Wii U receives another blow

[tmcd35]

I've not quite understood why Nintendo seem to be releasing their flagship home console with last generation specifications. The NES and Master System were similar, as were the Super NES and the MegaDrive. The PS1 and the N64 started to see the divide and since this generation, the spec gap seems to be getting larger and larger.

 

Nintendo releasing substandard hardware is a development that seemed to start with the Gamecube. The SNES was massively superior to the Sega MegaDrive though admittedly it was released a year or two later. Likewise, the N64 was way more powerful at rendering 3D than the first Playstation and Sega Saturn.

 

Actually the GameCube was a pretty well spec'd console also, better CPU/GPU than PS2. What scuppered both N64 and GameCube was Nintendo's choice of Media. The Wii was a bit of a marketing master stroke and it appear's they perhaps where trying to do the same again with the Wii-U, possible without fully understanding what had gone so right the first time.

[DrCheese]

Nintendo releasing substandard hardware is a development that seemed to start with the Gamecube.

They do this because they like to see a profit on the hardware from day one, whereas Sony/Microsoft tend to lose a lot of money on the hardware until a few years down the line. They make their money on people buying the software.

I think the wii had a really low "attach rate" (Amount of games that people buy) so it made sense. Most people just played the wii sports & bought say.. wii fit.

 

PS/xbox gamers tend to buy more games, so for them it makes sense.

[caffrey]

I read somewhere that Asda dropped the price by 100 quid, which increased sales by 2.5 units per store... (100 stores)

[Michael]

They do this because they like to see a profit on the hardware from day one, whereas Sony/Microsoft tend to lose a lot of money on the hardware until a few years down the line. They make their money on people buying the software.

I think the wii had a really low "attach rate" (Amount of games that people buy) so it made sense. Most people just played the wii sports & bought say.. wii fit.

 

PS/xbox gamers tend to buy more games, so for them it makes sense.

 

The irony here is that eventually there will be no console as such in your living room. You'll buy the controllers and it'll all be streamed straight to your TV via a subscription. Maybe this goes to show how out of touch Nintendo are becoming?

 

Both Sony and Microsoft are making both of their consoles more than just a console, integrating TV and other streaming media - but all this technology (as above) could be integrated into a TV or via a module and accessed via the internet for future generations.

[tmcd35]

I'm not so convinced. OnLive was technically impressive but it did quiet aplty show off the technical difficulties of streaming games, especially during peak hours. I think, like the desktop PC, there will alway be a need for a dedicated gaming device. It just, like the PC, going to have a tougher time justifying it's exitance next to mobile wireless devices.

 

Over the next 4-5 years I'd expect to see the PC market consolidate around 3-4 big players like Lenovo and Acer, rather than loads of PC manufacturers. Similarly I'm not sure the market exists any more for 3 games console. Someones gonna bow out this generation, not 100% sure it will be Nintendo - but they do seem the most likely.

 

As for integrating into the TV, that's not so easy. Meny have tried and failed. The XBox One is an interesting shot a breaking through Cable and Satelite operators feefdoms. Google tried and failed, and are trying again. Apple might be the closest yet but the AppleTV isn't exactly a mass-market device. It actually surprises me that TV's are still built with built in tuners or Smart TV functions, more and more they seem to be just glorified oversized PC monitors with 4-5 PC like devices hanging off their HDMI ports.

[Arthur]

Maybe this goes to show how out of touch Nintendo are becoming?

As long as people keep buying Mario and Zelda games, Nintendo will still make consoles to play those games on.

 

A link to the past: why Nintendo won't make games for smartphones » The Verge

 

...it's easy to imagine Nintendo topping the App Store charts with a mobile version of Super Mario Bros. But as long as the company's president, Satoru Iwata, remains in charge, the chances of that happening are slim to none.

 

"If I was only concerned about managing Nintendo for this year and next year — and not about what the company would be like in 10 or 20 years — then I'd probably say that my point of view is nonsense," said Iwata, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal at this week's E3 conference. "But if we think 20 years down the line, we may look back at the decision not to supply Nintendo games to smartphones and think that is the reason why the company is still here."

[Michael]

As long as people keep buying Mario and Zelda games, Nintendo will still make consoles to play those games on.

 

A link to the past: why Nintendo won't make games for smartphones » The Verge

 

That's not really a good enough reason to produce your own console. Sega release Sonic games on all platforms, not just Nintendo. Nintendo could very easily create Mario or Zelda games on Playstation and XBOX if that was their only options.

 

If I'm right, then I think Nintendo will have two choices - either make games for Smartphones or unfortunately disappear off the planet... I wouldn't like to see that as I grew up with Nintendo games.

[Tonsha]

I think it's interesting that the Wii continues to sell, even more than the Wii U. Perhaps Nintendo will learn that just adding an extra screen doesn't justify adding twice the price. I'm not planning on getting a Wii U but with that said, I am aiming to get a Wii at some point in the future. (just for Mario Kart, I'll admit it)

[Dos_Box]

My son had a play on the Wii U at Manchester's ComicCon the other month and he told me he didn't like it, primerily it was down to the extra screen on the controller. It just madeit too complicated for him (a 7 year old) to use and took the fun out of it all.

[Tonsha]

I can't say that I'd cope much better. The controller seems bulky and having two screens just seemed like a money-grab to me. It's like they put together their recent successes - the DS and the Wii - and thought it must work, people love touch-screens and motion-controlled games! I hope for something a lot more innovative next time.

[tmcd35]

Funny thing is, I think touch/second screens are going to be big next gen. Both Sony and MS have their smartphone apps that do the same thing. Ubisoft are showing off some interesting stuff in both WatchDogs and The Division.

[Achandler]

Nintendo have been by far the most innovative company when it comes to gaming then either Microsoft or Sony. Without Nintendo, I doubt Microsoft would have been so interested in the Kinect etc, as for Sony's motion sensors... they did do the iToy or something similarily named though, but it had no good long term games.

 

Sadly though, the type of games Nintendo specialise in are getting fewer and fewer, that is "non-violent" puzzling games. The current trend is FPSs

[X-13]

That's not really a good enough reason to produce your own console. Sega release Sonic games on all platforms, not just Nintendo. Nintendo could very easily create Mario or Zelda games on Playstation and XBOX if that was their only options.

 

Nintendo don't like achievements. [As in "~boop~ Achievement Unlocked!"] Sony/Microsoft would force them to add them to their games.

 

Also, I'd prefer Zelda not have shoddy multiplayer tacked on because Microsoft/Sony want the extra money from XBL Gold/PSN+.

 

The current trend is FPSs

 

And? Not everyone likes FPS games.

Edited August 6, 2013 by X-13

[Tonsha]

Nintendo have been by far the most innovative company when it comes to gaming then either Microsoft or Sony. Without Nintendo, I doubt Microsoft would have been so interested in the Kinect etc, as for Sony's motion sensors...

 

Quite correct. That's why the Wii U disappointed me so much. I hope for more of that sparkly Nintendo quality in their next console, whenever that may be. The drop in sales and the lack of success shows that it's still the idea that sells and not their name.

 

Funny thing is, I think touch/second screens are going to be big next gen.

 

Well, that's me out. I like touch screens, and I like motion sensor technology, but the two together make my head spin unfortunately.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Tonsha

[fromtheinternet]

Well, that's me out. I like touch screens, and I like motion sensor technology, but the two together make my head spin unfortunately.

 

I personally don't think touchscreens are going to take off until there some kind of tactile way to let people know what you're interacting with. Unless you're on a mobile device (and not even then, really), touchscreens are a terrible way of interacting with a game when your focus is not on the control surface.

[CAM]

It's because the screen's strength is in complementing the game instead of third party publishers who don't "get it" and make their game either under or over use the screen. If the player is forced to change attention between screens on a regular basis then it has been developed wrong.

 

The second screen should be for interacting with MiiVerse, menus or multiplayer only (such as SMBU where the player uses the touchscreen to interact with the level to help or hinder other players on the main screen). It's also good to kick back sometimes with the main game playing on the tablet instead of the telly.

 

I found it odd at first but the tablet system proved to be quite intuitive on Mario and Need for Speed. I look forwards to seeing what Nintendo can do with the console and it makes a change to kick back and enjoy a game instead of achievement hunting and effectively grinding gamer points up.

[Dos_Box]

My tuppence worth. I think one problem the separate tablet screen has is that it distracts from the game. Having to take your attention away from where the main action is can be frustrating, and may put the player off their pace, especially in intensive games where having to look down at a separate device to perform actions takes your attention away from what you need to be looking at. In real life situations, you work off muscle memory and perform actions without having to look away from your point of concentration. Think of changing gear in your car or indicating. You never look away from the windscreen to perform those actions. The same goes FPS. In real combat you do not look down when grabbing a new magazine from your webbing or using a radio. Everything is done whilst concentrating on the 'action'.

I also think that Nintendo, in the past, have been the masters of playability. With the Wii they didn't need a true HD output (although I think this was a mistake on their part) and it's games were excellent because they played like a dream. But they do seem to be churning out more mark 2.0 and 3.0 of past games now which add little new in the way of new ideas. Just new layouts. Throw in the explosion in mobile gaming over the past few years and I think Nintendo may go through a few yours of 'wobble' before that have to accept that they are no longer wagging the dog and get inventive again.

[Arthur]

Nintendo: Wii U still being sold at a loss « Ars Technica

 

Last we heard back in January, Nintendo said a price drop wasn't in the cards, and insisted it just has to do a better job selling the system's "value" to consumers. If the Wii U continues to have trouble gaining retail traction through this holiday season, however, that kind of talk is going to seem emptier and emptier.