Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nintendo Trying To Win Back Core Gamers With Wii U

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the modern-warfare-yoshi's-revenge dept.

Nintendo 223

Speaking at a shareholder meeting yesterday, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata discussed the company's goals for the Wii's successor, which aims to pick up the subset of gamers turned off by imprecise motion control. He said, "Wii was not accepted by core gamers because they did not want to abandon their preferred control approach. Additionally, Wii did not use HD because HD cost/performance at the time was low. Wii U makes it easier to use conventional controls. Also, the Wii U controller is not as big or heavy as it looks." Earlier comments from Shigeru Miyamoto indicate the new console will have more to offer in terms of online capabilities, but Nintendo isn't going to focus too heavily on that.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

cost/performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620078)

"Wii did not use HD because HD cost/performance at the time was low"

It was high, which means expensive. Baahhh, elementary math ...

Re:cost/performance (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621538)

"Wii did not use HD because HD cost/performance at the time was low"

It was high, which means expensive. Baahhh, elementary math ...

Can you blame him? He got his degree from Wii U!

Re:cost/performance (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621996)

Nope, he was right if referring to a ratio (which he was).

Online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620088)

" Earlier comments from Shigeru Miyamoto indicate the new console will have more to offer in terms of online capabilities, but Nintendo isn't going to focus too heavily on that."

So, the same friend code nonsense then?

Re:Online (4, Insightful)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620116)

Bullet-proof, double-opt-in unique id exchanges required for P2P messaging and you call it "nonsense." I like the way you put that right out there to make it super obvious your vested interests lie entirely in SPAM and malware distribution. Good show, Sir! I welcome the bright future you envision where I will never again feel alone because cheap whores and porn bots nag me just as encessently from within the latest Zelda game as they do every time I accidentally log onto ICQ.

Re:Online (3, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620562)

Yeah, and the most secure server on the planet is the one that's locked in a bunker and not plugged in. Not terribly useful though.

The system you so love because it blocks spammers also acts as an effective barrier for normal communication. It's a PITA that people just don't bother with. Usability matters, and Nintendo doesn't have it.

Re:Online (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620872)

When was the last time you received spam on PSN or XBL? After several years of using both, I have never received one piece of spam on either one. At any rate, it's a lame excuse for not having a way to play with other people online or chatting while you play in 2011, without going through a bunch of ridiculous hoops.

Re:Online (1)

SniperJoe (1984152) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620928)

Agreed. I've never received a piece of spam on PSN in the years I've been on there. Granted, I do get angry messages (generally questioning my sexuality or the current activities of my mother) from time to time from people regarding Call of Duty or Battlefield, but those tend to amuse me.

Re:Online (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620988)

You know, the same here. I play online via the 360 90% of the time, yet 90% of the messages containing nothing but "you suck" or "ur a fag" in them from random people that I've happened to play with or against online come from PSN. Go figure.

Re:Online (1)

SniperJoe (1984152) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621446)

From everything I've heard about X-box live, the players there prefer to yell their insults into their headsets (and thus into your ear) rather than type up messages. But that's only anecdotal evidence, as I don't have an X-box.

Re:Online (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621004)

If matchmaking is done out of band, then how do you recommend that I find other people who own a copy of the same game with whom to play?

Re:Online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621288)

It's been a few years, but if I recall correctly, Mario Kart on the Wii has online play & matchmaking, and it doesn't require any friend codes (because there's nothing bad/offensive another player could do other than play poorly, or maybe purposely lose while trying to sabotage other players). So it's not an absolute requirement that a game require friend codes.

But aside from that....gee, if only there were some way that random people could come together online and setup a venue where people could post messages containing their friend codes and coordinate online play.

Re:Online (2)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621296)

You could try a game-related forum. It doesn't seem like an elegant solution on the surface but if none of your friends are gamers it's a good way to meet people you get along with.

Re:Online (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621144)

Yes it is nonsense. It's an onerous burden that has a chilling effect on online gaming. Nothing it does cannot be done in a more open and useful manner through a combination of a single sign on and parental controls.

Re:Online (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620156)

Yea.....I'd say the friend code crap was even more of a reason why hardcore gamers rejected the Wii than the graphics. I can understand having a parental control that uses the friend code so that parents can let younger kids go online without worry, but it just makes everything else a pain in the ass for online play.

Japanese to English translation (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621994)

Nintendo: We aren't going to focus too heavily on that

Translation: Microsoft does it better than we ever could, so fuck it.

Games not technology (2, Interesting)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620184)

"Core gamers" flock to the console with the best games. The reason gamers like me abandoned Nintendo was because even the first party titles were pretty crap. The third party titles were largely unmitigated crap even when they were, bad, ports of PS/XBOX games.

Nintendo used to have a reputation for quality games, which they abandoned with the Wii.

You reap what you sow.

Re:Games not technology (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620202)

Many of Nintendos games were good quality, however most third party titles lacked any quality whatsoever.
Good quality titles like Disaster Day of Crisis were drowned in the usual shovelware.

Re:Games not technology (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621014)

Good quality titles like Disaster Day of Crisis were drowned in the usual shovelware.

So why doesn't the PC likewise suffer from drowning in shovelware?

Re:Games not technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621040)

It does.

Re:Games not technology (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621936)

Drowning is a matter of percentages. PC has tons of shovelware, but a high enough percentage of games are good to save it. PC is also different in that old games don't have to be retired because a new version of the PC is out. The garbage games tend to vanish quickly, and the good games have been known to stick around for a very long time. StarCraft and Counter-Strike are obvious examples.

I refer to Sturgeon's Law when looking at the catalog of games for a console. I assume that if a console is decent, 80% of the games are crap. If the percentage is higher, the good games are likely to drown. If the percentage is lower, the console is godly. But that's just my random observation.

Re:Games not technology (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621798)

EVERY popular platform drowns in shovelware. Every console generation that I can remember had tons of shovelware on whatever happens to be the most popular system(s).

If the PS3 were in the lead, you'd see all the shovelware there (like in the previous 2 generations), and we'd be complaining about Sony instead.

Re:Games not technology (2)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620278)

I dunno, I think the controller was part of it too. Really, when I come home from work after a stressful day I just kinda want to veg on the couch and blow some stuff to peices. The last thing I want to do is jump around like a retard with reminders about how I should take a break getting in my way every 5 minutes

Even on a weekend though I didn't find it particularly great for deep immersive experiences, partly because well, the Wii just didn't have any, but partly because it's easier to mindlessly use a controller with your thumbs whilst you're transfixed on what's happening on screen than it is to again have to jump around, take breaks every now and again, and sometimes fight the imprecise nature of the original Wii mote as it fails to do what you wanted it too.

It's a great console for when you have friends over, you can have a real good time playing the party games, but you just can't really veg and chill too it, or get deeply immersed in games with it like you can the 360 / PS3.

The Wii U does look set to fix this but I'm not really confident Nintendo are going to pull it off right. Their displays of games were all footage taken from 360s/PS3s and when asked whether the Wii U would be able to look as good graphically as the 360 / PS3 rather than give a straight "yes" Nintendo instead gave an evasive "We're not sure"- that'll be a no then? A PR release from a company no one's ever heard of then followed this a few weeks later with an "estimate" that it'll be a billion times as good or something like that, but with that uncertainty from even Nintendo itself initially, I think I'll wait to see what it's actually like before I get too excited. I'm concerned about the talk of how the game can migrate to the controller too if you want the screen back- a controller wont be specced as well as the console so that means all games either have to have a very low detail mode, or the console isn't going to be that well specced in the first place after all.

Now they come forward with "Oh we don't care about the internet too much" or whatever it was they said and it sounds like they're being half arsed on that too.

I dunno, maybe it'll rock, but thus far signals from even Nintendo themselves don't seem terribly encouraging.

Re:Games not technology (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620790)

I'm with you on the controller sentiment. I put off buying a Wii until last November, I just didn't really want one, the controller being the chief reason. The New Super Mario Brothers being more or less classic in it's use of controls motivated me to get the red system. My kid loves it all the way around, I play NSMB and Mario Kart Wii, both of which could be confused as games using a decidedly non-Wii like control scheme.

On that note my DS games make little to no use of the touch-screen/stylus.

Re:Games not technology (2)

ifrag (984323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621146)

Now they come forward with "Oh we don't care about the internet too much" or whatever it was they said and it sounds like they're being half arsed on that too.

And that statement right there shows just how serious Nintendo is about getting the "Core Gamers" back, which is not at all. A couple generations back with the PS2 and Xbox1 was the time when not caring about the internet was actually moderately acceptable. Things didn't really work too well, and the PS2 required special additional hardware, and add that to the fact there was only a handful of games actually worth playing online on either console, it wasn't a platform killer to not focus on it. In fact, I think the Gamecube actually did have some kind of network adapter, but for the one or two games that used it, not a big deal.

Now look at Xbox360 and PS3, where network play has been a much larger focus. I'd say overall, Microsoft actually has the better online offering at this point despite the premium fee to actually use it for anything, although I have used PSN a bit and it seems somewhat functional, recent trouble aside anyway. In fact, Sony probably should have at least provided some kind of low quality headset right with the system like Microsoft does, although there is the benefit of using pretty much any Bluetooth headset on their system.

So without Nintendo providing some kind of significant core network services, which 3rd party developers can easily jump on, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot yet again. And even if it can stand toe-to-toe with the others on graphics or control, it will still be the less desirable port of the title if multi-player doesn't hold its own. No matter how much Nintendo tries to be unique or innovative in other areas, failing to provide on some basic services like full featured multi-player with voice communication puts it firmly back in place as the developer shunned platform.

Re:Games not technology (2)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620308)

"Core gamers" is a small market, but I think they are chasing it because that's the market that is willing to pay $50 for a game. I really don't understand the reluctance by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to drastically lower prices. If new games were $20 instead of $50 or $60, I'm pretty certain my game library would be more than 3x as big.

I've been burned by too many crappy $50+ games that I'm very reluctant to buy any more. I've been pretty happy picking up bargains on Steam and playing games on my phone.

Re:Games not technology (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620474)

I hate game prices as much as anyone and think they should be cheaper, but you have to remmeber a game has to generate income for the developer, for the developers failed games(for every success their are generally at least one or more games that lose money), the distributer, the retailer and the console maker. console makers generally have very large investments and depend on the game licensing revenue to fund the hardware. for games to be $20 you would probably be looking at significantly more upfront cost for the console and remember while you may buy 3 times as many games there are plenty that would still only buy a couple each year.

Re:Games not technology (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620652)

Valve has shown that lowering prices increases revenues [] .

If the problem is that you can't sell for less because there are too many middlemen to pay, then it's obvious what your problem is.

Not everyone has cable or fiber Internet (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621056)

Valve has shown that lowering prices increases revenues [] .

For one thing, this is true in the case of urban gamers, who have access to with triple digit GB/mo transfer allowances. Gamers in rural areas depend on cartridges or discs because all they can get for Internet access is satellite or 3G, whose cap generally isn't high enough for a dual-layer DVD's worth of data in a whole month. Production of cartridges and discs adds a fixed overhead to the price of each copy.

For another, some games are based on a work of authorship or setting licensed from another party. This includes any book or movie tie-in, any sports game whose player characters represent real life athletes, or any rhythm game (e.g. DDR or Rock Band) or sandbox game (e.g. GTA series) with a licensed soundtrack. The licensor may insist on a fixed fee in dollars per copy sold, which likewise adds a fixed overhead.

Re:Games not technology (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620520)

"Core gamers" is anything but a small market. Call of Duty: Black Ops was the most successful entertainment product of 2010 - not just the most successful game - and while I don't regard it as a particularly good game, it is anything but a casual title. And a lot of the people who bought Black Ops (and probably more besides) will be buying either Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3 - or probably both - later this year.

Re:Games not technology (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620690)

It's only small relatively speaking. The mobile games market is now larger than the console market and the momentum is solidly behind mobile at the moment. There are a lot of reasons for that, price being one of them.

Did you see the recent interview with the former Sony chief who launched the original Playstation in '96? In it, he projected that unless something changes, Apple devices will be *the* video game market in the relatively near future. It's killing everything else.

Re:Games not technology (1)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621738)

That's assuming that CoD players are the core gaming market and not just that non-core gamers play CoD as well. I know plenty of people that only have a handful of games, and CoD is one of them.

Re:Games not technology (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620578)

Because your gaming catalog would still be bringing in the same amount of revenue to them, and people who won't buy triple the number of games would result in less money? And because AAA games are a lot more expensive to make then dinky little iPhone apps?

Re:Games not technology (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620754)

That's what publishers are afraid of. So far, I think all pricing experiments have shown the reverse to be true.

AAA games are like blockbuster movies. Formulaic, expensive, risky, and usually money losers. All the innovation is happening in mobile right now with some notable exceptions (like Kinect). It's easy to take chances trying something new on a game that will sell for a few dollars. If you need to charge $50 for it, you end up going the safe route with Hockey 2012 which is almost the same as Hockey 2011 which is very similar to Hockey 2010.

Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621080)

All the innovation is happening in mobile right now

Let me know when innovative mobile games from smaller studios can use a D-pad. And let me know when innovative mobile games from smaller studios can run on a device that doesn't cost $70 per month to operate, which a lot of especially younger gamers can't afford.

Re:Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621436)

What is with your focus on everything being for everyone?
Not every product fits every market, and that is not a problem. I own devices made by companies most have never heard of, heck they may never had heard of the type of device either, but the company still turns a profit. Go ask normal folks what digikey is, they will not know. Yet, digikey in its target market is huge.

Re:Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile (2)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621910)

What is with your focus on everything being for everyone?

Tepples has Aspergers and IIRC used to babysit to make money before he got some job placement assistance.

Re:Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621496)

You know, I'm starting to find anti-Apple cultists like yourself to be many magnitudes more annoying than the Apple cultists.

Re:Games not technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620670)

I really don't understand the reluctance by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to drastically lower prices. If new games were $20 instead of $50 or $60, I'm pretty certain my game library would be more than 3x as big.

So you would give them same money for 3 games and they would spend 3x the development budget.

I won't say games aren't overpriced but i can see why your approach wouldn't work (at least not for all games).

Re:Games not technology (1)

WhirlwindMonk (1975382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621114)

No, they would spend the same development budget. They aren't producing more games, he's buying more games that they're already producing. And he said more than 3x as many, which means they are getting more than $60 from him.

Re:Games not technology (1)

Skylinux (942824) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621018)

Exactly, I would consider purchasing a console if the games where not as ridiculously priced as they are.
Games are throw away products and they are priced like they are some sort of investment.

Back when the WII first came out I was very close to purchasing one but it had two issues:
1) No DVD-Video support
2) Games are too expensive (issue of all consoles)

So I stayed a PC gamer who rather drops 200 Euro on a Video card then a console with shackles.

Re:Games not technology (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621992)

Your problem isn't that the games are actually expensive...the problem is you live in Europe. So you get VAT, import duties, and exchange rate issues.. Not to mention the costs of translation to all the different languages.

And even after you buy that 200Euro video card, you still have to buy games, right?

Not sure why this was moderated troll (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620740)

He's very right. The Wii's big problem was gimmicky games. I've seen very few solid titles for it. Most of them are silly gimmicks that are designed around messing with the motion controller. Also, it gets in the way of some of what should be good titles. They focus on doing silly things with the controller that makes it harder to play the game.

A good example of this is looking at the top selling Wii games. You exclude the sports games that come with the Wii (since people didn't really buy those, they got them as an included deal) and what are your top games? Mario Kart and the Wii Fit. Mario Kart is a legit good game, if a rehash of stuff already done but the Wii Fit? Pure gimmick and it sold 23 million copies.

Now before you try to argue, consider this: The Wii Fit is an exercise machine. That is its function. Also please realize that videogames don't magically change someone's personality or actions. The go look up exercise machine stats. You discover they are very, VERY under used. People buy them, thinking it'll motivate them to become thin, and then set them aside since the machines do not bring motivation. Same deal with the Wii fit. A girl I know has a Wii fit, a treadmill, an elliptical, and a stair master, none of which get used despite her wish to lose weight since motivation is the problem, not access to technology.

Continuing on the Wii's list you see the next top games are all Mario titles.

The parent is really right, the Wii badly suffered from having crappy, gimmicky, games. That caused people who are in to games to not be so interested in it. Wasn't because they said "Man I hate this motion controller," it was because they couldn't find many titles they wanted to play.

In my observation, Wiis are mostly like board games: People get them, mess around with them a little, get bored, set them aside only to occasionally pull them out at parties.

I know a lot of people who own Wiis, I know exceedingly few, none in fact, that game on them regularly. Those that do game regularly also own another console (or both other consoles) or a computer and game on them.

Re:Not sure why this was moderated troll (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621134)

A counterpoint. The Wii is the only game console we (me, wife, daughter 16 and son 11) have.

The intersection of good games which implement Wii Motion controls really well is vanishingly small --- Red Steel 2 being the poster child. Unfortunately Red Steel 1 and Dragon Quest Swords tried hard but were handicapped by happening before Wii Motion Plus was available.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance is a _lot_ of fun, and it's very cool to administer beat-down moving the Wii remote around.

First Person Shooters work well --- pointing w/ the Wii Remote is unambiguous, fast and natural --- Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition is considered by many to be the best implementation of that title (but hampered by coming out before the Wii Zapper), Goldeneye 007 is a _lot_ of fun (and has a rage-quitting inducing segment in the solo campaign which is quite difficult, so gamers should feel adequately challenged) and was presaged by Link's Crossbow Training (which has excellent ``Ranger'' FPS-like segments). Conduit, Call of Duty, et. al. The problem is developers found it easier to create games on rails like Ghostsquad...

Metroid Prime Trilogy's upgrade to IR pointing was _really_ well done, and it does have the difficulty which hard core gamers enjoy.

Speedracer was actually quite fun, w/ ``Car-Fu'' moves done by doing more than just rotating the wheel, but I'd like to see a racing game w/ a more realistic physics engine and tighter controls.

And there are games w/ excellent reviews which didn't appeal like Mercury Meltdown Revolution

Lots of games which tried hard and I didn't really find to be fun --- Overturn, Ski and Shoot, &c.

And of course, as this article notes, it also functions as a normal game console so things like the Lego franchise, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, &c. are available.

That said, I think (hope) that the only game which will keep our Wii going long-term will be Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.

Re:Games not technology (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620898)

As someone who buys a lot of games every year and owns every console and over 400 games on Steam and has shelves of old game boxes, let me say what most disappointed me about Nintendo's future via their E3 press conference:

+ They announced a Mario game.
+ Another Mario game.
+ Another Mario game.
+ Another Mario game.
+ Another Zelda game.
+ Another Zelda game.
+ Another Zelda remake.
+ A pokemon game.

After thirty years, I think it's time to start doing new things instead of rolling out another iteration (or worse, a remake) of the same two or three franchises. Yes, they're cute. Yes, it's nostalgic. No, it's not enough to justify buying a console. I want that Nintendo pinache and a focus on fun games, but not necessarily in the form of the 800th Mario or Zelda game. And yes, there are other games for the Nintendo platform: shovelware.

Re:Games not technology (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621364)

The sad thing is that for people who love Mario and Zelda games, actually Nintendo fails in this regard.

Mario 64 was the killer launch title of N64. They promised a sequel that generation and it never happened. They promised a proper sequel during the Gamecube era, and it never happened.

The Gamecube version of Zelda became the Wii version of Zelda, because they pretty much missed the Gamecube lifespan.

Nintendo is pretty good about having a few good first-party titles at launch. The rest of the console's lifespan is another story.

My N64 gathered dust. My Gamecube gathered dust. My Wii gathered dust. Why repeat the process?

Dear Nintendo... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620192) always say yourself, that GAMES are what is important.
Now, look at the Wii and count the games appealing to core gamers. Notice something?

I'm really looking forward to the new Zelda, though, since that would prompt me to fire up my Wii for the first in quite a while.

Why can't it do more than one thing at once? (1)

incognito84 (903401) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620214)

I don't understand why the Wii you couldn't have it's current setup plus a WiiMote or possibly something similar to Kinect. It might drive up the price a bit but that way it'd keep everyone happy.

Re:Why can't it do more than one thing at once? (1)

PARENA (413947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620612)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Wii U will support both the new controller and Wii remote at the same time, if that's what you mean. One example during the presentation was golf, where the controller is on the floor and you can see the ball on that screen, while you swing your remote to hit that ball, which then flies visibly on the TV. Is that the kind of thing you meant?

Lost touch (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620298)

The one big advantage the Wii had (motion control, and all the party-friendly games that came with it) has been trumped by both the 360 and PS3. The smaller advantage it has is price -- that can be a good thing to compete on, but the 360 is closing that gap as well (I'm convinced the only reason the base 360 still costs more is because they know it's worth more and people are glad to pay for it).

That was boss Satoru Iwata's response when asked by a shareholder today whether the hardcore will accept Nintendo's next home console.

"Wii was not accepted by core gamers because they did not want to abandon their preferred control approach," he said, as reported by Andriasang.

Yea, the motion controls were a little stupid for "hardcore" games, but I don't think any new controller (their Classic Pro wasn't the best, but would have been acceptable) is going to solve that. The Wii has so many other problems.

A) Multiplayer is a huge attraction of modern games. The Wii just doesn't make it as easy, big, or social as the 360 does. B) The graphics were a toy in comparison. C) Very few "hardcore" games were made for it, simply because the vast hardware differences forced game companies to make the choice of 360/PS3 or Wii with little ability to scale between them. The few ports and cross-platform games that came out for it were typically underwhelming shells of their true selves.

The CEO then suggested the eye-catching Zelda HD tech demo showcased at E3 was only possible on the Wii U.

"Regarding Zelda HD, Japanese developers said that it could not be replicated on other machines," Iwata said.

And this is just untrue, of course. Though there is the possibility that he actually believes it.

Re:Lost touch (3, Interesting)

Jurramonga (1922438) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620390)

Bingo. The first console I bought this generation was the Wii. When I had friends over it was a lot of fun, but everyone else owned a 360. I ended up buying one myself just so I could play with them online, and my Wii stopped seeing use altogether for years until we got Netflix (now that's the only thing it's used for). The other problem Nintendo is going to have is getting back the market share that Microsoft and Sony already have. Are you going to buy Call of Duty 9 for the Wii U, the Xbox 720, or the PlayStation 4? More people will be playing on the Xbox/Playstation (based on this exact same logic...), why would you even consider it for the Wii U? I don't think Nintendo stands a chance at gaining the hardcore gamer back. Good luck to them anyway. I really hope they can prove me wrong.

Re:Lost touch (1)

lpp (115405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621284)

I'm surprised you kept using the Wii even for Netflix given you had a 360 (unless you were unwilling to get the higher tiered Xbox Live account needed for Netflix access on that platform). I had a Wii and a 360 and set up Netflix on both machines, first the Wii and then later on the 360. I switched to the 360 because with the Wii I consistently saw stuttering and pausing and the video quality wasn't great. When I switched to the 360 for Netflix, I saw a lot less mid-stream pausing and it seemed to me that the video quality improved. The only thing I can imagine was that it was related to the hardware discrepancy between the two.

I think you have lost touch... (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620626)

.. with reality because you don't seem to know what you are talking about and think the Wii U is just a controller.

The Wii U is not a Wii with a new controller. It is a totally new gaming system with hardware that is supposed to be far in advance of the 360 or PS3. The statement that Zelda HD could not run on a 360 or PS3 is totally factual. And whether or not you think the Wii had toy graphics is irrelevant because Wii U is not a Wii.

It amazes me the amount of flack Nintendo is getting over this console based on little information or mis-information. The fact of the matter is that by Q3/Q4 of next year, Nintendo is going to be THE ONLY company sitting with an 8th generation console. Microsoft and Sony have both said that they have no immediate plans to upgrade their consoles, and given the amount of money they both spent on bolting on motion controls to what they already have, this is unsurprising. the Wii U could be HUGE for Nintendo, if only for the fact that they won't have any other 8th generation hardware to compete with for quite a long time.

Re:I think you have lost touch... (1)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620660)

True, but the projected audience to buy the Wii U is comprised largely (though not entirely) of the same demographic that owns the Wii currently, hence the purpose of this article. I think aside from having an alternate controller to the tablet, Nintendo needs the necessary games for the new system if they want to appeal to hardcore gamers and branch out their fanbase.

Re:I think you have lost touch... (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620924)

It seems to me that the target market for the Wii U is:

+ Middle aged people who haven't bought a console since the NES and they just remember that back in the day, Nintendo was "the shit".
+ Mom's who bought a Wii to stick in the living room for their kids and as far as they know, it's a total success and doing well and their kids love it, because they don't know any better, so when the next Wii comes out, it's an obvious replacement.
+ People who buy everything with Nintendo on it. Period.

I'll probably buy the Wii U at some point, even though I doubt I'll use it. I sort of collect consoles, anyway. I bought the Wii at launch and I know for a fact that I haven not played more than 20 hours total with it. Further, I haven't played it at all in three years (the week Boom Blox came out, in 2008). For the last year and a half, I haven't even plugged it in. In fact, after I bought my house, I think I left it in the garage in a box with a bunch of other stuff and haven't felt compelled to go dig it out.

Re:I think you have lost touch... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621158)

+ Middle aged people who haven't bought a console since the NES and they just remember that back in the day, Nintendo was "the shit".
+ Mom's who bought a Wii to stick in the living room for their kids and as far as they know, it's a total success and doing well and their kids love it, because they don't know any better, so when the next Wii comes out, it's an obvious replacement.
+ People who buy everything with Nintendo on it. Period.

+ People who think the games are actually fun because they have a different opinion than others.

Re:I think you have lost touch... (2)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620894)

I really think Sony is making a mistake not updating the PS3. I really think people might be willing to shell out for a new version that had new unheard of features like backwards compatibility with PS2 games, maybe a couple of extra USB ports, and maybe even memory card readers.

Sony's big mistake was updating the PS3 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621112)

I really think Sony is making a mistake not updating the PS3.

No, Sony's big mistake was updating the PS3. The removal of Other OS from the original model led directly to the high-profile intrusions.

Re:Sony's big mistake was updating the PS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621222)


Re:I think you have lost touch... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621464)

They could even have add a mode to run a more conventional OS on the console. I am sure a linux or BSD could be ported to it. They could call that mode AlternateOS.

Re:I think you have lost touch... (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621046)

I didn't actually mention the Wii U or any of its new features, least of all the stupid new Dreamcast Tablet controller. Everything I said was about the Wii. Why? Really because, there's not much to talk about yet. The only thing they've shown that looks complete at all is the new controller. All the videos I've seen show acceptable graphics, but they're all just tech demos and thus not representative of anything but carefully prepared cutscenes.

The only interesting thing we know about the hardware is that the GPU is a Radeon HD, meaning it will support the modern programmable pipeline of modern desktop GPUs and thus be great to code for. The CPU is a multi-core Power but that doesn't mean much. In terms of performance, it could be anywhere -- but it will at least make creating cross-platform games easier.

I hope as much as the next guy that Nintendo knocks it out of the park -- I loved my NES, SNES, and N64. The hardware looks like it might be capable. I'm just not sold on their attitude. I think they've lost touch with gamers. I hope I'm wrong. Even if I am, it's going to be a tough battle to gain market share -- especially if they're not focusing on multiplayer and instead trying to replicate the Wii's success following the same game plan with yet another gimmicky controller.

sure (1)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620336)

yeah let's go from motion control to using a tablet with buttons, that's really what we wanted
I think nintendo will really fuck up this time with the wii u, having more power than ps3 and 360 right now it's useless, we have seen this with pc gaming for years, developers won't make better games for one platform, and when the new playstation and xbox will come out the wii u hardware will be already obsolete, also if the games are mostly the same of pc/ps3/360 why whould I buy it, just to play with that half-assed controller? or maybe to play another mario? I'm tired of playing mario, especially the 3d one.
Imho right now the best combination is pc+ps3, with pc you get 90% of the multiplatform games and with the ps3 you get a lot of nice first party games, the xbox 360 aside from halo and gears of war, doesn't have any exclusive that you can't play on either pc or ps3, same thing with the wii/wii u you get mario and zelda but that's it

Re:sure (1)

gozu (541069) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621572)

That is the correct assessment but I'll disagree about the PC + PS3 choice.

While I'm not a big Halo fan (I finished the first and 2nd Halo campaigns I think), you have to admit that multiplayer Halo is like a religion to many people and is not to be dismissed lightly.

And yes, Uncharted and God of War brought me a lot of joy but the online experience on the PS3 sucks compared to Xbox Live.

Personally, I want to play street fighter online and the Xbox is the best platform to do so. PC + 360 ain't cutting it.

I'm saying this as someone who only owns a PC and a PS3 at the moment.

Target Demographic (1)

polyp2000 (444682) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620398)

I almost bought a Wii - but when the excitement of the Wii controllers wore off i'd played a couple of Wii games. I realised that im not interested in most of the "cutesy" games. Im not interested in Mario, Zelda, Sonic and all that jazz I never was when i was a kid. I also find the music for Nintendo games to be very annoying - mostly sound like crappy midi scores to me. Im pretty certain if i were to buy a Wii - I would rapidly bore of it and it would gather dust under the bed. I guess im just not the target demographic. I like games with depth and detail - not just visually and sonically but with storyboard too. I want games that immerse me in believable worlds and make me feel part of the story.

I appreciate my above comments might seem shortsighted - particularly if you are a nintendo die hard - but my shortsightedness i probably mirrored by a large proportion of the more mature gamers out there. - That is what nintendo have to change!

Wii U looks pretty decent - although IMHO - Wii U is what the original Wii should have been when it came out. At the time it would have been able to compete on a more level playing field - spec's wise . Just like its predecessor the Wii U will feel technically "last gen" but has a fancy new controller to give it a different edge.
In terms of the Wii U's power - its just not a big enough leap for me to take the plunge.

If this is what Wii U is like .. just lets wait and see what the other two console manufacturers throw on the table...


Re:Target Demographic (1)

Liambp (1565081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620532)

After reading your comments about Nintendo Music I cannot help seeing a vision of a ferociously concentrating hard core shooter fanatic pulling off headshots in "Now that's what I Call Modern Battlefield Honor 77" while a jingly Marioesque soundtrack plays in the background.

It's quite a psychedelic image.

Re:Target Demographic (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620918)

Headshots on the heads of your friends Mii characters.

Faceball (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621118)

Headshots on the heads of your friends Mii characters.

Better yet, headshots with the Walmart smiley face mascot. Look for "MIDI Maze" or "Faceball 2000".

I told my friends that I was a gamer... (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620418)

And that I played with my Wii.

I got funny looks.


Re:I told my friends that I was a gamer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620490)

never heard that one before

not going to work (2)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620534)

a HUGE chunk of core gamers want a good online multiplayer system. if you are not going to put much focus on making your online capabilities very good or popular then you are just ignoring what the core gamers want.

then again, maybe if they offered the console in a few more colors...

Reverse TARDIS? (1)

Frogking (126462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620598)

They say, "the Wii U controller is not as big or heavy as it looks." So... it looks bigger on the outside than it is on the... outside?

Re:Reverse TARDIS? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621126)

It looks bigger on the photo than it is in the player's hands.

Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck! (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620604)

Hands up everybody who just posted that.

Now, put your hand down if you said exactly the same about the Wii.

Anyone still got their hand up? Didn't think so.

Sure, you might be right this time, but Nintendo's massive gold swimming pool chock full of million Yen bills, hookers and blow says otherwise.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck! (2)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620632)

This article pertains to hardcore gamers, which is not included in the original and probably not even the Wii U's demographic. Sure, it had the best sales and made a lot of money, but we're referring to the "hardcore gamers". In this regard, the Wii did not sell well.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck! (2)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621760)

If they want hardcore gamers, they're going to have to bring the hardcore games.

Anyone with any interest at all in RPGs has a PS3. Anyone with any interest at all in shooters has an xbox. Only people with an interest in party games, cooking mama, golf, or old school nintendo gaming have the Wii.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck! (1)

TRACK-YOUR-POSITION (553878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621276)

Actually, a lot of hands would still be raised. You'll note that many of the harshest comments above reference bad experiences with Wiis that they purchased. I'm not sure where this "everyone said the Wii would suck" meme came from--the Wii sold well, but it was nowhere near as amazing as a lot of us thought it would be. Many of us were excited by the concept of motion controllers. It was only after we started playing that we saw that imprecise Wii motion controls were only good for exercise and party games. (Not that there's anything wrong with exercise and party games, but judging from Nintendo's comments it seems the company would like to sell other kinds of games as well.) Among gamers, the reaction to the Wii was hype followed by disappointment. Right now gamers are skeptical of Wii U. They could still be surprised, but we'd have to see better games than we saw on the Wii or than we're seeing on the 3DS (they're still waiting for their good swimming pools to start filling up on that one).

I think what some people forget (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621744)

Is that high sales are not the same as being great. Yep, the Wii sold a lot. That doesn't mean it is a great gaming system, that means it is a gadget people decided they wanted. Now it could also be a great gaming system but that it sold tons doesn't mean anything.

My favourite example along those lines is always exercise equipment. It sells very well, yet it is not used by most people who buy it. They get it, hoping it will motivate them to exercise but since the problem is motivation and not access, it just sits around. That is sells well is not an indication that it is great, just that people want the gadget. They buy it for what they hope it will be (a motivator) and not what it is (a tool).

That the Wii sold extremely well means it is a success for Nintendo, that doesn't mean it is what gamers are after. Also, while current figures are hard to get your hands on, attach rates seem to bear this out. Xbox 360 owners buy more games per console sold than Wii owners. All in all it still may well be a win for Nintendo since they make money on hardware and also less sales per unit but with more units can be more sales. However it does demonstrate what people are saying about the Wii not being great. People buy it and toy with it, then kinda set it aside (I have a number of friends who did just that).

Also, given that Nintendo is focusing on this, maybe there is more too it than some think. Nintendo may well realize that the Wii sold well because of it's gadget/cool appeal and that is not something which you can often cause to happen twice. They may have decided they need to focus on selling to gamers because that is what will keep them going over the long run.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621508)

Sure, you might be right this time, but Nintendo's massive gold swimming pool chock full of million Yen bills, hookers and blow says otherwise.

Don't forget: ROB, Power Pad, Power Glove, and Virtual Boy.

Nintendo's had some successful out-of-the-box ideas, but they've also had some bad ones. I don't think it's fair to discount critics just because the Wii did well.

I'm not sure where you see the contradiction (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621660)

I'm not sure where you see the contradiction or being right vs being wrong, since it's different issues. Making money does not automatically equal quality or anything.

E.g., there's a billion dollar industry selling homeopathic pills that do nothing, or quantum chi crystal-power pendants that do nothing, or magical/wishful thinking "self-help" books that don't and can't work like that in the real world, etc. Or exercise machines which then sit idle in a corner and collect dust.

Now repeat business might be a more legitimate measure of whether something sucks or not. But selling some millions of overpriced consoles (for the hardware in them) based on a gimmick like pretending they're exercise machines, and then discovering that those people don't actually buy more games for them, nor actually use them to exercise... exactly what's the measure there whether it sucks or doesn't suck?

I mean basically you could say the same about scientology and its e-meters. It doesn't even do or diagnose anything even according to the church of scientology. ("By itself, this meter does nothing. It is solely for the guide of Ministers of the Church in Confessionals and pastoral counseling. The Electrometer is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily function of anyone and is for religious use by students and Ministers of the Church of Scientology only.") So it's fair to say that it sucks. But they made billions selling them and auditing to gullible morons anyway. How's the latter a measure of the former?

Sure, it's a feat of marketing, and for Nintendo's investors it doesn't suck. But then I think whoever criticized the Wii controller at launch wasn't talking about that.

And so the horde of twelve year olds yells (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620610)

Sure is "mature games for mature gamers such as myself" around here...

Also sensing some butthurt from sonyfags and xfags because their cheap imitation motion gimmicks will never do what the underpowered wii did : SELL LIKE FUCK

Re:And so the horde of twelve year olds yells (1)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620646)

Why would I care a bunch of families bought the Wii? All I care about are the games I care about playing, none of which are offered on the Wii. (except possibly Zelda, though it's at about a nine-year-old's level of difficulty)

Re:And so the horde of twelve year olds yells (1)

Bagels (676159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621582)

To be fair: Nintendo has come up with something of a solution re: the "nine-year-old's difficulty" bit. Their more recent games (Mario Galaxy 2, Donkey Kong Country Returns, and Ocarina of time 3D) have all had "super guide" functionality - basically, a system that will optionally take over and play part of the game for you if you suck at nine-year-old levels. Seems like they've used that as leverage to start making their games properly challenging again for the rest of us. (Good thing, too; I don't think I died once during Twilight Princess or Wind Waker.)

Re:And so the horde of twelve year olds yells (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620804)

Keep your *chan lingo to chans please. It makes you look 9 years old.

It's the games not the controller (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620676)

Nintendo does not understand that's it's wrong method to make games easy to play to satisfy people. Games are mostly interesting, because you can have fun with them for longer than a week. Everything is for casual gaming now. It's not fun for people who actually HAVE time and patience to play the game, in my opinion.

Something stinks....the Nintendo Pii-U..... (0)

LFnewbs (2325342) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620772) have dropped the ball....then kicked it down the drain never to be seen again. Unfortunately for Nintendo....they don't ALL float down here. This company is associated with one word at all times....CLASSIC. Therein lies the problem. Sure Mario is cool. Sure Zelda keeps kicking ass to this day, but the systems are all so....dated. The only true difference between the Wii and the NES or SNES is the change up from cartridge to disc. Not impressed. I think the Wii was geared towards a younger audience of gamers and those that like the classics. Bad news can give the kid on the bike a new route around town, or throw in a pothole here and there, but the sad truth's still Paperboy....and it still sucks. They are also losing alot of followers to this whole whacked out "work out while you play videos games" thing. Sure some people may like that idea, but if I wanted a workout, I go outside....or to work. You can say it's about family play time all you want, but the majority of gamers (at least in my age group) want to blow shit up, kill zombies, or save the world. Nintendo's selection of quality titles has somewhat dwindled over the years and that is what they really need to focus on. Not new toys to go along with it. I'll buy a Wii or a Wii U when it can run my game, make me lunch, and massage that dislocated shoulder I got from playing Wii bowling (almost as boring as watching golf) all at the same time. If it can do that, I'm sold. If not...I'll take my pc/XBOX360 combo any day. I doubt that Nintendo (being a gaming company ONLY) will be able to out-box Sony and/or Microsoft in the console war. Now it seems they are falling behind in the games they put out as well. HD? NEW CONTROLLERS that "aren't as heavy as they look?!" The Wii controlers weighed virtually nothing but that didn't stop anybody from hurling it through their television screen. That was most likely the result of....oh...I don't know...SMALL COMPACT LIGHTWEIGHT CONTROLLERS! C'mon Nintendo....pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and try really hard to locate your pride..... - LFnewbs

Re:Something stinks....the Nintendo Pii-U..... (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621110)

Yeah, because the biggest selling console ever, an instantaneous household name, and 5-years of entirely profit-making sales are a horrendous thing for a company.

*YOU* may not like it, but Nintendo haven't suffered in the slightest. You're really complaining because you aren't in their target market, not that Nintendo aren't doing well for themselves.

Personally, I bought a Wii (original) last month. It was finally what I consider a sensible price for a brand-new full kit (including chargers and two Wiimotes-with-MotionPlus and all the associated gubbins), and I can pick up games for £3-4 each in some cases. I'd played it before at my parents (who have had one for years) and it was... well... a games console like I remember other games consoles - no messing about, into a game, play it, no having to even read an instruction manual and away you go, bursting into fits of laughter when someone falls off the track for the millionth time, or someone else makes silly faces while pretending to row a canoe. When I was a kid, I would have killed for it, even though I consider myself a pretty experienced gamer.

Get this - my girlfriend, who had never played any video games except "Purple Turtle" on the Commodore 64 (go look it up, be sure to bring a resuscitator in case you die laughing), is always switching it on and playing it and wants first go of all the "new games" we get and even browses through them on the shop shelves herself.

It's not targeted at you. It never was. The next one might be but I'd doubt even that - more likely they just want a slightly larger market than the Wii had, so they make similar money even if people decide the Wii is good enough for them.

"The majority of gamers" aren't even in your age-group, most probably (I believe the median age has shifted to those born in the late 70's/early 80's. Again, you're unconsciously confusing "gamer" with some private definition that can't include grannies and 3-year-olds. Nintendo really don't care about your zombie games, because they made more money out of targeting a common base (and not a particular age-group) than all the other console manufacturers did in the last 5 years.

Re:Something stinks....the Nintendo Pii-U..... (0)

LFnewbs (2325342) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621602)

You don't know why I'm complaining exactly, but I appreciate your opinion on the matter. I am aware of the Commodore 64 although the earliest piece of gaming equipment I've ever gotten my hands on was an Atari. All I'm sayin is that is seems like they've kinda lost the corner of the market they had. I'm not sayin it's total garbage or anything. They were the ONLY big dog in the yard when they hit the masses, and many of the people I've talked to (gamers of all ages) are just kinda let down by the direction they took. If they can improve their "tech'n'toys," then more power to them. The term "gamer" applies to anybody that has the capacity to pick up a controller and enjoy themselves. It's not a numbers game or an age group. I was born in 87 so I missed the "median age" I suppose, but I can assure you there are more people between the ages 10 and 25 playing simply because of the abundance of consoles and games. It wasn't as readily available in the late 70's/early 80's as it is now. Ask any kid what he/she wants for their birthday and I'd be willing to bet that games and consoles would show up more often then it would on the lists of people in the "median age" group. Regardless of age or skill, gaming really only boils down to what you like. Nintendo does care about the zombie lover as is evident in the releases of the Resident Evil titles that have graced not only the Wii, but the Gamecube as well. The Wii has alot of titles that are aimed at people like your girlfriend who have either neither played or have played very little. The controls were simple enough for beginners to get into, but the new hardware updates may leave the rest behind. My stepdad rocked a Commodore and an Atari. He, my mother and my little sister have mastered their Wii, but put the 360 controller in any of their hands and chaos follows. In contrast, I can't play Wii to save my life, and believe me I've tried countless times only to have my little sister spank me at Wii Sports. I'm not really worried about Nintendo failing because I doubt that will ever happen. I just think they may stumble upon an entire new gaming crowd if the hardware is easy enough to operate. As you stated, you recently picked up the Wii kit when it was a sensible price. New hardware drives up prices just like new consoles themselves. So if the price is too high and the controls are hard to get used to, it may hurt them in the long run. But the median age of gamers will soon be younger than both of us anyway, right? I've more or less given up on consoles (but that's because WoW has stolen my soul) but I would not hesitate to jump back in if new and better things are released. I may try the Wii U, I may not. But in the end it's all about what you like on an individual level. If the big dogs worried more about that then their bottom line profit, they could rake in a whole new crowd. Too bad we don't own a major gaming company ledow....we'd have it all covered.

Zelda (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620778)

I think a good new Zelda game could do the trick :)

Re:Zelda (1)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620874)

Provided they come out with one every six months and it isn't the difficulty level of a nine-year-old, maybe.

Re:Zelda (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620942)

What, no, a GOOD one, not one that takes only 6 months to develop :/

Re:Zelda (1)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620968)

True that. I meant they'd need one that often to keep me entertained, as that's the only reason I even stay with Nintendo in the first place.

Wii U Shop channel (1)

Trashman (3003) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620836)

I know it might be a little premature to bring this up but, Nintendo has yet to explain how my digital Purchases from the Wii Shop Channel can be moved over to a Wii U. I'm somewhat annoyed that they tie the purchase to a machine and not an account. How this process is handled will be a (major) deciding factor of whether I buy the new console or not. The online capabilities and the available games will be the other factors.

Re:Wii U Shop channel (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621152)

Well, for the 3DS they created a tool (free downloadable) which allowed one to move purchased from a DSI over to a 3DS --- presumably they'll do something like that.

Ideas & improvements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620896)

1. Rename your consoles. Personally I think Wii U sounds like some toy you would find in a childrens' toy store. "Look, a toy named Wii U, sounds fun!" It doesn't give me the impression of a serious high-performance video game console of today's generation. Just some cheap electronics which breaks after a week's usage.

2. Please try to come up with new designs. You can easily see that controller's design is descendant from the GB:A released in 2001. The design worked with the latter descendants such as the DS. But now you're implementing it with iPad characteristics(not meant as a comparative description, but a set of design rules)? I thought everyone understood the inferiority of the iPad design. It's too big and unergonomic to do anything but read texts and watch movies with an optimal experience. The Wii controller was a good step forward, but personally I didn't like it because it takes up too much space for being so small. I don't want to have to wave around with my arms to play a game, besides, I might hit something.

This is about a GAME CONSOLE. On a game console, you play games. Thus, both the hardware and software interface must support maximal interaction. I mean come on. The controller's large 6.2'' screen doesn't even support multi-touch functionality. Now here's what I find extremely strange. Throughout the history of Nintendo's released game consoles, the consoles themselves have all had identifiable designs. Maybe it's just me, but all this looks like is a thick DVD-player and an iPad with buttons and analog sticks. What happened to your designers Nintendo?

3. Nintendo: "Let's work on new console! It's about time and we have many new hardware possibilities."
Nintendo developers: "Nice, we can make some of our most recognized games for new console!"
Nintendo associate: "Let's inform 3rd-party developers of new console!"
3rd-party developers: "Suree we can support new console, we make some nice games."
Nintendo: "Ok, new console is done. We also have some new games for console now. Release now!"
Consumers: "Wow, a new console from Nintendo! Gonna check it out. Wut, same games every year since a decade??? wtf is this shit."
Nintendo: "Why new console sales are bad? Consumers have underrated our console, but it's hopefully going to turn out all right. Let's make new better console! =)"

Three words... (1)

X3J11 (791922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621020)

Three words...

Nintendo 3DS EULA.

Okay, technically six if you expand the acronym. Nintendo's End User License Agreement for the 3DS handheld has done enough damage to turn me off of any and all future products they may try to peddle. It may cause some dismay with my children (two boys, both in the prime target audience age range) but I've already explained the why of it in an attempt to make them aware of how some companies seem determined to completely alienate their customers (such as the recent Capcom idiocy over Resident Evil, a franchise they both are fans of). Neither of these companies will see another cent out of our pockets.

It looks like Nintendo's new console... (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621398)

.... is just a DS, where the top screen is your TV. Although the resolution seems respectable, the hand-held display is single-touch only, which only further makes it seem like the bottom half of a DS to me.

Also... from what I've heard... the console can't have more than one of these special controllers connected to it at any time, so it doesn't even open up any new multiplayer potential.

On another note, I can find absolutely no indication that Nintendo might be finally loading their upcoming console with a respectable amount of internal memory, which if they repeat the maneuver that they did with the Wii in that department, and don't have at least a comparable amount of general purpose and video memory that can be found on competing consoles, they are probably just going to end up frustrating 3rd party console game developers trying to develop sophisticated stuff for it to the point that they simply won't bother... and will just do stuff for nintendo's competition.

Nintendo's Biggest Mistake (0)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621868)

Nintendo is wasting its time with the hardcore. They're never coming back. For crying out loud, they still haven't forgiven Nintendo for the SNES version of Mortal Kombat.

Nintendo never abandoned the hardcore with the Wii. It should have -it's a market Nintendo hasn't had any hope of reclaiming for a very long time, and frankly it's a market that has done nothing but harm to the industry since taking it over- but it didn't. Unfortunately, it seems to be abandoning the much healthier market that it was finally starting to really win over in the DS and Wii days, all for a group that not only hates Nintendo but frankly doesn't care for anything but pretty pictures and pwning the n00bs.

Stick with your Niche (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36621880)

The wii was outrageously successful because it targeted more casual gamers. Its found such an excellent niche. Why is it now turning its back on it to seek acceptance of hardcore gamers that already have a PS3 and XBOX360 for their needs? I say, keep the good thing going.

Of course, I'll be eating my words eventually.

why? (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621954)

They have a very nice niche going as the game console for casual gamers. I'm sure nobody here wants to hear it, but this is a much bigger market than hard core game systems. With Playstation and Xbox fighting for top spot, the Wii was picking up the rest of gaming community, or the third product position in the market. They were the 7-up "uncola" to Coke and Pepsi. Why change course now? Just add HD and a faster processor and call it a day.

I was always turned off by the low resolution of the wii. We have an xbox with kinect, but my mom and all of her friends own wii's.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?