wii, and I think that's where the system has had its shortcomings.

Expanding your audience isn't a trend, but a necessity for an increasingly expensive industry, and this is where the Wii got it right. However, I think it's become pretty clear that Nintendo feels the same way about its expanded audience that many others do and have decided to treat them like the overused term suggests: casually. However, regardless of who it is you're trying to sell a line of products to, you can't just throw those people a bone every now and then and expect them to stay interested, and that is why the Wii U hasn't be able to sell to the mainstream audience as of yet. And let's not forget that the Wii U HAD hype, as you had so many people believing that it was the Nintendo system that would be "core" again, whatever that means in this day and age. That's ultimately the saddest part about the Wii U, as Nintendo has gone out of its way to appeal to a market that's still dismissing it as "weaker." The problem is that it was clear from early on, people were getting excited about the system for all the wrong reasons, and the numbers reflect that what most believed the Wii U could represent was not as relevant as it was thought to be.

If anything, Nintendo has to take its approach a step or two backwards if it's going to move forward again. I agree that innovation is key here, but it has to be for the right reasons as well. The Wii U isn't going to become more powerful or capable as a console, so it's back-to-basics for Nintendo in terms of generating universal appeal again.

#6 Posted by simomate (1859 posts) -

[QUOTE="Gaming-Planet"]

I think it just lacks games and innovation.

They release stuff and expect people to continue to buy their products. I've always bought Nintendo products because of their 1st party games being so enjoyable. Wii was a trend starter for bringing in new gamers, such as adults(parents) with the Wii Sports. Obviously, anything that is trendy dies eventually. Nothing trendy ever has a long life span. A lot of this hype for the Wii for bringing in new casual gamers died quickly as the target audience lost interests and went on with their lives(soccor moms and parents are busy, I guess?)

That's what kept its sales up IMO because of all of that hype. Nintendo should have approached the Wii U in a different manner to gain better sales. I personally don't think they should have released weaker hardware for the Wii U(I know graphics aren't what make games but it does bring in mechanics that are not possible on its previous console) and not all hardware is just graphics, it also comes with newer technology being used. And face it, a lot of 3rd party developers enjoy optimizing games for the next gen consoles.

Madmangamer364

What's ironic is I don't think Nintendo made the Wii U with the mindset of it being a "weaker" system at all. For much of the Wii's latter years, the industry was practically begging Nintendo and phase the system out and get its HD console out on the market. And to be honest, judging by how poorly the Wii was supported the last couple of years or so, I think Nintendo listened to its critics. The Wii U's multiplat-heavy lineup also suggests that the Wii U was trying to "make up" for the things the industry believed that Nintendo ignored with the Wii and wanted this system to cater more to the "dedicated" market out there. A system powerful enough to get multiplats and go back to more conventional gameplay. That's what the Wii U basically aims for. In actuality, the Wii U was approached very differently than the Wii, and I think that's where the system has had its shortcomings.

Expanding your audience isn't a trend, but a necessity for an increasingly expensive industry, and this is where the Wii got it right. However, I think it's become pretty clear that Nintendo feels the same way about its expanded audience that many others do and have decided to treat them like the overused term suggests: casually. However, regardless of who it is you're trying to sell a line of products to, you can't just throw those people a bone every now and then and expect them to stay interested, and that is why the Wii U hasn't be able to sell to the mainstream audience as of yet. And let's not forget that the Wii U HAD hype, as you had so many people believing that it was the Nintendo system that would be "core" again, whatever that means in this day and age. That's ultimately the saddest part about the Wii U, as Nintendo has gone out of its way to appeal to a market that's still dismissing it as "weaker." The problem is that it was clear from early on, people were getting excited about the system for all the wrong reasons, and the numbers reflect that what most believed the Wii U could represent was not as relevant as it was thought to be.

If anything, Nintendo has to take its approach a step or two backwards if it's going to move forward again. I agree that innovation is key here, but it has to be for the right reasons as well. The Wii U isn't going to become more powerful or capable as a console, so it's back-to-basics for Nintendo in terms of generating universal appeal again.

Its too late now for Nintendo to just drop the Wii U and try again with a better approach, so the only thing they CAN do really is try and get as many good games on the system as possible and make it as unique as possible. If they can't strive to have the most capable console, then they need to set it apart from the competition in some way. Right now, Nintendo should answering the question "If they can't provide better graphics, what CAN they provide?" The touchscreen, while is a brilliant idea imo, still makes no sense to the vast majority of the market. How can they make them understand then? CAN they make them understand? Or should they stop trying to, and just move onto trying other ideas to make the console great? At the same time, it is imperative that they try and keep it as compatible as the other consoles so they don't fall behind again like the Wii did. They need top-notch free online service for one... if Ps4 and Xbox 720 have paid online services, Nintendo can combat it by being the only console to have free online. They could even try and have their games cheap, heck the console itself needs to be cheaper... yes they'll see their console at a loss, but if enough people buy the games they can turn it into a profit. Most important, though, they need to get more games on it. Not let it fall behind again as I mentioned... they need to create more appeal for third party developers to develop on their console. Also, they need to get indie developers on board, they need to life those silly restrictions they have... make it an extremely indie-friendly console!
#7 Posted by BrunoBRS (73260 posts) -
development and manufacturing costs were increasing exponentially because consoles want to have the latest tech (and will still fail to do so compared to the PC), so nintendo decided that being a gimped PC was not helping anyone, and decided to shift focus away from super duper expensive tech, and move to what they call "true console experience", which is basically providing something that differs them from a mid-end PC and doesn't cost almost a thousand bucks to manufacture (and doesn't make devs go bankrupt when developing for it). TL;DR they wanted more affordable hardware + not trying to compete with PCs in tech but still providing something to make them stand out.
#8 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

Nintendo always made profittable systems, meaning that they weren't willing to spend so much on the hardware that it would bring them a loss.

However, their pre-Wii systems focused more on the hardware side of things than controller side. (altho the later was covered too with innovations like D-pad, shoulder buttons, analog stick, analog triggers, ect. - basically the things that are now the industry standard for console controllers)

With the Wii, they focused almost entirely on the controller side of things rather than the hardware side.

The result was that, after the declining GameCube sales and market share, the Wii sales boomed and found a new and grateful audience. (not just Nintendo fans and "core" gamers anymore)

Basically the Wii was Nintendo saying: "we can't compete with Sony and MS on their own front anymore so let's try something different"

And it worked, as the Wii was their best-selling console to date.

But after a few years time, interest in the Wii greatly fell and so they were forced to make something new.

This new thing is the WiiU and basically it plays on the same vibe - more focus on the controller, less on hardware.

But what Nintendo didn't take into account is that the audience that got the Wii is still largly content with the Wii and that they don't feel any rush to get the new system.

So basically they're now left with Ninty fans and "core" gamers again.

But the problem is that the standards and expectations for hardware have risen in all those years and that the "core" gamers are unlikely to get a WiiU if it doesn't suit their needs. (i.e. powerful hardware, "mature" games, strong 3rd party support, traditional control style, organized online gaming, achievements, ect.)

And the "general public" would need to be better informed about the system, it's features, ect.

This is Nintendo's task to do.

They can't expect people will just buy it because it's got written "Wii" on it.

It needs to have some attractive things to it like, for example, cheap downloadable games, tablet features like messaging, reading books, internet browse, streaming movie clips, ect.

For example my dad is not a gamer but he did play Tetris and liked the WiiU when he saw it but he also thought it's a "true" tablet PC.

In the 90s, there were a lot of grown-ups playing Tetris on the Game Boy and such so why not start a Tetris mania again?

Just one of the possible ideas...

#9 Posted by Megavideogamer (5315 posts) -

Nintendo should have made the Wii U at the very least exactly Double the power of Xbox 360. Instead Nintendo has settled for matching the Xbox 360. Which is fine for 1 year. November 18th 2012- November 18th 2013. Should the next Xbox launch this November.

So Iwata is the person to "blame" for the Wii U low powered. console approach. He could have future proofed the Wii U since this would have made porting 8th generation games from Xbox 720 and Playstation 4 more readily easier for third parties. The third party developers have been somewhat reluctant to port Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games over to the Wii U. Even if the Nintendo console matches the power of Sony's and MS current machines.

So the C.E.O of Nintendo is ulitmately responsible for the Wii U and Nintendo's approach in general. Which has hit a snag. But the videogame industry in general has taken a hit. But the bad worldwide economy. The Wii U current sales is partly due to bad ecomony. Not just the "power" of the Wii U.

Iwata is the Boss so all decisions have to pass by him. The Wii U will be alright eventually.

#10 Posted by trigger_cross93 (29 posts) -

We are to blame... We used to get the hardware, but no one bought it... Third Parties are to blame because they ignore nintendo even when they had the capable hardware... After that, Nintendo started doing their own thing to survive in the industry... And it really has paid off for them 

#11 Posted by super600 (30275 posts) -

Nintendo should have made the Wii U at the very least exactly Double the power of Xbox 360. Instead Nintendo has settled for matching the Xbox 360. Which is fine for 1 year. November 18th 2012- November 18th 2013. Should the next Xbox launch this November.

So Iwata is the person to "blame" for the Wii U low powered. console approach. He could have future proofed the Wii U since this would have made porting 8th generation games from Xbox 720 and Playstation 4 more readily easier for third parties. The third party developers have been somewhat reluctant to port Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games over to the Wii U. Even if the Nintendo console matches the power of Sony's and MS current machines.

So the C.E.O of Nintendo is ulitmately responsible for the Wii U and Nintendo's approach in general. Which has hit a snag. But the videogame industry in general has taken a hit. But the bad worldwide economy. The Wii U current sales is partly due to bad ecomony. Not just the "power" of the Wii U.

Iwata is the Boss so all decisions have to pass by him. The Wii U will be alright eventually.

Megavideogamer

I think the console is already about double the 360 in terms of power, but the poor SDK's released so far have hindered the power of the console.

#12 Posted by tocool340 (20483 posts) -

We are to blame... We used to get the hardware, but no one bought it... Third Parties are to blame because they ignore nintendo even when they had the capable hardware... After that, Nintendo started doing their own thing to survive in the industry... And it really has paid off for them 

trigger_cross93
This and: [QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]development and manufacturing costs were increasing exponentially because consoles want to have the latest tech (and will still fail to do so compared to the PC), so nintendo decided that being a gimped PC was not helping anyone, and decided to shift focus away from super duper expensive tech, and move to what they call "true console experience", which is basically providing something that differs them from a mid-end PC and doesn't cost almost a thousand bucks to manufacture (and doesn't make devs go bankrupt when developing for it). TL;DR they wanted more affordable hardware + not trying to compete with PCs in tech but still providing something to make them stand out.

Should answer your question IMO. Though in Gamecube case, the reason developers didn't care a great deal about it is the lack of online support it was given...
#13 Posted by goblaa (19304 posts) -

Honestly, the wii could had been the most powerful of the three systems and third party publishers still wouldn't have let games be developed for the platform.

#14 Posted by Minishdriveby (9733 posts) -
Is being underpowered really that big of a problem when there are still amazing games to play on the console? I think the big hinderance for the Wii was not being HD, especially during the rise of HD TVs where SD consoles don't look especially well on them. However, the Wii-U is now in HD, so that solves that problem; it doesn't bother me that the WIi-U won't match the power of the PS4/720.
#15 Posted by Sword-Demon (6960 posts) -
hmm.. I'm going with Nintendo
#16 Posted by Madmangamer364 (3586 posts) -

Its too late now for Nintendo to just drop the Wii U and try again with a better approach, so the only thing they CAN do really is try and get as many good games on the system as possible and make it as unique as possible. If they can't strive to have the most capable console, then they need to set it apart from the competition in some way. Right now, Nintendo should answering the question "If they can't provide better graphics, what CAN they provide?" The touchscreen, while is a brilliant idea imo, still makes no sense to the vast majority of the market. How can they make them understand then? CAN they make them understand? Or should they stop trying to, and just move onto trying other ideas to make the console great? At the same time, it is imperative that they try and keep it as compatible as the other consoles so they don't fall behind again like the Wii did. They need top-notch free online service for one... if Ps4 and Xbox 720 have paid online services, Nintendo can combat it by being the only console to have free online. They could even try and have their games cheap, heck the console itself needs to be cheaper... yes they'll see their console at a loss, but if enough people buy the games they can turn it into a profit. Most important, though, they need to get more games on it. Not let it fall behind again as I mentioned... they need to create more appeal for third party developers to develop on their console. Also, they need to get indie developers on board, they need to life those silly restrictions they have... make it an extremely indie-friendly console! simomate

I'm not saying that Nintendo should drop the Wii U, as that in itself would be disasterous. Changing their approach doesn't necessarly mean that the console has to change, just the way it is used. What Nintendo has to do is reestablish a wide spread attraction to their console again and hope that by the end of the Wii U's life, it has enough of an audience that's willing enough to make the jump to the next system. Basically, do the exact opposite of what happened with the Wii at the end of its life, when Nintendo just let the system sit around and eventually pull its plug. The difference is that it's much harder to build that level of interest than it is to lose it, which is why Nintendo can't just let things pass as is for the moment.

In regards to the other stuff, I actually disagree with most of it. I agree with the fact that the Wii U won't become more powerful and that Nintendo has to provide something different. However, I don't think Nintendo needs to make people "understand" Gamepad at all. People already KNOW what touchscreens can do, even in gaming, where the DS has proven its worth long before the Wii U came out on the market. This is part of the reason why no one is being "wow'd" by the system. Instead, I think Nintendo is actually the one that needs to understand that the Gamepad has to provide something more appealing, if that's even possible at this point. Nintendo should take the saying "it is better to understand than it is to be understood" to heart when it comes to the system, and with that, it would spark a new approach.

The various things you mentioned about the Wii U being "compatible" is also a huge reason why it's in this mess. Much of what you said Nintendo needs to do in that regard has already been done... and has already failed. That's what I meant about people getting excited about the system for the wrong reasons and those reasons not being as relevant as most though they would be. A multiplat-friendly system, an improved online structure, fewer restrictions, selling the system at a loss... it's all being done with the system as we speak, and the system isn't selling. Third party developers have seen their ports flop and have now gone to ignoring the system for the most part. To go further down that road won't make the situation any better, and this is where Nintendo has to actually re-embrace their Wii strategy, stop worrying about this silly game of "catch-up" they decided to play again, and get back to doing what it does best, regardless of how the industry's critics feel about it.

#17 Posted by KBFloYd (13122 posts) -

nintendo realized with the n64 and gamecube that power does nothing for them anymore.... so now they are trying something different......wiii was a success...so they are sticking to it.

#18 Posted by thetravman (3513 posts) -

I blame the economy and our slow technical advancement. Nintendo has always kept their systems affordable. Then we get this generation which demanded next generation technology that priced at $400 and above, higher than any console before it (besides the failed consoles). Nintendo didn't dare to go that high of a price with the Wii, and now it's the same case with the WiiU. They could have had more powerful hardware but that would break their tradition of keeping it affordable.

#19 Posted by darksongbird (1234 posts) -

I'm not sure who is to blame directly. However, Nintendo does it to keep their consoles at a lower cost.

#20 Posted by Pierst179 (10746 posts) -

I do not think it is a matter of "blame". Blame implies that something was done incorrectly, and this is not the case.

It is just a business decision. That's all.

#21 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4613 posts) -
No one. They're consoles aren't low powered, they're big leaps (With the exception of the Wii over Cube) over their previous consoles. They don't have to match MS/Sony spec for spec. Even then, you should understand that the Wii U is in a different situation than the Wii. It has much more hardware features that were entirely absent on the Wii, more eDRAM, more RAM and a good CPU that at 1.24Ghz can still run circles around the 360's Xenon due to its architechure. Nintendo is a business, they make products to be sold at a profit. These businesses don't owe us anything, we buy their products. Unlike Sony/MS who use the razor blade strategy (sell razor at a loss, make profits on the blades) Nintendo has to charge a profit per hardware unit. With the Wii U they're aren't, but I doubt the loss is very big. Probably $10 to $20 at most. They sell the 3DS for a profit currently. Did people say the Dreamcast wasn't "next-gen" enough when they booted up Soul Caliber on launch day? No. But logically consoles that come after the Wii U will be more powerful due to the time difference, similar to the Dreamcast since it launched in 1998 in Japan, Ps2 in 2000. I'm more than happy with Nintendo's generational leaps, especially Wii U and 3DS. Could the Wii U have a bit more RAM? I suppose, but they're already selling it at a loss and it wouldn't be good for business. If you sell your hardware at a profit you can then put more money into software development and create jobs. Nintendo doesn't have nearly the resources Sony/MS do so its incredibly unfair to act like they should be selling everything for a massive loss. The Wii U is a huge leap over the Wii, the Cube was a huge leap over the N64, and the 3DS is a huge leap over the DS. And like they did with the 3DS via an update I'm sure they will allow more of that 1GB OS RAM to be usable by devs on the Wii U in the future.
#22 Posted by DrBendova88 (11 posts) -
We are to blame, nobody bought the gamecube
#23 Posted by Master_Of_Fools (1320 posts) -

Nintendo has stayed the same its Sony and Microsoft who wanted to zoom off at full speed and go as big as they could and now they boxed themselves into a corner. Ohh great from 720p to 1080p big whoop lol. Nintendo gets the most out of their system unlike Sony and Microsoft. Sony and Microsoft have damaged the gaming industry when it comes to consoles. Power and amazing specs are for PCs. Consoles should never be about power and specs. With consoles its all about the gameplay and experiences. Plus Nintendo does its own thing if they followed Sony and Microsoft well then we have 3 systems that all do the same thing...whats the point of that? Each system from each company SHOULD be completely different in every aspect.

#24 Posted by Master_Of_Fools (1320 posts) -

I think it just lacks games and innovation.They release stuff and expect people to continue to buy their products. I've always bought Nintendo products because of their 1st party games being so enjoyable. Wii was a trend starter for bringing in new gamers, such as adults(parents) with the Wii Sports. Obviously, anything that is trendy dies eventually. Nothing trendy ever has a long life span. A lot of this hype for the Wii for bringing in new casual gamers died quickly as the target audience lost interests and went on with their lives(soccor moms and parents are busy, I guess?)That's what kept its sales up IMO because of all of that hype. Nintendo should have approached the Wii U in a different manner to gain better sales. I personally don't think they should have released weaker hardware for the Wii U(I know graphics aren't what make games but it does bring in mechanics that are not possible on its previous console) and not all hardware is just graphics, it also comes with newer technology being used. And face it, a lot of 3rd party developers enjoy optimizing games for the next gen consoles.Gaming-Planet


Nintendo put $350 million into developing the Wii U and Gamepad lol. They did good.

#25 Posted by Master_Of_Fools (1320 posts) -

Nintendo should have made the Wii U at the very least exactly Double the power of Xbox 360. Instead Nintendo has settled for matching the Xbox 360. Which is fine for 1 year. November 18th 2012- November 18th 2013. Should the next Xbox launch this November.So Iwata is the person to "blame" for the Wii U low powered. console approach. He could have future proofed the Wii U since this would have made porting 8th generation games from Xbox 720 and Playstation 4 more readily easier for third parties. The third party developers have been somewhat reluctant to port Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games over to the Wii U. Even if the Nintendo console matches the power of Sony's and MS current machines.So the C.E.O of Nintendo is ulitmately responsible for the Wii U and Nintendo's approach in general. Which has hit a snag. But the videogame industry in general has taken a hit. But the bad worldwide economy. The Wii U current sales is partly due to bad ecomony. Not just the "power" of the Wii U.Iwata is the Boss so all decisions have to pass by him. The Wii U will be alright eventually.Megavideogamer


Oh my god everytime I hear someone like you I want to kill myself. WII U IS STRONGER THEN THE 360 PROVEN FACTS. What do you f-ing need as proof? Jesus Christ to come down to you and b!tch slap you. When a new system comes out its stronger then past systems. Who waits 7 years then releases a non stronger system. Thats like saying a 2013 car is worse then a 2012 car. Please just dont be so god damn stupid. The human race is so brainless these days, I worry for our future.

#26 Posted by Master_Of_Fools (1320 posts) -

We are to blame, nobody bought the gamecube DrBendova88


I did...I bought 2 actually. Most of my friends did to.

#27 Posted by AlmightyDerek (4144 posts) -
Is being underpowered really that big of a problem when there are still amazing games to play on the console? I think the big hinderance for the Wii was not being HD, especially during the rise of HD TVs where SD consoles don't look especially well on them. However, the Wii-U is now in HD, so that solves that problem; it doesn't bother me that the WIi-U won't match the power of the PS4/720.Minishdriveby
Really the main cause the the Wii's architecture and GPU. The system's power wasn't as big of an issue as the way the GPU worked. It couldn't do a lot of effects that other systems could do so scaling down the graphics was more difficult. If you played a PC game on a crappy computer it would look similar to a Wii game but it could at least run it with a modern GPU. The Wii U's GPU is modern so it should be much easier to scale down other Next-Gen games. Also to answer the OP if anybody is at fault for Nintendo's "low powered console" it's the people who bought Playstation systems instead of the more powerful Nintendo systems. This proved to Nintendo that most people don't care about power.
#28 Posted by soundcellx (976 posts) -

games >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tech

 

Nintendo wins again.

#29 Posted by tocool340 (20483 posts) -

Honestly, the wii could had been the most powerful of the three systems and third party publishers still wouldn't have let games be developed for the platform.

goblaa

Well....let's be fair here. Nintendo pretty much stuck themselves when it came to third party support through its lifetime. For the N64 they decided to stay with cartridges which ended up increasing development cost of games (Whereas developing for the PS was much cheaper due to its disc format) if I'm not mistaken, which wouldn't make it third party friendly. With Gamecube, Nintendo once again decided to go for the unconventional smaller in size mini-DVD disc format which probably made it difficult to easily fit large scale games (that developer had no problem doing for the PS2 and Xbox) without needing to remove content, not to mention the lack of online support that the other two consoles had, which perhaps made the Gamecube an afterthought for many third party projects. Nintendo once again followed the same trend with Wii, attempting to fix most problems that its previous consoles had but creating another gaping one as far as third party is concern, console power.

So Nintendo has pretty much made it hard for themselves when it comes to third party support during the years they been in business....

#30 Posted by Heil68 (43397 posts) -

[QUOTE="Megavideogamer"]

Nintendo should have made the Wii U at the very least exactly Double the power of Xbox 360. Instead Nintendo has settled for matching the Xbox 360. Which is fine for 1 year. November 18th 2012- November 18th 2013. Should the next Xbox launch this November.

So Iwata is the person to "blame" for the Wii U low powered. console approach. He could have future proofed the Wii U since this would have made porting 8th generation games from Xbox 720 and Playstation 4 more readily easier for third parties. The third party developers have been somewhat reluctant to port Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games over to the Wii U. Even if the Nintendo console matches the power of Sony's and MS current machines.

So the C.E.O of Nintendo is ulitmately responsible for the Wii U and Nintendo's approach in general. Which has hit a snag. But the videogame industry in general has taken a hit. But the bad worldwide economy. The Wii U current sales is partly due to bad ecomony. Not just the "power" of the Wii U.

Iwata is the Boss so all decisions have to pass by him. The Wii U will be alright eventually.

super600

I think the console is already about double the 360 in terms of power, but the poor SDK's released so far have hindered the power of the console.

LOL, more quotes for the future. thanks..lolz
#31 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -
I don't think it's a problem for Nintendo titles and some neat third party titles. It's a problem for Nintendo securing third party multiplatform titles. That being said, most people who post here will likely have more than one platform anyway. As long as Nintendo creates a ton of great content on the console I'll be happy and so will consumers, for the most part.
#32 Posted by soundcellx (976 posts) -

The Wii U could be powered by a potato and it would still have the best games. Nintendo is the best. 


What matters are good games, not tech. 

#33 Posted by simomate (1859 posts) -

The Wii U could be powered by a potato and it would still have the best games. Nintendo is the best. 


What matters are good games, not tech. 

soundcellx

While a console doesn't need to be graphically amazing, it DOES need to be powerful enough to run the latest games. If Ps4 is this far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead of the Wii U, (I don't know if it is) and coupled with that, the Wii U doesn't get enough popularity, many developers won't bother porting their games to the Wii U. They'll have to water it down quite heavily. If, on the other hand, the the gap is only this big Ps4>>>Wii U then more developers would be willing to port their games on to it which is exactly what Nintendo needs. Also, better tech doesn't only mean better graphics. Better tech means bigger worlds, better AI, and loads of other things that contribute to gameplay. You can't just say "Its about the games, not the tech" because the quality of a game can be dependent on the technology. A game like Skyrim would not work on a N64, for example.

The biggest problem with the Wii U being underpowered is third party support. As I said, if the gap between a consoles is large and the powerful console is more popular, developers will be less inclined to bring their games to the Wii U. 

#34 Posted by soundcellx (976 posts) -

[QUOTE="soundcellx"]

The Wii U could be powered by a potato and it would still have the best games. Nintendo is the best. 


What matters are good games, not tech. 

simomate

While a console doesn't need to be graphically amazing, it DOES need to be powerful enough to run the latest games. If Ps4 is this far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead of the Wii U, (I don't know if it is) and coupled with that, the Wii U doesn't get enough popularity, many developers won't bother porting their games to the Wii U. They'll have to water it down quite heavily. If, on the other hand, the the gap is only this big Ps4>>>Wii U then more developers would be willing to port their games on to it which is exactly what Nintendo needs. Also, better tech doesn't only mean better graphics. Better tech means bigger worlds, better AI, and loads of other things that contribute to gameplay. You can't just say "Its about the games, not the tech" because the quality of a game can be dependent on the technology. A game like Skyrim would not work on a N64, for example.

The biggest problem with the Wii U being underpowered is third party support. As I said, if the gap between a consoles is large and the powerful console is more popular, developers will be less inclined to bring their games to the Wii U. 

Third party games do not matter. 

 

Most of us buy Nintendo consoles for first party Nintendo titles, not generic shootie games. The reason why I go with Nintendo is that they make most of the only games I like. I don't give a crap about other video game companies that are not Nintendo. Nintendo has Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Donkey Kong, etc., and they don't only focus on shootem games, so that is why I love N so much.

#35 Posted by FPS1337 (2517 posts) -
I think the WIi-U is a lot more powerful then what we give credit for so far. First of all, we haven't seen a single game showcase the power at all. We've seen third party ports and developers are still figuring out the system. The system is a much more efficient then current consoles and designed differently. We judge the graphics on just launch titles in which essentially every top current gen game was ported to the Wii-U in a very small development time. If you look at Need for Speed Most Wanted U, we already see a game much better graphically on the Wii-U, and they are noticeable differences. I think that right now people were too quick to just say the Wii-U is under-powered since the Wii was and the WIi-U is priced fairly cheap for a brand new console as opposed to last gen when the 360 and PS3 were priced at like $400 and $500. The fact is that the Wii-U is sold at a loss first of all, so the price doesn't represent its power. The Wii-U's third party support so far is actually pretty good. I think Nintendo just needs something to showcase the Wii-U. Nintendo needs to really just take matters into their own hands and release games fast. Pikmin 3 I think is the first truly great game on the Wii-U. Anyways I think that getting Watch Dogs on the Wii-U is big, because that's a big multiplatform game. Nintendo should also really push to get Destiny on the console. So far there are a few hints it will hit the Wii-U, but nothing confirmed. The Wii-U is already confirmed to be able run a lot of popular next gen engines like the new engine Ubisoft is using for Watch Dogs, the Unreal Engine 4, the frost bite engine, the new MT Framework and the Cry Engine 3. The Wii could not run engines like the Unreal Engine 3, Capcom's MT Framework and Assassins Creed's engine. I think this means developers should be more likely to port games since they won't have to use entirely new engines for the console. Even if the Wii-U has to use lower settings or a lower native resolution, its just big to be able run the same stuff. I think when the exclusives come that push the Wii-U's power, people will be surprised. The next Xenoblade game looks really nice and I think that game will look fantastic, the next Zelda and whatever game Retro's working on will really push the system. I'm also excited to see what the new Smash Bros. will look like. Hopefully all these questions will be answered at E3.
#36 Posted by super600 (30275 posts) -

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="Megavideogamer"]

Nintendo should have made the Wii U at the very least exactly Double the power of Xbox 360. Instead Nintendo has settled for matching the Xbox 360. Which is fine for 1 year. November 18th 2012- November 18th 2013. Should the next Xbox launch this November.

So Iwata is the person to "blame" for the Wii U low powered. console approach. He could have future proofed the Wii U since this would have made porting 8th generation games from Xbox 720 and Playstation 4 more readily easier for third parties. The third party developers have been somewhat reluctant to port Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games over to the Wii U. Even if the Nintendo console matches the power of Sony's and MS current machines.

So the C.E.O of Nintendo is ulitmately responsible for the Wii U and Nintendo's approach in general. Which has hit a snag. But the videogame industry in general has taken a hit. But the bad worldwide economy. The Wii U current sales is partly due to bad ecomony. Not just the "power" of the Wii U.

Iwata is the Boss so all decisions have to pass by him. The Wii U will be alright eventually.

Heil68

I think the console is already about double the 360 in terms of power, but the poor SDK's released so far have hindered the power of the console.

LOL, more quotes for the future. thanks..lolz

Why did you follow me here?:|

And that's based on what I have been reading about the hardware. Depending on how customized the parts are on it it could possibly be more than 2X stronger.

#37 Posted by Sepewrath (28689 posts) -

I do not think it is a matter of "blame". Blame implies that something was done incorrectly, and this is not the case.

It is just a business decision. That's all.

Pierst179
That, people act as if the jump from the PS2 to the PS3 is the norm for the industry, it happened...once. The Wii U made a standard generation leap, I haven't been following the PS4 news closely, but I don't think it made a jump like it did from the PS2 to PS3. The simple reality is, high end $600 consoles don't sell, so it would be a poor decision to make one.
#38 Posted by Jaysonguy (37549 posts) -

I think Nintendo just doesn't know any better.

Remmeber this is the company that's constantly  missing what's popular.

Remember when they thought that disc based gaming was a fad?

The idea that they underpower on purpose isn't exactly right I think.

They don't understand what the need for the next gen, they instead skimp on parts and find devs who can work with less.

You also see their devs have trouble when it comes to more power, look at Game Freak and how they're completely clueless when it comes to the power of the 3DS, the new Pokemon game looks downright ugly.

#39 Posted by trigger_cross93 (29 posts) -

I think Nintendo just doesn't know any better.

Remmeber this is the company that's constantly  missing what's popular.

Remember when they thought that disc based gaming was a fad?

The idea that they underpower on purpose isn't exactly right I think.

They don't understand what the need for the next gen, they instead skimp on parts and find devs who can work with less.

You also see their devs have trouble when it comes to more power, look at Game Freak and how they're completely clueless when it comes to the power of the 3DS, the new Pokemon game looks downright ugly.

Jaysonguy

 

I'm not saying the game looks like the best thing ever, but you are clearly blind if you say the game looks downright ugly...  The battles look awesome, and considering that makes up a big chunk of the game, I'd say that's pretty damn good...

#40 Posted by Jaysonguy (37549 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

I think Nintendo just doesn't know any better.

Remmeber this is the company that's constantly  missing what's popular.

Remember when they thought that disc based gaming was a fad?

The idea that they underpower on purpose isn't exactly right I think.

They don't understand what the need for the next gen, they instead skimp on parts and find devs who can work with less.

You also see their devs have trouble when it comes to more power, look at Game Freak and how they're completely clueless when it comes to the power of the 3DS, the new Pokemon game looks downright ugly.

trigger_cross93

 I'm not saying the game looks like the best thing ever, but you are clearly blind if you say the game looks downright ugly...  The battles look awesome, and considering that makes up a big chunk of the game, I'd say that's pretty damn good...

The battles are the easiest thing in the game to do, static images moving for the most part.

Anything past that is atrocious looking, weird reed thin players who tower over the horizon, nothing is to scale, it's all sadly pathetic.

Nintendo devs know how to work with less. They're not giving an old fashioned feel to games they are old fashioned, they don't know any better.

Their devs (1st and 2nd party) are a bunch of children who are putting pennies in light sockets.

I'm not saying the game looks like the best thing ever, but you are clearly blind if you say the game looks downright ugly...  The battles look awesome, and considering that makes up a big chunk of the game, I'd say that's pretty damn good...

#41 Posted by mariokart64fan (19377 posts) -

it has enough power, but whos to blame ? look at n64 gc two highly powerful machines compared to competition at the time,  yet look at the sales of ps1 and 2 , 

thats whos to blame ,--- the people who didnt support nintendo  then , but expect them to keep continuing down the path to failure lol  simply put it , any one who says wiiu isnt powerful enough=a hypocrite 

#42 Posted by Jaysonguy (37549 posts) -

it has enough power, but whos to blame ? look at n64 gc two highly powerful machines compared to competition at the time,  yet look at the sales of ps1 and 2 , 

thats whos to blame ,--- the people who didnt support nintendo  then , but expect them to keep continuing down the path to failure lol  simply put it , any one who says wiiu isnt powerful enough=a hypocrite 

mariokart64fan

Yeah but that goes to Nintendo just not knowing any better.

The N64 was a failure because Nintendo thought that disc based gaming was a fad and that cartridges were more secure, they also had an architecture that wasn't dev friendly.

The Gamecube had similar problems.

Both consoles point out that Nintendo didn't really get it.

Nintendo is the out of touch grandparent that gets you the iPode at Christmas and then wonders why you're disappointed.

#43 Posted by KBFloYd (13122 posts) -

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"]

it has enough power, but whos to blame ? look at n64 gc two highly powerful machines compared to competition at the time,  yet look at the sales of ps1 and 2 , 

thats whos to blame ,--- the people who didnt support nintendo  then , but expect them to keep continuing down the path to failure lol  simply put it , any one who says wiiu isnt powerful enough=a hypocrite 

Jaysonguy

Yeah but that goes to Nintendo just not knowing any better.

The N64 was a failure because Nintendo thought that disc based gaming was a fad and that cartridges were more secure, they also had an architecture that wasn't dev friendly.

The Gamecube had similar problems.

Both consoles point out that Nintendo didn't really get it.

Nintendo is the out of touch grandparent that gets you the iPode at Christmas and then wonders why you're disappointed.

bulllcrap...rare had no problems making n64 games....and the gamecube was more powerful than the ps2..... 3rd partys ditched nintendo....and i still dont know why.

#44 Posted by Jaysonguy (37549 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"]

it has enough power, but whos to blame ? look at n64 gc two highly powerful machines compared to competition at the time,  yet look at the sales of ps1 and 2 , 

thats whos to blame ,--- the people who didnt support nintendo  then , but expect them to keep continuing down the path to failure lol  simply put it , any one who says wiiu isnt powerful enough=a hypocrite 

KBFloYd

Yeah but that goes to Nintendo just not knowing any better.

The N64 was a failure because Nintendo thought that disc based gaming was a fad and that cartridges were more secure, they also had an architecture that wasn't dev friendly.

The Gamecube had similar problems.

Both consoles point out that Nintendo didn't really get it.

Nintendo is the out of touch grandparent that gets you the iPode at Christmas and then wonders why you're disappointed.

bulllcrap...rare had no problems making n64 games....and the gamecube was more powerful than the ps2..... 3rd partys ditched nintendo....and i still dont know why.

Yeah, they were also second party, they had help from Nintendo when dealing with the architecture. Other companies didn't have that luxury.

The Gamecube was more powerful but not by much and in order to get that power they had to make the dev put extra time and effort in, also Nintendo failed to add a DVD drive or a suitable online component or infrastructure so yeah, full of mistakes.

#45 Posted by KBFloYd (13122 posts) -

[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Yeah but that goes to Nintendo just not knowing any better.

The N64 was a failure because Nintendo thought that disc based gaming was a fad and that cartridges were more secure, they also had an architecture that wasn't dev friendly.

The Gamecube had similar problems.

Both consoles point out that Nintendo didn't really get it.

Nintendo is the out of touch grandparent that gets you the iPode at Christmas and then wonders why you're disappointed.

Jaysonguy

bulllcrap...rare had no problems making n64 games....and the gamecube was more powerful than the ps2..... 3rd partys ditched nintendo....and i still dont know why.

Yeah, they were also second party, they had help from Nintendo when dealing with the architecture. Other companies didn't have that luxury.

The Gamecube was more powerful but not by much and in order to get that power they had to make the dev put extra time and effort in, also Nintendo failed to add a DVD drive or a suitable online component or infrastructure so yeah, full of mistakes.

 

so no one knew how to make games on cartridges without help from nintendo? bull

about the gamecube...dvd drive?  ps3 had blu-ray amd 3rd parties still made games for both dvd and blu-ray...even if they had to make 360 games 3  dvds discs!

online was non exsistant last gen except for xbox live and was totally irrelavent on the ps2.

also architecture...ps2 and ps3 had horrivble architcure and still was 3rd party console.

nothing but excuses.

#46 Posted by Jaysonguy (37549 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

bulllcrap...rare had no problems making n64 games....and the gamecube was more powerful than the ps2..... 3rd partys ditched nintendo....and i still dont know why.

KBFloYd

Yeah, they were also second party, they had help from Nintendo when dealing with the architecture. Other companies didn't have that luxury.

The Gamecube was more powerful but not by much and in order to get that power they had to make the dev put extra time and effort in, also Nintendo failed to add a DVD drive or a suitable online component or infrastructure so yeah, full of mistakes.

 

so no one knew how to make games on cartridges without help from nintendo? bull

about the gamecube...dvd drive?  ps3 had blu-ray amd 3rd parties still made games for both dvd and blu-ray...even if they had to make 360 games 3  dvds discs!

online was non exsistant last gen except for xbox live and was totally irrelavent on the ps2.

also architecture...ps2 and ps3 had horrivble architcure and still was 3rd party console.

nothing but excuses.

Jesus Christ, no not at all

Cartridges are more expensive to make and they're complete crap when it comes to the data they'll hold, they're much harder to develop for. 1st and second party devs had it easy because that's all they made, it was third parties who had to develop for a disc and then had to go work on a much more limiting platform.

The Gamecube didn't play DVD's nor did it play games on them. Worse yet it had special baby discs that made it hard for devs to split up games. Again they were making real sized games on other platforms and then had to resize and make everything fit on the child disc. The whole 360/PS3 argument is worthless, DVD was the standard so that was no problem and in the early stages of the larger disc copacity they were using uncompressed audio files, nothing that was game breaking.

The PS2 was the first one out of the gate and had the support from day one because it was in everyone's house because of the DVD drive, The PS3 was powerful so even if the optimatzion wasn't grewat it was still doable.

This is common knowledge

#47 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9763 posts) -

[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Yeah, they were also second party, they had help from Nintendo when dealing with the architecture. Other companies didn't have that luxury.

The Gamecube was more powerful but not by much and in order to get that power they had to make the dev put extra time and effort in, also Nintendo failed to add a DVD drive or a suitable online component or infrastructure so yeah, full of mistakes.

Jaysonguy

 

so no one knew how to make games on cartridges without help from nintendo? bull

about the gamecube...dvd drive?  ps3 had blu-ray amd 3rd parties still made games for both dvd and blu-ray...even if they had to make 360 games 3  dvds discs!

online was non exsistant last gen except for xbox live and was totally irrelavent on the ps2.

also architecture...ps2 and ps3 had horrivble architcure and still was 3rd party console.

nothing but excuses.

Jesus Christ, no not at all

Cartridges are more expensive to make and they're complete crap when it comes to the data they'll hold, they're much harder to develop for. 1st and second party devs had it easy because that's all they made, it was third parties who had to develop for a disc and then had to go work on a much more limiting platform.

The Gamecube didn't play DVD's nor did it play games on them. Worse yet it had special baby discs that made it hard for devs to split up games. Again they were making real sized games on other platforms and then had to resize and make everything fit on the child disc. The whole 360/PS3 argument is worthless, DVD was the standard so that was no problem and in the early stages of the larger disc copacity they were using uncompressed audio files, nothing that was game breaking.

The PS2 was the first one out of the gate and had the support from day one because it was in everyone's house because of the DVD drive, The PS3 was powerful so even if the optimatzion wasn't grewat it was still doable.

This is common knowledge

oh please. This is simply pure BS. The gamecube was the easiest console to develop for. It was the first IBM console to enter the market, and was a streamlined in every way. Using an optical disc is just as easy as using a dvd. There are a few games that didn't fit on an optical disc, but again that is only a few. There is a reason why Nintendo made more money on the gamecube than Sony made on the ps2. It's because Sony was paying off devs for exclusivity rights left and right. Nintendo has only started doing this recently. It's why the 3DS still has life but is still not profitable if you count the dev bribery like the truckloads of money for Monster Hunter.
#48 Posted by KBFloYd (13122 posts) -

[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Yeah, they were also second party, they had help from Nintendo when dealing with the architecture. Other companies didn't have that luxury.

The Gamecube was more powerful but not by much and in order to get that power they had to make the dev put extra time and effort in, also Nintendo failed to add a DVD drive or a suitable online component or infrastructure so yeah, full of mistakes.

Jaysonguy

 

so no one knew how to make games on cartridges without help from nintendo? bull

about the gamecube...dvd drive?  ps3 had blu-ray amd 3rd parties still made games for both dvd and blu-ray...even if they had to make 360 games 3  dvds discs!

online was non exsistant last gen except for xbox live and was totally irrelavent on the ps2.

also architecture...ps2 and ps3 had horrivble architcure and still was 3rd party console.

nothing but excuses.

Jesus Christ, no not at all

Cartridges are more expensive to make and they're complete crap when it comes to the data they'll hold, they're much harder to develop for. 1st and second party devs had it easy because that's all they made, it was third parties who had to develop for a disc and then had to go work on a much more limiting platform.

The Gamecube didn't play DVD's nor did it play games on them. Worse yet it had special baby discs that made it hard for devs to split up games. Again they were making real sized games on other platforms and then had to resize and make everything fit on the child disc. The whole 360/PS3 argument is worthless, DVD was the standard so that was no problem and in the early stages of the larger disc copacity they were using uncompressed audio files, nothing that was game breaking.

The PS2 was the first one out of the gate and had the support from day one because it was in everyone's house because of the DVD drive, The PS3 was powerful so even if the optimatzion wasn't grewat it was still doable.

This is common knowledge

try again..

cartriges are easy to develop for...but they dont hold the same amount of data,,,,,stilll one could make great and big worlds on the n64 as evident by mario 64 and banjo kazooie... but for some reason 3rd parties completely ditched nintendo.

developers had no problem splitting up games for the 360 and have everything on 1 for the ps3....but wait my logic doesn't apply for this gen because dvd is the standard?  dvd was the standard BOTH gens... both xbox and ps2 used it....they could have made multiple discs on gamecube but chose not to.

ps3 was hard to program for but its doable...ps2 was hard to program but was also doable....wow great explanations.... fact is these machines had 3rd parties secured....i dont know how MS managed to secure them as well and ninty didnt...

common knowledge..lol  

the only reason is .....3rd parties felt their software wouldnt sell on a nintendo platform....but why did that change overnight!!! still baffled by it.

#49 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9763 posts) -

To imply "blame" TC, means that you think that the reason that the wiiu is not succeeding is graphics power, and that the new xbox and ps4 will be sales hits because people want those graphics.   That is a fallacy.   Just watch as the new consoles bomb just as bad as the wiiu or even worse depending on the price.  

It's hard to pin down exactly what Nintendo's real problem is.   The games argument is weak imo, simply because all consoles start out with weak software, and the wiiu actually has a lot of interesting stuff (speaking as an outsider who hasn't actually played any of them).   Really, this is probably one of the best software launches of all time.  

I think that Nintendo should have made the consoles $50 more expensive, and used that money to have a good sized hard drive included (even 32 gb is sad), and other advancements like longer battery life in the gamepad.   Consumers aren't as stupid as Nintendo thought they would be.   They notice when a company is cheaping out on their product and right now the wiiu REAKS of cheaping out.   They will pay the extra money.   Right now, there are millions of potential wiiu customers who are simply waiting for the next SKU to be released, one that will stand the test of time without needing battery upgrades and cumbersome external hard drives.

#50 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

Ben Bernanke

metroidfood