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!

Can the Wii U Survive Against the PS4 and Xbox One?

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the how-much-can-one-plumber-do dept.

Nintendo 335

An anonymous reader writes "Now that both Sony and Microsoft have announced their next-gen consoles, and we've gotten solid information about their hardware, technology, and features, Eurogamer asks whether Nintendo's struggling Wii U will be able to hold its own once the new competition arrives. 'Wii U has tanked — there's no other way to put it — with even the release of traditional big-hitters like Dragon Quest 10 failing to make a dent in the Japanese market. If you believe certain analysts, April saw things getting even worse in the U.S. with the Wii U shifting under 40,000 units, easily outsold by the 360 and PS3 — and, even more embarrassingly, the Wii.' If the Wii U doesn't see a miraculous turnaround, Nintendo may be left with the difficult choice of whether to port its software to competing consoles. It'll also serve as a bellwether to see if the big gamer complaint about the new Sony and Microsoft consoles — that they're only partly about games — is honest. 'At a time when the goal of its competitors is to own the living room, the extent of Nintendo's ambition is simply to be in it — a dedicated games console, and no more.'"

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

Spoiler alert: no. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821469)

Spoiler alert: no.

More like... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821485)

... can the game industry survive expensive AAA games?

THQ recently went bankrupt, EA's stock has taken a huge dump from past highs and activision survives mainly by WoW and Call of duty. At this point the next console generation is the least interesting console generation in a long while. Since games have become some multi-headed hydra of trying to be a jack of all trades, master of none in order to sell games to the lowest common denominator. Most modern games are little more then movies /w over simplified gameplay at this point.

A revolution in tools is needed to scale back team sizes and game development costs and that's decades away. If anything the game industry is probably the most out of touch industry looking for fast $ by releasing games too early with little to no changes.

Re:More like... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821855)

This is why I think we're seeing Indy games thrive more.

Re:More like... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822049)

The question is whether the industry can survive AAA priced titles that are really only B games? THQ and EA say they put out AAA titles but that's only in cost to make not quality. The industry can survive the costs. It can't survive overpriced shit.

The Wii U can't survive against the Wii! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821505)

The best outcome Nintendo can hope for is that the Sony and Microsoft consoles tank too.

They're going for gameplay. Again. (5, Insightful)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about a year ago | (#43821507)

The Wii was/is far behind its competitors when it came to graphics becaue that wasn't the point. The gameplay and experience was. The game Bully only really makes sense with a Wiimote. And they're doing it again.

All those "classic" 8-bit games -- Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Archon -- became classics not because of the awesome graphics they packed into a ROM space too small for a fucking To Do list for your mother these days but because of the gameplay. Compare and contrast with Clickfest Diablo 3.

Tanking? Nintendo are out there not resting on their laurels and working on the one thing that leads to long-term success. Or do you play Minecraft for the incredible graphics experience only achievable with a €3,000 rack of graphics cards?

Re:They're going for gameplay. Again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821529)

Little Big Planet?

Re:They're going for gameplay. Again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821559)

Sony did have that one game. Wasn't enough to sell me a PS3, though, but I was mildly interested. 15 minutes of playing it at a friends and I'd had my fill, and in retrospect I'm glad I didn't pay 600 bucks for my own copy and console to play it on.

Re:They're going for gameplay. Again. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821595)

Actually, all of those "lo fi" games you mention were, in fact, graphically impressive when they came out.

The Japanese have a wonderful ability to take success and iterate over and over, but Nintendo is having a harder time keeping it fresh.

Oh, and Minecraft does take advantage of high-end hardware quite nicely. I doubt that the Wii U has the chops to do much with that engine before the CPU grinds to a halt and the memory fills up like a sinking ship...

Re:They're going for gameplay. Again. (5, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | about a year ago | (#43821787)

Going for gameplay? The Wii had the following:

1) The same old Nintendo standbys that they rehash every generation, except now with tacked-on motion controls that everyone hated.
2) A ridiculous amount of gimmicky terrible games that companies pumped out to appeal to the loads of casual gamers who bought the console.
3) EXTREMELY few and far between good titles which took advantage of the Wiimote in a non-gimmicky way, like Boom Blox.
4) Games which didn't use motion controls at all and could have been done on any console, but were gimped and put out on the Wii because of the huge install base.

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that power = graphics, as well. Power lets you do better AI, it lets you have more objects on screen, it lets you do better physics, etc. etc. For a great example of how a game had to be made far worse to allow the Wii to run it, look at all the problems with Dead Rising.

Every gamer I know who has a Wii played Wii Sports to death, maybe played a couple other games on there, and then has let it collect dust. Every non-gamer I know who bought one only uses it as a Netflix box. The Wii may have been a financial success for Nintendo, but it was a dud of a console as far as entertainment value goes.

Re:They're going for gameplay. Again. (4, Insightful)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about a year ago | (#43821957)

1) The games that had stood the test of time for. gameplay.
2) Terrible gimmicks are Nintendo's fault? I like DDR (because I can beat my wife at it). I like Mario Kart (my kid likes to play with me). I like LfD and the old arcade-style quick games that Sports and similar offer. My wife likes the yoga shit. NfS sucks because it tries to force non-native controls on the Wii controller, just like the shitty port of Bully to the PC did.
3) Again, how is this Nintendo's fault? Fucking FIFA 2013 is nothing but a goddamned rebadge of FIFA2012. How is that you blame anyone but the publisher?
4) Games don't have to implement motion control anymore than PacMan had to find a use for the fire button that all home 8-bit consoles had at the time. Again, whose fault is this?

I live in Germany; we ain't got no Netflix (but we do have USB sticks and a Samsung TV capable of playing damned near anything in an AVI wrapper).

Re:They're going for gameplay. Again. (0, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43822281)

The thing is, the Wii is a runty little console which offered little over its predecessor, which had awful controllers, and really shitty motion recognition in spite of the motion recognition being the primary feature. With motionplus it is not too bad, but because the system is so pathetic games have to explicitly support it, it's not automatic. So only some games even have halfway decent motion detection. Most of Nintendo's own Wiimote titles don't even try to do anything interesting, e.g. the original Zelda title where you just wiggle the wiimote to swing the sword. They didn't re-release those with decent controls either. Consequently there's only a small handful of titles which ever really delivered on the promise of the Wii, and most of them don't have much replay value. End result, I am a gamer and my Wii is still just used as a Netflix box. And it's not a very good one of those, with its primitive output (480p? What year did that console come out again?) and recently, its tendency to crash and make a noise like an air horn. It's better at Netflix than it is at Amazon Instant Video though, which runs fine on my PC but buffers every few seconds on the Wii.

The Wii was a brilliant marketing manouever but it's a fairly crap console, poorly implemented. It sold on the basis of the Nintendo name and if it didn't play Netflix I would regret the purchase immensely. As it is, I have got lots of use out of it on that basis. If only the wiimote weren't pathetically confused by the open windows in my living room, and I didn't have to get up and stand halfway between the couch and the TV to actually launch netflix any time but in the dark of night, I might even say it has a decent remote. But it is, so I won't, because it doesn't.

Angrily defending the Wii like you're doing is the sign of a fanboy, and I say this as someone who shakes his fist at Nintendo every time they try to sneak a HBC defeat into a system update, threatening the function of my original Gamecube-friendly Wii. But don't get mad, bro. At least, not on Nintendo's behalf. They're a corporation, they don't care about you. They just want your money.

Re:They're going for gameplay. Again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822137)

You forgot:
5) Wii Fit controller which a bunch of housewives purchased as a fad exercise gimmick.

A huge chunk of Wii sales went to people that had nearly zero interest in 'gaming'. It's really unlikely that these people will ever come back and buy another Nintendo console.

Re:They're going for gameplay. Again. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821873)

The Wii U has flopped, it's up against a 6 and 7 year old console pair and no one wants it other than Nintendo fans. Nothing wrong with that, but the Wii' success was not based on great games, it was the thing to have, cheap enough, and actually got women interested because they mistakenly thought they'd use it for exercise. You can't even give them away today.

Nintendo have been using their cash mountain to survive, they are in serious trouble at the moment. Major developers have already abandoned the Wii U, sales volumes are terrible. Try looking at their business reports, and not acting like a child. Nintendo's failure this time does not affect you in the slightest, don't take it so personally.

Re:They're going for gameplay. Again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822133)

I completely disagree. We have a Wii U. It's losing to the PS3 in our house. For certain games (say New Super Mario Bros Wii U) the gameplay is great. The problem with the Wii U is the same problem with the Wii. It's a one trick pony. The "extra" controls are tacked on to games that simply don't need them. And that's for the games that are ported. A lot of games are simply never ported. That's a weakness, not a strength.

So yeah, the graphics are serviceable. I actually remember growing up wondering which console generation would finally have "good enough" graphics and I'm pretty sure that generation was the Wii/PS3/XBox 360 generation (not that they won't keep improving, just that we won't look back and think they were dated-feel free to mock me on this point in the future). But the graphics too are another point where they lag behind the competitors and again, while it may not be much of a weakness, it is certainly not a strength.

Re:They're going for gameplay. Again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822529)

Minecraft has awesome graphics. It's like Pong on steroids. Anyway, back to reality - for me, game play, story, flow, and fun over graphics every time. I still like to break out the old Galaga or Dig Dug. Arhcon is awesome, still can't beat that if you can find someone who knows how to play it. I mean, really, real life has awesome graphics for most people, but that doesn't make sitting in a board meeting fun just because you see every hair on the CEO's Magnum PI mustache.

It's a bad decision (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821527)

Can't think of what to write without going insane with all the restrictions on the xbox one, so I'm just going to say that it's a bad decision. I won't even comment on the Wii considering it's useless. The ps4, hey I all ready have my bluray player in my PS3. The halo series has been going downhill, I couldn't even muster getting myself through all of the last halo game and the 13th release or whichever one we're on with call of duty, not worth it for that arcade game to invest in a new $500 console.

Re:It's a bad decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821757)

It's not like sequential franchises are a new thing, see NBA Live 95-98 and NHL 94-98 on the SNES. Or if you really want to get anal about it see the 1985 Gauntlet franchise []

Every generation of gamers sees itself as "the last generation before everyone switches over to _____" or "the last generation before the industry dies".

As every generation ages farther from the time period when they enjoyed a specific genera of entertainment, they begin to grow nostalgic for that era and despise the modern era. This is not a scientific law, but a generalist rule. It does not apply to everyone, but it applies to most people across all cultures and mediums. Every time you hear someone say "Today's music is crap", "Movies aren't as interesting as they used to be", or "CoD sucks" you are hearing someone fit into this rule.

used games (4, Insightful)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year ago | (#43821535)

I will buy into the platform that lets me buy and sell used games openly, without paying a tax to the mothership.

I buy maybe 1 or 2 games a year for my xbox 360 and I buy them all used because I play to relax and to me Halo 3, 4, 5, 6 whatever all look pretty much the same, I run, I shoot I am happy. That said, I will ony buy a next gen console that allows me the freedom to do two key things:
1: Loan games to friends, and play games that I am loaned
2: Buy and Sell used games freely without paying a pimp fee to MS/Sony/Nintendo/Activision/EA/whoever

Simple as this: if I cant walk into game stop 30-45 days after a title is released and buy it for ~1/2 new price, and sell my 2-3 year old game back for like $5 to lower that cost a bit more, then I just wont game at all because its too expencive for what it is. Again, I have plenty of disposable income, so it isn't an affordability thing, its a value issue.

Re:used games (4, Insightful)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year ago | (#43821603)

Also, What about longevity, if the thing has to phone home, what happens in 20 year when my kids want to mess around with an xbox one they got for $10 at the garage sale next door? long after all the servers are shut down, hell, for all we know, ms and sony may not even exist at that point! what then I ask?!?!

I can still fire up the Playstation (the first one had no numbers after the name kids) and play gran tourismo (again, before the numbers :) ) just like I did in grade school, but kids who get xbox one or PS3 or whatever may not have that same right.

Re:used games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822087)

and play gran tourismo (again, before the numbers :) )

That one must have also been before they spelled it 'Turismo'

just like I did in grade school

You have kids and were in grade school when the original Playstation was fresh? Geez. I feel really old now.

Re:used games (0)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year ago | (#43822389)

Twenty years from now your kid won't be allowed to buy an Xbox One at a garage sale. They contain lead and other hazardous wastes, and will have to be surrendered at the Hazardous Waste Depot.

Re:used games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821679)

I agree 100% and I think this is the point that publishers are oblivious to:

$60 is way too much to ask for a game. They try and entice people with "bonus content" for early adopters who pre-order at full price but it feels more like content that either ought to be in the game and can be purchased down the line for a tiny fraction with waiting + buying as DLC... or... it is so pointless and lame that it's not worth buying at all.

I've spent about $6000 on the 7th generation. With the exception of Borderlands 2, Bioshock Infinite, and Gears of War I've never purchased a game for over $15. I regretted all 3 instances of over paying, I've not once regretted any other purchase - even on titles like CSI, Jumper or Blood Bowl. My average price/game (including DLCs) is somewhere around $6-7 but then I've also purchased over 750 titles for the Xbox 360 alone.

Reduce the size of the teams, reduce the initial price of the game ($30 max), and make your DLC a hell of a lot better. Expansions used to be awesome additions to games (Broodwar, Lord of Destruction, Tales of the Sword Coast), now they're mostly over and done with in a couple hours at most and add nothing to the game and little to the story.

Re:used games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821885)

Reduce the size of the teams, reduce the initial price of the game ($30 max), and make your DLC a hell of a lot better. Expansions used to be awesome additions to games (Broodwar, Lord of Destruction, Tales of the Sword Coast), now they're mostly over and done with in a couple hours at most and add nothing to the game and little to the story.

Those expansions you listed cost as much as you say a full game should cost when they were released.

Re:used games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822205)

Yes, and back then the original releases were $60 too. Right now it's $60/game + up to $25/DLC (more in rare cases like Samurai Warriors 2). Some of the cut & paste shooters cost $120 for the game + all DLC (or more) with little to no added value beyond the initial purchase.

Back then I may have spent $90 on a game + expansion (rarely did, usually more like $40) but there was a lot of content. I easily put a couple thousand hours into Diablo 2 + LoD/StarCraft+Broodwar... StarCraft 2? Barely 30 hours. Diablo 3? 0 hours. Why? SC2 just as you felt like you were getting into the story, it ends - cough up another $120 to finish the story. D3 - well... after SC2 I just stopped buying Blizzard games due to the restrictions/requirements/lack of resale value.

Fallout New Vegas GotY for $15 (new)? Now that was a steal of a game that I've sunk many hours into. Dead Island for $10 (new)? Sold. Love it, bugs and all. If those games were released day one for $30 I would have bought them day 1... but instead I waited and since I waited there was no reason not to wait longer so instead of getting $30 they got 1/2 to 1/3rd of that.

Re:used games (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43822219)

I feel the same way, but what you need to remember in order to leave an intelligent and useful comment is that the game industry does not care about you. You simply don't represent enough additional revenue. How much do you think your participation in the used game market increases the initial retail value of a game? Five dollars? Ten at the outside? There's just no reason for anyone whose motivation is profit to cater to you. That leaves out anything more serious than a hobby effort. I hope that means that you've already reconciled yourself to playing indie and hobbyist games, because that's what's coming for you at this rate, on consoles at least. There has been some successful push-back against DRM on PCs, but there has also been massive acceptance of Steam even though it features DRM which prevents resale of used games, even if you bought them in a brick and mortar store. Once you're not able to resell console games, PC games will surely follow en masse.

Those of us who only buy one or two new games per year, if that, are simply not able to influence corporate direction in the gaming market. We are going to have to look elsewhere if we want to continue gaming. I've funded one game on kickstarter and I pay (very little, but something) for indie games through humble bundles, but sadly only one of the humble bundle for android games (contre jour) actually runs on my phone without crashing. In spite of most of them being tinkertoy games by comparison to A-list titles, they use as much disk space or even more.

I guess I'll spend more and more of my gaming hours in emulation in the future, being more or less completely unwilling to pay for games... Grand Theft Auto V may be the last A-list title I ever buy new, which I probably will do. I don't have a Wii U (asymmetric controllers THPPPPT) and I'm not planning on buying an Xbox One or a PS4 no matter what. I'm getting an Ouya but I'm buying it on the strength of XBMC (which runs but so far without hardware decoding) and running emulators and I may never buy a game from them. If it even runs games properly that's a side benefit to me. So in short, what reason do corporate publishers have to care about either of us?

Re:used games (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43822325)

> How much do you think your participation in the used game market increases the initial retail value of a game? Five dollars? Ten at the outside?

The entire initial retail value of the game.

Without a market, you have no place to sell your stuff. Used games increase the overall market for games in general. So do games that are just cheap. They all contribute to an overall experience that entices the console buyer.

It's all interconnected.

Not everything has to be a blockbuster. Not everything has to be a bargain. Both feed into the potential market of the other.

Re:used games (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43822541)

How much do you think your participation in the used game market increases the initial retail value of a game? Five dollars? Ten at the outside?

The entire initial retail value of the game.

No one but you believes that.

Without a market, you have no place to sell your stuff. Used games increase the overall market for games in general

Yes, and the question is how much. The idea that there would be no new market whatsoever if there were no used market is ridiculous, and you deserve ridicule for expressing it. Maybe 80% of the perceived value is based on the ability to resell, maybe it's 8%, but it's definitely not 100%.

Re:used games (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#43822409)

Used games do increase demand for the system though. GP doesn't really factor into this, because he only buys used games, but a lot of kids will buy a heap of used games, and get occasional new games for Christmas and Birthdays. 3-4 new games a year works out to 15-20 over the lifetime of the system, which is significant. And after a couple of years there will be decent profit in the system itself. If there are enough people in this position it's an important market.

Will the Wii U let you play used games? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821543)

Yes. Yes it will.

Consoles in general are going the way of the dodo. This all-in-one media center thing is pretty stupid, you can get a nettop/boxee/android based player for 50-100 bucks that can do all the advanced interactive media features Microsoft and Sony are so excited about (play netflix and youtube).

I don't know if people are stupid enough to pay 5-6 hundred to Microsoft or Sony for the same functionality.

I don't expect to see record breaking sales from any of the big three consoles. But Nintendo is smart to keep the cost down (oh noes hardcore gamerz, it doesnt have 32 core mega gigablips), and trade off their in house titles.

Nintendo consoles end up in kids bedrooms, not living rooms. Things will pick up for them after a price drop. Nintendo doesn't need to outsell Sony or MS, they play their own game. They just need to sell enough to keep pushing out the Mario and Zelda titles.

Re:Will the Wii U let you play used games? (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year ago | (#43821737)

Nintendo is also the most profitable company per employee. With only ~5000 employees they can afford a poor selling console easily.

I predict PS4 "wins" this round but no one wins overall (esp the consumer) and Steambox and/or PC will make a resurgence... just not enough to really put it on the map.

Re:Will the Wii U let you play used games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822357)

It's easy to keep employee counts down when you don't do real R&D and use ancient tech that cost pennies. However, it failed with the Wii U, people were very disappointed with the Wii, and the kids and women that were the bulk of the "owners", aren't interested in the same thing again, even if it's closer to 360/PS3 tech.

Re:Will the Wii U let you play used games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822561)

It's also easy to keep employee counts down when you fire an entire department and give all of their jobs to annual contract workers.

Re: Will the Wii U let you play used games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821785)

The Wii U doesn't even have 16 core mega gigablips! How can I justify that?

Re:Will the Wii U let you play used games? (2)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year ago | (#43821833)

See, that's what I've been saying, Consoles are going bye-bye. People have come to the conclusion that the previous Gen is just as good and not worth upgrading. And didn't devs already say the next generation of Video Games will be $100+?.

I really haven't heard any young people talking much about the Next Gen. Frankly I think they are more concerned with their Phones than sitting at home in front of a Television. I predict this new Gen of Consoles will pan out to be in-line with what happened to Wii U.

I'll personally be playing my Ouya and not concerned about what happens to the big boys. I still have a PS1, PS2 and SNES with tons of Games that treat me just fine and not like a Criminal or trying to Rape my pockets and have silly requirements like phoning home.

Re:Will the Wii U let you play used games? (2)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year ago | (#43822089)

The dedicated players are often fanless, and thus much quieter too...
Some of the consoles can make quite a noise which can become a significant annoyance when trying to watch a movie.

who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821547)

in about 2-4 years the next console will hit the market, and all the fanboys will be over the new thing once again.

consume, dont think.

Re:who cares? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43821633)

in about 2-4 years the next console will hit the market, and all the fanboys will be over the new thing once again.

consume, dont think.

Except it was 7 years between consoles this last round. No wonder you posted as a coward.

Uh, yes? (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#43821549)

Considering that sales of the Wii U have *spiked* since the Xbox One announcement, I think it's pretty clear that Nintendo can survive.

What's different about this generation? That most third-party games are ignoring the Wii U? Guess what - that happened with the Wii and Gamecube (to a lesser extent) as well. No good launch titles? Look at the 3DS - dead on arrival, but it's picking up, and while it's not the runaway success of the DS, it's no failure.

Hell, the only "different" thing about this generation is how badly Nintendo botched the naming (a lot of consumer confusion because "Wii U" sounds more like a new hardware iteration of the Wii than a new console). But fortunately, Microsoft came out with an even worse name for their console.

And Nintendo also has the advantage of having a strong focus on games. Sure, they don't actually have too many actual games right now, but even when talking about the hardware, their message is always "how it makes better games". Compare to Sony's distractions with Youtube uploading or "social gaming", or to Microsoft's "it's a set-top Windows 8 box that also plays Call of Duty" abomination of a conference.

But there's one fundamental reason why Nintendo can survive Sony and Microsoft - they don't care. Most Nintendo console owners buy them to play Nintendo games, which isn't the case for Sony or Microsoft consoles. First-party games might boost the other consoles up, but they always exist as much to play third-party games as first-party.

So the only threat to Nintendo is... Nintendo. Which, admittedly, it a pretty big threat right now - a lot of their recent games have been going downhill (Skyward Sword, Other M), and they haven't yet come up with a good killer app for the Wii U.

Re: Uh, yes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821689)

And those people will realize there are no games for Wii U.

Re:Uh, yes? (1)

tuffy (10202) | about a year ago | (#43821989)

What's hard to figure out is just what Nintendo's 1st party studios have been doing all this time, since support for the Wii effectively ended a long time ago. It seems like the transition to HD has hit them with the same difficulties a lot of other Japanese studios faced. So crucial software is in short supply and titles original slated for the launch window are still months away from actual release.

But as you say, it is possible for Nintendo's 1st party output to carry a system to profitability. The Gamecube era was, after all. So it's doubtful Nintendo has much to worry about whether the Wii U ultimately turns around to mass market success or not.

Sega did it (4, Informative)

Jack Malmostoso (899729) | about a year ago | (#43821557)

I would be extremely happy of being able to play the next Mario on something else than a Nintendo console. I bought the Wii just for Super Mario Wii, I loved the game, but now I have a white piece of plastic doing nothing underneath my TV.

It's not going to happen, but it would be very nice.

Re:Sega did it (1)

pauldmartin (2005952) | about a year ago | (#43821681)

But look how it worked out for them. The quality of their games has steadily declined to the point where their biggest brand (Sonic) has been so tarnished that it may not recover. Marvel (Disney) even revoked Sega's rights to publish movie licensed-games because the games were so horrible. Be careful what you wish for.

Re:Sega did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822173)

The quality of Sega's games declined during the Genesis/Sega CD era. (I'm refering only to console games. Their arcade games were great.) If anything, it has gotten better since then. Sonic was an "also-ran" and a pale comparison to Mario and Link. While they put out many fine games, their only truly great game in my opinion was the original Phantasy Star.

Their games now are fine, but not great. Just like always. Sonic Unleashed is genuine fun. And their Sonic games for phones are fun too.

If Nintendo went this route (and I really wish they would), they would almost certainly put out a similar quality to their games now. They've put out a lot of greats, and a lot of crap. That wouldn't change.

Re:Sega did it (0)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43821827)

I would be extremely happy of being able to play the next Mario on something else than a Nintendo console. I bought the Wii just for Super Mario Wii, I loved the game, but now I have a white piece of plastic doing nothing underneath my TV.

It's not going to happen, but it would be very nice.

I bought my Wii to play emulators on it.

Anyways, Nintendo isn't going to get out of the hardware business. They are really successful at it. Sometimes they put out flops (Virtual Boy), sometimes gimmicks don't pay off (3DS), and sometimes the software isn't there. But here's the problem with Game Developers. They are greedy, stupid, and really fucking lazy. Instead of making the best game they can for each platform, they try to make 1 game that works on all platforms. Since the Wii U is a bit underpowered compared to the Xbox One and PS4 (and computers), developers don't want to make games for it, because it will require a little more work. Sort of like when the port console games to the PC they make it work, just barely. Not surprisingly you'll find mouse controls barely work, you can't adjust video settings, FoV is screwed up, etc. I'm sure most of you PC gamers know exactly what I'm talking about. Sometimes they fix it, lots of time they don't care.

What Nintendo needs to do is get more In House Developers, like back in the day, to make some great games.

Re:Sega did it (1)

Dracos (107777) | about a year ago | (#43822015)

Sort of like when the port console games to the PC they make it work, just barely.

This is why, despite my incredible love for The Elder Scrolls series, I may never play Skyrim, which has DLC that's not available on PC.

I played Oblivion and got bored by level 14, having become master of all the guilds and completing all the plots except the main one. I play cRPGs for the story, and it simply ran out. If I merely want to run around and kill shit, I'll bust out the Quake 2 CD.

Those two suffered severely compromised gameplay because of the restrictions imposed by the XBoxes. Morrowind is the pinnacle of the series in almost every way.

Re:Sega did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821939)

Game consoles need to standardize like DVD players. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo should focus on being software vendors and let JVC, APEX, Mitsubishi, etc... develop the consoles along a standardized spec. VHS and DVD succeeded this way. Imagine if you had to buy vendor specific movies for your player. That's the game currently afoot by the movie industry to kill Netflix, but the problem there as well as in the console world is that public opinion ultimately wins. In the case of Netflix, if you don't air your shows on it then you don't exist to a huge chunk of the market. I never owned a Sega, Sonic the hedgehog and all his pals were complete strangers to me until I spent the night at a friends house that went Sega instead of Nintendo. Most people buy only one console and get screwed out of 50% or more of the available games out there.

Modern technology in any gaming PC has the raw power needed to emulate every generation of console up to present day, the Xbox 360 is 8 years old after all.

How about instead of making new consoles that inexplicably still don't have a decent office suite or printer support we get the major players to team up to design a common system spec and then do what they do best, let someone else build and develop for it.

Re:Sega did it (1)

snakeplissken (559127) | about a year ago | (#43822003)

Game consoles need to standardize like DVD players. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo should focus on being software vendors and let JVC, APEX, Mitsubishi, etc... develop the consoles along a standardized spec

isn't that what valve are trying to get going with the steam box? istr that as well as producing their own hardware the idea is for the specs to be common across other oem produced boxes?


Re:Sega did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822379)

if you were a kid that could only procure one console and you went sega instead of nintendo, you were a dumb little bastard! :)

why even ask? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821563)

It couldn't survive by itself...

(no serious... people are just tired of buying dust-gathering prototypes... Wii as half-baked, sold a lot of consoles and so few games... nobody is gonna fall for that again... specially when you release a console with fewer cpu power than stuff release half-decade ago...)

They need to let people know what they have (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43821593)

They need to let people know what they have. Penny Arcade did some reviews [] that make it look amazing [] . Here's a quote for an example:

My wife and I played the shit out of this level over the weekend trying for hours to get the best score we could and claim a gold trophy. For me it’s a classic platformer with incredibly tight controls and beautiful graphics. For her it’s a touch based game similar to something you might play on the iPad.......

I have been married to my wife for 13 years and I cannot remember a time before this weekend that we un-ironically high fived. When we finally got the gold trophy we leapt up and slapped hands like two dudes at a flag football game. I will say that it took us hours of trying the same level over and over again before we got there though. There was a lot of communication that had to happen. “is it better for you if I leave this platform up or down?” “Should I run through this part or slow down before I jump?” There was were mistakes made by both of us. “Sorry, that was my fault I missed that wall jump.” “Crap I didn’t lower that spike wall in time, my bad.” and there were a couple (joking?) threats of divorce. At the end when we had the gold trophy I tweeted that it was the greatest thing we had ever accomplished as a couple. Someone asked about our kids and I said I was including the kids.

Re:They need to let people know what they have (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821903)

Love Rayman Legends.

No compelling games. (2)

RyanFenton (230700) | about a year ago | (#43821651)

There's simply been no compelling games for the system - and I'm saying that as a fan of most big-hitter Nintendo games, who has purchased all the previous major systems to play those big games, and a large number of the more quirky third party titles and RPGs too.

No Metroid Prime games (haunting and epic), no Mario Galaxy games (wonderful and diverse exploration), no Zelda games (charming and intricate systems to explore), no compelling RPGs over here at least (Dragon Quest, etc.), and nothing interesting like a Kirby game. Even the one captivating game I played at PAX - Pikmin 3 - hasn't even been released yet.

All I've noticed has been lame party games, shameless re-releases, cross-ports, and a freakin' zombie game. Even more for the download titles.

That is precisely a system that should not sell well.

If they wanted to sell this system, there's a risky thing they could do though - open up a downloadable game section devoted to indies, and release a quality free SDK. Only let them be free downloads, but allow an optional (based on developer intention) greenlight-style voting mechanism for them to become sold in the marketplace, with multiple voting questions like "is this game bug-free enough to be a professional product?" THEN, you can charge the indie developer for an in-house testing cycle and you can end up having something more than re-releases to remind people about. This likely wouldn't be acceptable to staunch managers from a software 'piracy' perspective, but if the system is selling so poorly - really, lure the potential pirates in, and let a community of indie developers convert them into paying customers.

Ryan Fenton

Re: No compelling games. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43822369)

The "compelling games" problem seems to be impacting all the new consoles equally. The release of the Xbox One seemed to be conspicous in how little attention was given to it as a gaming platform. Whatever console manages to capture the attention of various types of gamer will do well. I am not convinced that ANY of the new consoles have managed to do that yet.

They're all MEH, the whole lot of them.

Partly about games? (1)

Horshu (2754893) | about a year ago | (#43821653)

Why the knock on the One not being dedicated to games? The thing has nearly the same specs as the PS4, meaning it's got plenty of power, it's got a monster network infrastructure in Live, so why shouldn't we expect it to be capable of other things, like firing a warning shot towards AppleTV? Would those people who want a pure gaming system be happier with an Atom-based console with a monster video chip?

Re:Partly about games? (1)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | about a year ago | (#43821671)

If by "nearly the same" you mean the PS4 is 50% more powerful, then yes.

Re:Partly about games? (2)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a year ago | (#43822559)

Really? I've been looking and what I was able to find over the past 15 minutes is that both have what is likely the same AMD x86 8 core 1.6GHz processor, same generation AMD GPU, the same amount of memory (XBoxOne DDR3, PS4 DDR5), same 500GB disk space, same BluRay optical disk format, same 802.11n WiFi, similar cloud-based execution off-loading strategies (Azure vs Gaikai)...

Even in terms of MIPS, these new console CPUs are a fraction slower than the previous generation, even though their GPUs are orders of magnitude better than the previous generation.

Specs wise, they appear identical to each other aside from the Xbox being Windows 8 at it's core and Sony *likely* continuing down their Linux-ish roots.

The only differences appear to be in the form of the User Interface and Peripherals.

I am being completely honest here and would like to hear what would make the PS4 significantly more powerful than the XBoxOne as to help impact my purchasing decisions.

Re:Partly about games? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43822339)

Why the knock on the One not being dedicated to games?

Because it's a game console. Isn't it? If it's not a game console first, they probably spent too much on the other crap, why would I want to pay for that? I mean, as a gamer. The family can't watch TV while the kids play games if both functions are built into one system, so why would they want to concentrate that functionality into one box? They don't think they're going to sell a family an Xbox One for every TV, do they? That would be ha-ha-ha-hilarious on the same order as believing the PS3 was "probably too cheap".

The truth is that the Xbox One just doesn't make sense. If you want to appeal to gamers then it needs to be about the games and if you want to appeal to families you have to not be creating strife by putting the functions that different people want to use at the same time into one box.

Obviously not (1)

Cammi (1956130) | about a year ago | (#43821663)

It didn't survive against the XBox 360 and PS3 .. there's no way it'll survive consoles 2 generations ahead of it.

Re:Obviously not (0)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43821753)

It didn't survive against the XBox 360 and PS3 .. there's no way it'll survive consoles 2 generations ahead of it.

Wow, either the fanboys are out, or a lot of stupid is going around. []

That's a simple list and you'll find that the Wii has sold about 20 Million more consoles then the Xbox 360 & PS3.

Checked other links and those numbers seem accurate.

You do understand what I am saying? More people bought a Wii. Pretty good for a console you claimed didn't survive.

Re:Obviously not (2)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year ago | (#43821805)

He's saying the Wii U couldn't compete against the 360/PS3 - not the Wii.

Sales for those 2 7th generation systems have outsold Nintendo's 8th generation offering, despite it being first to market.

Re:Obviously not (1)

Cammi (1956130) | about a year ago | (#43821817)

Try again? If you looked at the link you referenced, it talks about the Wii. This article is about the Wii U. Two different consoles.

Re:Obviously not (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43821913)

Try again? If you looked at the link you referenced, it talks about the Wii. This article is about the Wii U. Two different consoles.

you said:

It didn't survive against the XBox 360 and PS3 .. there's no way it'll survive consoles 2 generations ahead of it.

The Wii U is 1 generation ahead of the 360 & PS3, so why are you comparing the Wii U to consoles 2 generations ahead of it? We don't even have it's generation of consoles out yet, besides it.

So I thought you were talking about the Wii (even considered you meant the gamecube) even though it's only 1 generation behind the 360 & PS3.

Unless you are thinking that the Wii, Xbox 360 & PS3 aren't the same generation? Then you don't know what you are talking about. They are the same generation.

So, my bad on missing your point, but your wording really thru me off.

Re:Obviously not (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43821931)

damn it, hit submit too soon, meant to correct where i say the Wii is 1 generation behind the next gen, not that it's behind the 360 & PS3.

Dragon Quest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821673)

kinda off topic but - i bought a copy of Dragon Quest 8 for my Playstation 2, but I haven't started playing it yet. wow.. thanks for reminding me that I have DQ8 on my shelf.

Perhaps, but... (2)

Zedrick (764028) | about a year ago | (#43821693)

The Wii U's biggest competitor is the Wii. I have the Wii, and I really don't see the point in getting a Wii U. The Wii is kind of special, at least I use it to play games together with others, in the living room.

As I understand it, the U makes it possible to continue playing if somebody wants to use the TV... Eh. But if we're playing together, why would one of us suddenly demand to sit down and watch TV? (also, the only "TV" we watch nowadays is Netflix, on the Wii or the PS3).

Re:Perhaps, but... (1)

Clsid (564627) | about a year ago | (#43821937)

The main reason to switch is the HD graphics in my opinion. That was the biggest problem with the original Wii in my opinion. I didn't care about underpowered graphics or any stuff like that, because Nintendo is kind of like World of Warcraft: they make cartoony graphics that make having a good graphics card a moot point.

Re:Perhaps, but... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43822315)

The main reason to switch is the HD graphics in my opinion. That was the biggest problem with the original Wii in my opinion. I didn't care about underpowered graphics or any stuff like that, because Nintendo is kind of like World of Warcraft: they make cartoony graphics that make having a good graphics card a moot point.

Shoulda got a better TV. A good scaler makes the Wii graphics look pretty decent. I am using a 52" AQUOS (old enough to have CCFL backlighting) and the Wii looks fine. For the kind of games they do, which are as you say cartoony, you really don't need HD graphics.

I would have considered a Wii U if they'd had decent launch games and supported four symmetric controllers. Some games don't need four people to have screens, and some games would benefit from it massively. I think many of us would like a four-player dungeon crawler where we all have our own displays for management, but you can't have that because Nintendo decided it wasn't important, would cost too much, etc. They half-assed it. But they didn't, so really the Wii (which I barely use anyway) is more than enough Nintendo console for me.

Will Xbox/PS4 survive Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821703)

Wii showed its not about the polygons, its about the fun. DS showed fun can be portable, and Android tablets show it can be delivered on a tablet. Worse the current generation churn out last console standard graphics or better.

So will we even have a console this round?

More likely it will end up as a function of the tablets.

Re:Will Xbox/PS4 survive Android (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year ago | (#43821829)

The problem with Android is limited controls. No keyboard/mouse, no dpad, no buttons, not a convenient form factor. It greatly limits the type of games it can play. It can soak up a good amount of the casual market, but there's a market for something more. You can make a phone with those controls built in, but Sony tried that with the Experia Play and didn't do too well.

Re:Will Xbox/PS4 survive Android (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43822419)

The problem with Android is limited controls. No keyboard/mouse, no dpad, no buttons, not a convenient form factor.

Who told you that shit? You can use gamepads, several work fine. You can use keyboard/mouse, even on many phones! Lots of them have usb host mode and you can plug a powered hub into them and start adding devices if you like. Android has support for USB ethernet devices, fer chrissake. You have no idea what you're talking about. See also: Ouya, Gamestick

You can make a phone with those controls built in, but Sony tried that with the Experia Play and didn't do too well.

Sony shit on the Xperia Play so as not to compete with the PSP. They promised an ICS update for the entire Xperia line, then withdrew it citing problems with gaming. The community has revived it and literally the only problem is some issues with the touchpad driver which are caused by Sony being too lazy to update the driver to work reliably with ICS. Also, the phone has tragic ergonomics as a gaming controller. It is kind of OK to play if you're standing or sitting upright. Further, you will need to replace your screen protector approximately every two weeks if you want to game in full sunlight and you don't take any special care of your phone. Users who have removed the protector and left it off have not experienced scratching, as the glass is very good, but some have experienced digitizer failure. Others have noticed that it is extremely prone to moisture-related failure, which may be related. In short, Sony did not really try very hard with the Xperia Play.

Nobody has ever tried very hard to make a gaming phone. In spite of the many shortcomings of the N-Gage and its successor and the Xperia play, all of these phones still have significant community followings today.

I have a Play because I got it for forty bucks, and refurb'd it. It needed a new back and a new screen protector. It's a pretty mediocre phone. Without community support which has provided a superior kernel including overclocking, it would be crap. Other devices use the same core at 1.5 instead of 1.0 GHz, and it seems to be stable there. Sony didn't bother to test overclocking with their ICS update, either. At best they are incompetent, but more likely they simply shit on the people who bought the Play so as not to compete with the PSP division.

Re:Will Xbox/PS4 survive Android (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year ago | (#43822545)

Android has pretty good Bluetooth support. I am really hoping that before too long some sort of standard Bluetooth-enabled controller will emerge for Android. It just makes sense that it should, because the games are over there, but you're right that controlling the game by mashing up against a corner of the glass display isn't a good gaming experience.

I'm tired of these articles (4, Interesting)

goruka (1721094) | about a year ago | (#43821715)

Nintendo is not Sega. It has plenty of hit first party titles and franchises and knows how to execute them well, Wii U is only selling poorly because such titles have not been released, or even announced, yet.
A few years ago, Nintendo adopted a really bizarre politic of not announcing their own games until a short time before they are ready to launch, so the landscape of the Wii U is completely empty.
The situation will likely change after E3 (or not).

Re:I'm tired of these articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822211)

The name doesn't help. Most people don't seem to realise it's a new console - even Asda (that's the UK subs. of walmart, folks) doesn't seem to realise the U is a new console - they're still selling the original Wii only.

They'd be doing a lot better if they called it the Yuu instead of the Wii u. It keeps the same theme ('we, you',) without the customer confusion.

They need games (2)

ErikPeter Walker (2845747) | about a year ago | (#43821719)

Simply put, the WiiU can survive if they maintain their in-house software. I bought a WiiU, basically, so I could buy the next Zelda game. And Super Metroid for the third time. The problem with the WiiU right now is most of the games available are cross-platform. I could already have those games on the 360. And I do like the 360, and especially enjoy the XBLA, but after seeing the dashboard get more and more cluttered with junk, and reading about Microsoft's noose-tying, shoe-polishing announcement on the XBOX Nao, I'll stay off that sinking ship. And Sony has always been the high-end multimedia platform that Microsoft now wants to copy, which isn't my boat. I don't need the most powerful system if all it plays are Greened out military shooters and Dance Beat 16; I play retro classics and puzzle adventure games. So to sum up, Sony people will buy the PS4. Die-hard Xbox fans will buy, and be disappointed by the Xbox One. And Nintendo owners will make the switch if Nintendo puts out a few more quality games that only play on the WiiU.

I'm getting around to it (1)

Jaktar (975138) | about a year ago | (#43821721)

My kids are too young to play the Wii-U and they can barely play anything but Mario Kart. I hope the big N can hang on for a few more years.

I'm getting a Wii-U (2)

SageinaRage (966293) | about a year ago | (#43821739)

And I'm still up in the air about a PS4, and definitely not getting an Xbox One, so it's at least in contention. Ultimately it will come down to the games, like it always does. Nobody thought the DS could compare with the PSP, and then the games came out and everybody realized what was important.

Pace (1)

Reliable Windmill (2932227) | about a year ago | (#43821763)

I got the feeling the Wii U was... like the Wii but with a U... not terribly new and exciting. But maybe it's still picking up pace, just like 3DS was for a while before reaching the current sales which are pretty decent. Perhaps handhelds will be Nintendo's only focus eventually?

Won't buy one until their online sales is fixed (1)

Roogna (9643) | about a year ago | (#43821797)

Look, it's not about graphics. It's not about some shooter some other console has. It's about the fact that you can spend money on their console, have it break, and be out all the money you spent, or beg Nintendo for help. It's about the fact that if you transfer your games from a Wii (Assuming it works, which apparently it frequently doesn't) then it bricks your Wii. That's like saying once you buy a ps4 your ps3 will refuse to turn on again. It's ridiculous.

I won't touch their consoles again until they tie online purchases to a proper account that can be transferred to other consoles. Otherwise it is a disaster waiting to happen and money down the drain.

Re:Won't buy one until their online sales is fixed (1)

tuffy (10202) | about a year ago | (#43821915)

If you do transfer your software from the Wii (which rarely fails except in cases of power loss or user error), it does not "brick" the Wii. The software is simply moved over and the Wii is no longer attached to those titles for redownload purposes.

And the fact is, lack of backwards compatibility makes the PS3 and 360 accounts systems meaningless. There is no way to transfer purchased titles to the next generations of those systems at all. So once the PS3 and 360 are no longer made, those games are effectively lost once the systems die - account system or no.

Same Ol' Shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821823)

Same ol' games, same ol' consoles, same ol' doom and gloom. The problem is software, and always will be. If the gaming industry hopes to pull in more customers, they'll have to try something different that brings about new and exciting gameplay.

Stagnation aside, anonymous surmises that even DQX couldn't sell Wii U's. What a shitty example of why the Wii U is under-performing. A port of a game that launched last year for the Wii isn't making consoles fly off the shelves? Shocking. Wait until Nintendo's core titles come out, and then, if the system is doing poorly, you can panic. Not having EA's full support will definitely hurt the Wii U too, but ports from EA have never been Nintendo consoles' bread and butter.

What the Wii U desperately needs is a Wii Sports type of game that pulls in a ton of new players to the gaming industry. I don't expect Sony or Microsoft to expand the player base, so for the sake of the future of video games, I sure hope Nintendo has something up their sleeves.

Re:Same Ol' Shit (1)

Clsid (564627) | about a year ago | (#43822091)

To be honest, not having EA is a good thing. Nintendo focus a lot on quality games and it is precisely because of that they still haven't released games like Pikmin 3.

After having experienced companies like EA, which are the exact opposite, I honestly feel like I need to support companies like Nintendo. Just play Battlefield 3 and see how many expansions/DLCs they offer you. After the whole SimCity fiasco and having had a bad experience with Origin on the PC, I'm actively boycotting whatever they want to sell me. They have become the Microsoft of games. Rants aside, I do agree with the Wii Sports comment.

Mobile and Tablets are killing the console market (4, Insightful)

lord_mike (567148) | about a year ago | (#43821861)

Yes, the games are less exciting and on a smaller screen, but the devices are nearly ubiquitous right now, and the games are a fraction of the price of a console game. People get used to paying $0.99 for Plants vs. Zombies, then wonder why it costs $20 for the same game on the Xbox? Add the possibility of similar bargains and freedom with the upcoming Ouya (but on a larger screen), and suddenly, these consoles and their respective games seem massively overpriced for what you get. Yes, they offer a richer experience. Is it worth 10 times of the cost of a similar iPad version? That's what consumers are grappling with right now. Add in the fact that the console makers treat their customers like garbage, and many people are saying, forget it. I'll just play games on my phone.

Re:Mobile and Tablets are killing the console mark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822109)

Thanks for the usual puppeting insight Lord Mike. Crazy how most people who buy consoles aren't in fact interested in playing casual time wasters like the mobile crowd.

Re:Mobile and Tablets are killing the console mark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822155)

Most of the games I've played on my smartphone are fun for about ten minutes and that's being very gracious. They're Flash quality games that are free everywhere else on the web. And I don't mean "pirated" free - I mean they're free -

The kind of games I get on my console are good for 40 or 50 hours and worth spending some money on.

When you say "consumers" you're talking about people who look for free games and services and complain whenever they have to see an ad. Consoles market to people who have money to spend. That's not killing the console market, that's getting rid of freeloaders.

Re:Mobile and Tablets are killing the console mark (1)

imsabbel (611519) | about a year ago | (#43822495)

Small Correction:

Mobile and Tablets COMPLETELY kill the casual gaming market that was Nintendos way of success with the Wii. They managed to outsell PS3 and XBox 360 because they did target people who normally would not by a game console.

That ship has sailed.

Like It's Hard.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821941)

All Nintendo has to do to sell a console of release a new Mario game, new Mario Kart game, new Zelda game and hint at a new Smash Bros game and boom; Instant profits, regardless of how little the sequel differs from the previous installment.

I'm not even anti-Nintendo, I'm just anti-cowardice and god knows Nintendo doesn't want to take chances. Can you imagine a world where a flagship Zelda game gets released with a female version of Link as the main character. I can't.

And this belief that Nintendo won't charge you for used games is silly. Once the precedent is set-up you'll see how quickly Nintendo adopts a similar strategy. They are a business, not your best friend.

Re:Like It's Hard.. (1)

Clsid (564627) | about a year ago | (#43822127)

Well that's what every big company is doing these days. replace Mario, Zelda and Smash Bros with Battlefield, Need for Speed, Call of Duty, Halo, God of War, etc.

But the big advantage that Nintendo has is that the games are great. Mario Sunshine was awesome, and then we got Mario Galaxy. I'm not much of a fan of Zelda or Smash Bros. but Mario alone makes the system totally worth it for me, and I'm totally looking forward to the 2-player mode of the New super mario bros with my gf once I get my Wii U.

Re:Like It's Hard.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822191)

I'm totally looking forward to the 2-player mode of the New super mario bros with my gf once I get my Wii U.

I'm totally looking forward to that once I get a gf.

3DS Tanked Too But It's Doing Fine Now (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | about a year ago | (#43821945)

Just about anything's going to win against the Xbone. I'm not putting up a dime for it and if casual and bros want to buy it they can, but it won't be a machine for gamers. Given the option of buying an NES or an Xbone I'd buy an NES, and since there is a lovely new release of one I can. The Wii U may or may not be able to handel the PS4. If the PS4 does the same thing with Used Games and Lending that MS has done then Wii U wins. Really the 3DS was in hot water and Nintendo now has it on the route to success. They can pull off the same hat trick or survive the same way they did with the Game Cube.

Missed the boat (1)

blackfeltfedora (2855471) | about a year ago | (#43822069)

The problem with the Wii U is that Nintendo did not go after a Kinect-like interface. I buy our video-game system for my kids and right now they are happy with the Wii but as the new games migrate to the next generation of consoles we will have to upgrade. From what I have seen Micro$oft One is going to be the choice. My son likes jumping around like an idiot while he is playing games. The online portion of the One looks much more robust than Wii U as well.

Which... (2, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | about a year ago | (#43822113)

Which one is the one of the three that allows used game sales? (To the point of EA refusing to work with them when they refused to let EA block used game sales on their own?)

Wii U? ... Yeah, ok. Good luck with your XBox One ("Now with less games"(tm) ) and Playstation 4 ("Oh god we forgot the games.") purchases.

Re:Which... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822583)

EA stopped supporting the Wii U because of low sales, not used games. If there believed third parties could make money on a Nintendo console, they would.

Oh Look (2)

minipulator (821212) | about a year ago | (#43822233)

It's this article. Again. That I see every single generation, both portable and console. It's this simple. Nintendo knows it's power exists in first-generation titles, and it will never publish its A-list properties on other consoles. And as long as they don't, they will never fail. I'm sure someone will, or already has, argued the VirtualBoy against the idea of Nintendo's continued success, and of course there's some merit there, but lets be honest, they were simply ahead of their time. After all, here we are a decade or two later, and what's the rage? A true 3D portable. I could also argue that they're basically the only company still creating/publishing games that still hold to the old premise of gaming: that games should be fun - but that is admittedly opinion. And yes, I own a PS3 and an X360 - they are entertaining, in their own right. But none of their titles seem to induce that giddy Saturday morning feel of childhood quite like a Zelda game, or Smash Brothers. Add in the fact that Nintendo produces the most polished and least buggy titles on the market, and... yeah. I think I'll buy a Wii U. Sony and their flat out abuse of their user base, and Microsoft and their pouting over 3rd party sales - can take a next gen dive.

The market is speaking ... (2, Interesting)

joinfork (790632) | about a year ago | (#43822251)

The Wii U is failing for one reason only: it is a truly awful product - an unmitigated design fiasco for which Nintendo deserves some special punishment in the market. Why? Let me count the ways. The wifi implementation is a complete disaster (maybe the antenna?) Sitting right next to an old Wii, the U failed to connect to wifi (read the endless online complaints about this) - it took hours just to do the initial OS update (I used to set up networks for a living.) The device itself is painfully slow in the simplest interaction - click a menu option and you can sit and wait for ten seconds or more to get a response - it is like the entire GUI is written in interpreted basic running on some early edition x86 ... The U console is a neat idea, but terribly implemented - if you're playing old Wii games the entire device enters some primitive emulation mode, and the U console becomes inactive. Conversely, if you're using the U, the Wii motes become inactive. Unlike on the old Wii that plays DVDs or the PS3 that plays Blu-Ray, the Wii U has no such utility. Wii Motion Plus is still not standard, etc.etc. Fortunately the market for game systems is pretty efficient, and customers are clearly voting with their wallets against this turkey.

this FP for gNAA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822313)

large - kkep your suffering *BSD irc network. The

It has to beat the xbox (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43822343)

The worst thing about the wii u is the released it before having a solid set of games. That will be resolved and it will be a good games console with a solid line up of Mario, Zelda, etc games. The xbox wants to be a cable tv box and won't let you give away games to friends. Anyone with half a brain who is a gamer won't buy it.

i would buy wii-u (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822397)

If it were 149$

its all about gameplay (1)

CoralSyks (2932351) | about a year ago | (#43822411)

one thing I noticed with the Wii compared to the previous nintendo consoles and PS1 and PS2 I have is the lack of good gameplay. Even the mario games were poor as each level seemed to be too similar to the previous, either that or just difficult but not thought out to make it fun. I don't really care for graphics, as most of the best games I play daily today were made over 10-15 years ago. What I do care about is something to get me interested in playing, and graphics alone will not do that. With the other consoles moving to always on play its not a new console nintendo needs but better games, the Wii and Wii-U have enough power to be a success with good gameplay.

Expect another video game crash. (1)

asm2750 (1124425) | about a year ago | (#43822481)

This upcoming generation is going to be a let down and will probably cause many video game developers to lose their jobs. Publishers are getting greedy and customers are tired of being treated like crap. I do see Nintendo just riding the storm since every console they sell is at profit, even if their software selection sucks. Microsoft just loves to put the kiss of death on their products, the used game policy is just one of these. As for Sony, I still don't know how they will do. Sony needs to release the PS4 at $400 if they want to do well this time. The big winner I see this generation is Steam and PC gaming since it seems all the console makers are alienating their customers. If Valve could sell the Steam Box for $400-$500 and include a blu-ray player they would do really well.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?