Support NeoGAF

[ClovingWestbrook]

To what end though? Another console without anything to differentiate it? What else then would they have to make console stand out for the non-enthusiasts? Tue wiimote thing again?

I'd say more devs have figured out the gamepad than they have the wii remote. And it's probably getting more support right now than it would if it was a next gen system with motion again

Well having the gamepad sure has helped differentiate the Wii U to success at this point.
Know what would differentiate Nintendo? Their IP's which are arguably the most important and valuable IP's in all of gaming. We're no longer in an N64/GC type of situation where Nintendo has to sell 20-25 million consoles without a hook.

Nintendo could money hat exclusives. They could have gone HARD for exclusives or strong third party support. They could have gone even harder with online multiplayer. They could create a new IP that is completely different than anything the company has put out up to this point. Nintendo could market their IP's in a way at the launch of a system to get the user base to a point that would draw in third party support (assuming they had a competent piece of hardware).

Instead they tried to wing it again with a hook that people don't care about. A launch that had a Super Mario Brothers game that wasn't going to set the world on fire. An OS that was half baked. A piece of hardware was just barely improved upon from the PS3/360.

 

[Kimawolf]

The thing about third party support some may not realize is it hurts Nintendo more than it hurts third parties.

They lose out on royalties and they have to work twice as hard to fill in the software gaps.

It just looks foolish on everyones part if Nintendo sells a console only for it to take 5 whole years to match what the PS4/720 would likely have in the first 1 or 2 years.

If Iwata thinks this is the best for Nintendo, lets see how long it will last before the next shareholder revolt.

Well the ones who end up closing won't be doing better than Nintendo that's for certain.

He is not actively discouraging them, but he is focusing on those who want to play and hoping others come around. What do you expect them to do? Realistically what can they do other than fully pay for games that the main Western 3rd party don't?

And you're right it does hurt Nintendo.. But when you're a 3rd party and you see your competitors/rivals closing down shop, consolidating and posting huge losses which result in the lay off of employees, why would you NOT try to put your game on everything possible much less one of the MAJOR THREE console makers? To satisfy the laughing crowd who screams everywhere possible how underpowered Nintendo is? This same audience obviously can't support the entire industry on their own anymore, if so companies wouldn't be losing money hand over fist and closing up shop, so why not try to cater all audiences with real effort on the third major platform if your "dudebro" crowd can no longer keep the lights on?

 

[marc^o^]

Not just that but a big chunk of the cost is thrown into the gamepad. Remove the gamepad and Nintendo could have improved the specs of the system while not charging anymore than what it is. Nintendo felt that the gamepad gimmick would replicate the success of the Wiimote and it hasn't.

Dat GamePad, more like the best thing ever than a gimmick to me.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Except Nintendo never turned down any of those games. They're just not moneyhatting them.

Do you think MS and Sony have to use moneyhats to get those games on their platforms?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well the ones who end up closing won't be doing better than Nintendo that's for certain.

He is not actively discouraging them, but he is focusing on those who want to play and hoping others come around. What do you expect them to do? Realistically what can they do other than fully pay for games that the main Western 3rd party don't?

And you're right it does hurt Nintendo.. But when you're a 3rd party and you see your competitors/rivals closing down shop, consolidating and posting huge losses which result in the lay off of employees, why would you NOT try to put your game on everything possible much less one of the MAJOR THREE console makers? To satisfy the laughing crowd who screams everywhere possible how underpowered Nintendo is? This same audience obviously can't support the entire industry on their own anymore, if so companies wouldn't be losing money hand over fist and closing up shop, so why not try to cater all audiences with real effort on the third major platform if your "dudebro" crowd can no longer keep the lights on?

FFS. There is no third party conspiracy against Nintendo.

Why spend money porting your game to a system that has such a terribly low install base? The Wii U hardware is somewhere between the PS3/Xbox 360 and PS4/XBox 3. Being in between two closely built systems isn't a good place to be in. It forces the developers to spend extra effort in porting your game. And you're asking them to do it with the Wii U install base at it's current level?

Perhaps if Nintendo had done what it said it'd do and release a powerful launch line up that included heavy Nintendo IP's, the install base would have been good enough to warrant third parties spending money on porting their games to the Wii U at a higher level than they did.

If Nintendo can't be asked to support it's own console how are you going to ask third parties to do it for them?

Dat GamePad, more like the best thing ever than a gimmick to me.

While I love the gamepad, it's a gimmick. Gimmicks can be a positive or negative. They can be successful or they can fail. Right now the gamepad isn't helping the Wii U sell and that's all that matters.

Do you think MS and Sony have to use moneyhats to get those games on their platforms?

BINGO.

 

[Kimawolf]

FFS. There is no third party conspiracy against Nintendo.

Why spend money porting your game to a system that has such a terribly low install base? The Wii U software will be inbetween the PS3/Xbox 360 and PS4/XBox 3. Being in between two closely built systems isn't a good place to be in. It forces the developers to spend extra effort in porting your game. And you're asking them to do it with the Wii U install base at it's current level?

Perhaps if Nintendo had done what it said it'd do and release a powerful launch line up that included heavy Nintendo IP's, the install base would have been good enough to warrant third parties spending money on porting their games to the Wii U at a higher level than they did.

If Nintendo can't be asked to support it's own console how are you going to ask third parties to do it for them?

Never said it was a conspiracy, it's just developers following their "tech heart" than their basic business sense of building audiences. I said why not support the 3rd major console in the market? and the Ps4 and Next box base is at.. ZERO. Zip, nadda, zilch. So what's the point of any console transition? and even so OBVIOUSLY that particular audience isn't supporting them or we'd not have "such and such lays off 1000 employees," or Such and such closes down shop" every day. So why not try to build an install base because lets be real, at the end of the day Nintendo will sell 40 to 50 million consoles, it's not like they will sell 10 million in a life time, and even IF it did, if you need to sell 9 million copies to be "successful" then why the hell not bother trying to get every sell possible?

 

[JordanN]

He is not actively discouraging them, but he is focusing on those who want to play and hoping others come around. What do you expect them to do? Realistically what can they do other than fully pay for games that the main Western 3rd party don't?

Joining the 21st century would be the first step and perhaps, the only step.

 

[lwilliams3]

Yes, a downloadable indie that is exclusive to the Wii U is going to turn the industry upside down.

Well, there was that little title made by a small company called Pocket Monsters back in the day.. You can see why Nintendo is not underestimating what ideas indie companies could come up with.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Never said it was a conspiracy, it's just developers following their "tech heart" than their basic business sense of building audiences. I said why not support the 3rd major console in the market? and the Ps4 and Next box base is at.. ZERO. Zip, nadda, zilch. So what's the point of any console transition? and even so OBVIOUSLY that particular audience isn't supporting them or we'd not have "such and such lays off 1000 employees," or Such and such closes down shop" every day. So why not try to build an install base because lets be real, at the end of the day Nintendo will sell 40 to 50 million consoles, it's not like they will sell 10 million in a life time, and even IF it did, if you need to sell 9 million copies to be "successful" then why the hell not bother trying to get every sell possible?

The PS4/Xbox 3 install base is at zero but they're going to be very closely built in terms of specs. The Wii U will most likely have 1/4th the ram of these systems. Devs can basically build a game for PS3/360 due to the install base and the PS4/Xbox 3 because they're so close in specs. The Wii U is caught in the middle of having a terrible install base AND being so foreign from the PS4/Xbox 3.

Going forward into the next couple of years when the PS3/360 cease getting big releases and everything is released with the PS4/Xbox 3 in mind, do you expect devs to release these games for a system with 1/4th the ram? Lets be honest here. The install base of both of these systems will most likely far eclipse the install base of the Wii U alone, they're going to be closely built enough to allow devs to have an easy time to build a game for both systems at the same time, AND they'll be able to show off their games in a way that impress.

Wii U = lower install base than these two combined
Wii U = MUCH weaker hardware, 1/4th the ram
Wii U = weak hardware will severely limit what these devs want to accomplish

If you are a developer and it's going to cost you extra to port a game to a system with such significantly weaker specs, why would you UNLESS you're being paid to?

 

[H_Prestige]

I just want to remind some of you that you are essentially arguing that it is smarter for nintendo to sell a video games console on the back of fewer games and not more.

 

[Chindogg]

If Nintendo can't be asked to support it's own console how are you going to ask third parties to do it for them?

Since that's what third parties wanted, yes. And what did they do? Halfass ports that they wanted full price from. Then you had EA promise massive support (even getting a large segment at Nintendo's E3 2012 conference) then after a (rumored) Origin deal falling through, EA magically pulls all its support.

Nintendo puts out all its titles, "we can't compete with first party so why bother."

Nintendo lets third parties run its launch, "we'll just halfass some late ports, charge full price, then release collections of the same games for cheaper on other platforms."

While Nintendo fucked up on several fronts, let's not leave third parties out of the whole botched launch. After all, the story of the DICE summit was how many projects were cancelled, not how many Nintendo discouraged them from doing.

I'm still super curious on how the other two consoles launch. There's still no guarantees that they'll do any better.

Joining the 21st century would be the first step and perhaps, the only step.

I'm done. This thread's gone full

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Since that's what third parties wanted, yes. And what did they do? Halfass ports that they wanted full price from. Then you had EA promise massive support (even getting a large segment at Nintendo's E3 2012 conference) then after a (rumored) Origin deal falling through, EA magically pulls all its support.

Nintendo puts out all its titles, "we can't compete with first party so why bother."

Nintendo lets third parties run its launch, "we'll just halfass some late ports, charge full price, then release collections of the same games for cheaper on other platforms."

While Nintendo fucked up on several fronts, let's not leave third parties out of the whole botched launch. After all, the story of the DICE summit was how many projects were cancelled, not how many Nintendo discouraged them from doing.

I'm still super curious on how the other two consoles launch. There's still no guarantees that they'll do any better.

And guess what, Nintendo said it had learned from the 3DS situation with having a shitty launch. Welp. Nintendo also said that they had a strong launch window library. Welp. How's that Pikimin game? How's that Wonderful 101 game? Welp. How's that library that would carry them this year? Welp. That lovely virtual console lineup? Welp. That solid OS from day one? Welp.

Nintendo fucked up the launch. Don't blame this on third parties. Nintendo expected Nintendoland to be their new Wii Sports, the gamepad to be their new Wiimote. When these didn't pan out they were caught with their pants down and flat footed at the same time and their response was 'Please understand'... 'Please understand'... 'Just wait'...

This launch fiasco is Nintendo's to shoulder.

P.S. The PS3 never sold as poorly as the Wii U is (if I am wrong please correct me). Let that sink in. A $599 console outsold the Wii U.

 

[JordanN]

I'm still super curious on how the other two consoles launch. There's still no guarantees that they'll do any better.

Everything Wii U has done wrong is unlikely to be repeated with PS4/720.

Also, these consoles are 99% guaranteed to have third party support which is almost always the deciding factor in success.

 

[Kimawolf]

The PS4/Xbox 3 install base is at zero but they're going to be very closely built in terms of specs. The Wii U will most likely have 1/4th the ram of these systems. Devs can basically build a game for PS3/360 due to the install base and the PS4/Xbox 3 because they're so close in specs. The Wii U is caught in the middle of having a terrible install base AND being so foreign from the PS4/Xbox 3.

Going forward into the next couple of years when the PS3/360 cease getting big releases and everything is released with the PS4/Xbox 3 in mind, do you expect devs to release these games for a system with 1/4th the ram? Lets be honest here. The install base of both of these systems will most likely far eclipse the install base of the Wii U alone, they're going to be closely built enough to allow devs to have an easy time to build a game for both systems at the same time, AND they'll be able to show off their games in a way that impress.

Wii U = lower install base than these two combined
Wii U = MUCH weaker hardware, 1/4th the ram
Wii U = weak hardware will severely limit what these devs want to accomplish

If you are a developer and it's going to cost you extra to port a game to a system with such significantly weaker specs, why would you UNLESS you're being paid to?

Well I can see why we have a disconnect. You are operating under the pretense that Sony and MS next consoles will blow the doors off and be extremely successful, thus 3rd parties can afford to not bother supporting the third major console and hope the other two can "pick up the slack."

That's fine.

I on the other hand see them doing just as bad as the Wii U, coming out slow out the gate because frankly, no one is going to pay 500 for a video game console to play COD or BF4 or Madden when they can buy a 360 or PS3 or even Wii U for a cheaper price. I see both being in about the wii U's position, with expensive games, an expensive system with only a few hardcore upgrading. As such the first year or two we'll see ALOT of games supposed to succeed failing and more companies dying.

You think it'll all be fine, I think it won't. So we'll never agree it's a good idea to ignore every possible revenue stream especially when your industry looks to be in a contraction and the bubble has now burst. Depending on the two others while ignoring the 3rd and hope you can sell enough to save your ass doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

That's basically all I'm saying. Put effort and build an audience on everything you can because none of them will come close to their predecessors. And Nintendo won't close down or go out of business, but that obviously isn't the same for 3rd parties so if I was a dev i'd not give a fuck what Nintendo did, I'd do my damnedest to sell as many games as possible put my shit on everything with a screen that's reasonable..

 

[Chindogg]

And guess what, Nintendo said it had learned from the 3DS situation with having a shitty launch. Welp. Nintendo also said that they had a strong launch window library. Welp. How's that Pikimin game? How's that Wonderful 101 game? Welp. How's that library that would carry them this year? Welp. That lovely virtual console lineup? Welp. That solid OS from day one? Welp.

Nintendo fucked up the launch. Don't blame this on third parties. Nintendo expected Nintendoland to be their new Wii Sports, the gamepad to be their new Wiimote. When these didn't pan out they were caught with their pants down and flat footed at the same time and their response was 'Please understand'... 'Please understand'... 'Just wait'...

This launch fiasco is Nintendo's to shoulder.

Fair enough, but your argument this entire thread has been "NOT ENUF POWAH."

They did have a strong launch window. Initially. Then they (deliberately?) delayed Pikmin 3. Then EA pulled out. Then the halfass ports flopped when consumers could buy the original versions for half price. Then Rayman Legends, a game they put on every one of their demo kiosks, not a Nintendo game, got delayed. Now they're left holding the bag.

This launch has been a line of nonstop miscalculations for Nintendo no doubt, but to shoulder them alone on the folly isn't exactly accurate. They took the risk of letting third parties run their launch window and they ended up fucked over in the end.

Their biggest mistake was not leading the launch themselves. Now they're trying to rectify that solution. Has nothing to do with hardware and everything to do with just getting games out there. Hopefully (a return to topic finally since you love derailing this thread so much) Nintendo's plans to expand development platforms and publishing will help stop the bleeding enough to allow their first party games to take a foothold. If they can do that, then maybe third parties will realize that they made a mistake in ditching the platform instead of actually trying (paraphrasing Iwata.)

Only time will tell if this works or not. I guess we'll have to see in the next year or so. Either way, its not hardware that's the problem, its the marketing and releasing missteps.

 

[darkistheway]

Yes. Logic = turning down third party support and instead hoping for the new Minecraft leading your console to the promised land. Turn down BF4, turn down Destiny, turn down Elder Scrolls, turn down Fallout, turn down Grand Theft Auto all for the CHANCE at the next big thing.

Makes sense.

You know all those games are to PS3 and 360. Wii U not getting them goes much deeper than hardware capabilties. A Wii U with more comparable hardware to PS4 and 720 still has the install base problem, the Nintendo fanbase 'problem' and the difficulties with third party support. The solution for Nintendo really is to try to go with different perspectives.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Fair enough, but your argument this entire thread has been "NOT ENUF POWAH."

They did have a strong launch window. Initially. Then they (deliberately?) delayed Pikmin 3. Then EA pulled out. Then the halfass ports flopped when consumers could buy the original versions for half price. Then Rayman Legends, a game they put on every one of their demo kiosks, not a Nintendo game, got delayed. Now they're left holding the bag.

This launch has been a line of nonstop miscalculations for Nintendo no doubt, but to shoulder them alone on the folly isn't exactly accurate. They took the risk of letting third parties run their launch window and they ended up fucked over in the end.

Their biggest mistake was not leading the launch themselves. Now they're trying to rectify that solution. Has nothing to do with hardware and everything to do with just getting games out there. Hopefully (a return to topic finally since you love derailing this thread so much) Nintendo's plans to expand development platforms and publishing will help stop the bleeding enough to allow their first party games to take a foothold. If they can do that, then maybe third parties will realize that they made a mistake in ditching the platform instead of actually trying (paraphrasing Iwata.)

Only time will tell if this works or not. I guess we'll have to see in the next year or so. Either way, its not hardware that's the problem, its the marketing and releasing missteps.

1. Wrong. I haven't argued anything in my previous post that I didn't in other posts in this thread.

2. The third parties stupidly priced their Wii U ports.

3. How have I derailed this thread?

4. Hardware is definitely an issue currently but it will become even a bigger issue as the full transition takes place to the PS4/XBox 3. Nintendo built the Wii U in a way to all but guarantee it will not get ports of big AAA games in the near future.

5. I thought you were done with this thread

 

[shinra-bansho]

People really expected these games to sell like they do on PS360/PC?

I'd say CoD is selling exactly like I thought it would, slow. I have no idea when BLOPS3 will show up but by then maybe BLOPS2 could have reached 1m sales (that's how slow I expected it to sell from day -1).

That's a bit of a strawman argument - no one expected the games to pull PS360 numbers; but presumably publishers had lowered expectations and the Wii U is not meeting them. And no the game won't sell a million by the time the next COD is out - it sold around 20K at launch in the US, likely less in Europe. Publishers also make more money when these games sell well at launch not piddly amounts over a year or two.

Any smart or informed individual knew that there was no way that franchises that never hit the Wii userbase was going to sell as much as the 360/PS3/PC versions that got every other game in the series and had a massive installed base over the Wii U. Shinra mentioned ROI on a Tomb Raider Wii U port probably not being worth it and drawing a parallel to BLOPs 2, AC3 or ME3 but the thing is that if these third parties weren't dumb (and I'm not saying they are or aren't) then they would've accounted for that. I would argue that even if it lost them money (which I'm not confident even the worst selling ports did) it's worth doing just to build the user base on the Wii U for the next iteration of the game. Yes, we all laughed that Nintendo gave E3 time to WB for Batman Arkham City Armored Edition and shook our heads at it being a late port launch game but ask yourselves a question. Will Batman Arkham Origins coming out on Wii U this year be better or worse off for having established Arkham City on the Wii U at launch? You can also substitute AC4 or CoD for this year as well.

Not excusing less than stellar sales at launch because some parties deserved more sales than the others but at launch I don't think it's as important to sell X units as opposed to making sure that you get your brands on the system to let the userbase grow accustomed to seeing them for the lifespan of the console.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea of building a userbase being a potential goal, nor having realistic expectations - but I doubt realistic expectations are even being met. From a third party perspective, the onus isn't on them to make losses or miss alternative opportunities to build an audience, when they see the platform holder isn't making any efforts to do so, and there are suitable platforms already or coming that will be more attuned to their audience and have been cultivating said audience for over a decade.

How long do you think Warner or Ubisoft are really going to be committed to building an audience at a cost to them, either in negative ROI or opportunity cost, if their sales keep flagging with games like Arkham Origins and Watch_Dogs.

 

[Refreshment.01]

I on the other hand see them doing just as bad as the Wii U, coming out slow out the gate because frankly, no one is going to pay 500 for a video game console to play COD or BF4 or Madden when they can buy a 360 or PS3 or even Wii U for a cheaper price. I see both being in about the wii U's position, with expensive games, an expensive system with only a few hardcore upgrading. As such the first year or two we'll see ALOT of games supposed to succeed failing and more companies dying.

Yep, suubscribed to this thread. December can't come soon enough.

 

[fauxtrot]

Never said it was a conspiracy, it's just developers following their "tech heart" than their basic business sense of building audiences. I said why not support the 3rd major console in the market? and the Ps4 and Next box base is at.. ZERO. Zip, nadda, zilch. So what's the point of any console transition? and even so OBVIOUSLY that particular audience isn't supporting them or we'd not have "such and such lays off 1000 employees," or Such and such closes down shop" every day. So why not try to build an install base because lets be real, at the end of the day Nintendo will sell 40 to 50 million consoles, it's not like they will sell 10 million in a life time, and even IF it did, if you need to sell 9 million copies to be "successful" then why the hell not bother trying to get every sell possible?

Seriously, dude, if you can't understand simple business concepts, you should stop talking about "basic business sense".

If a developer decides to port a game to Wii U, it's going to cost them money, lets say $1 million. It only makes sense to spend that much money if they are likely to make more money back. BUT, there is also something called "opportunity cost" (look it up). Why would said developer use that chunk of money (and time) porting their game to a system that is SERIOUSLY under-performing when they could use it to start another project on a platform that has 40 to 50 times the install base?

I'm not trying to be condescending, but I really think you're opinion would change if you took a business economics class.

edit - I pulled the $1 million value out of my ass, so please don't let it distract anyone from my point.

 

[Mithos]

That's a bit of a strawman argument - no one expected the games to pull PS360 numbers; but presumably publishers had lowered expectations and the Wii U is not meeting them. And no the game won't sell a million by the time the next COD is out - it sold around 20K at launch in the US, likely less in Europe. Publishers also make more money when these games sell well at launch not piddly amounts over a year or two.

/mental block on shinra-bansho due to strawman comment. (blame the people in gender/genus debate threads for that one)

I never said the next CoD which is CoD: Ghosts btw, I said the next Black Ops. And CoD have always taken long time to sell on Nintendo platforms, even on Wii.

 

[phosphor112]

There are a ton of 3rd parties, many of which certainly are interested in Web Framework and especially Unity. Iwata stated that they're not chasing ports, they want the next big thing on their platform. Nobody knows what that next big thing is going to be, but chances are it won't have an EA or Activision logo on the box. In fact, it probably won't even come in a box.

And why wouldn't the "next big thing" not be on any other platform? Indie devs are being highly sought after. Especially since Nintendo already said that they aren't forcing exclusivity with any devs.

Yep.

And the sad thing is that MS and Sony still have capable infrastructures to support indie games themselves. And, as competitive as they are and as fast as they move, if any anybody got even a vague hint that the next minecraft was about to happen on the Wii U, Sony and MS (and Apple and Google) wouldn't rest until it was in their ecosystems as well.

Courting indie games isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but Iwata is batshit crazy if he views it as any sort of solution to their 3rd party problem.

Exactly what I just said... but you said it an hour earlier...

 

[Refreshment.01]

And why wouldn't the "next big thing" not be on any other platform? Indie devs are being highly sought after. Especially since Nintendo already said that they aren't forcing exclusivity with any devs.

Exactly what I just said... but you said it an hour earlier...

The "indie developers" is the latest fallback for wishful thinkers. I think Wii U is now the console that holds the record for cumulative "fallbacks". Never seen something quite like it. It has been explained why tis initiative doesn't amount to much to diferentiate the platform. But it falls on deft ears.

Are people still imagining some sort of indie-driven Wii Sports-like phenomenon being exclusive to the Wii U and driving it to success? It ridiculous wishful thinking. Could it happen, sure. Is it a plausible, reasonable expectation, not really.

HA! Yes they are with every beat of their heart and soul. That is until Iwata or the new guy say some other thing. That it'll probably involve GPGPU.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Are people still imagining some sort of indie-driven Wii Sports-like phenomenon being exclusive to the Wii U and driving it to success? It ridiculous wishful thinking. Could it happen, sure. Is it a plausible, reasonable expectation, not really.

/mental block on shinra-bansho due to strawman comment. (blame the people in gender/genus debate threads for that one)

I never said the next CoD which is CoD: Ghosts btw, I said the next Black Ops. And CoD have always taken long time to sell on Nintendo platforms, even on Wii.

Not really sure what the first comment means. As for the second comment, you're right you did say BLOPS - my mistake, but again I really don't see Activision being particularly pleased with the game crawling to a million (which I still really don't think it will do) over two years. I guess it may be meeting some incredibly low internal expectations.

 

[phosphor112]

The "indie developers" is the latest fallback for wishful thinkers. I think Wii U is now the console that holds the record for cumulative "fallbacks". Never seen something quite like it. It has been explained why tis initiative doesn't amount to much to diferentiate the platform. But it falls on deft ears.

It just boggles my mind, that Wii U will supposedly get all the indie devs... but no one else will. Hell, Vita is getting tons of Indie support too, Sony is pushing heavy PS4 indie support. I'm sure... MS.... might? (Damnit MS, Say something!) But Wii U indie devs will save the device.

The thing selling WORSE than GC and WORSE than Vita.

If they want to turn this around, they need all hands on deck.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Wow people are still arguing about whether or not the Wii U is powerful or not

Have you guys been following...Anything? The system is already out...

 

[Mithos]

Not really sure what the first comment means.

As for the second comment, you're right you did say BLOPS - my mistake, but again I really don't see Activision being particularly pleased with the game crawling to a million (which I still really don't think it will do) over two years. I guess it may be meeting some incredibly low internal expectations.

1. Meaning starting from now shinra-bansho posts are on mental ignore, I won't /ignore you (you might say something interesting sometime), just not pay attention to your post that much. I hate strawman, concerning_troll, troll comment and such after spending time reading and sometimes writing in the threads i mentioned before.

2. Like I said, it's slowly selling over a year or two or not at all, never think CoD will take of in any greater sales-speed on a Nintendo platform. This is how CoD sold on Wii, over a long time I don't see that changing.

 

[Refreshment.01]

It just boggles my mind, that Wii U will supposedly get all the indie devs... but no one else will. Hell, Vita is getting tons of Indie support too, Sony is pushing heavy PS4 indie support. I'm sure... MS.... might? (Damnit MS, Say something!) But Wii U indie devs will save the device.

The thing selling WORSE than GC and WORSE than Vita.

If they want to turn this around, they need all hands on deck.

I don't get why to some of these guys it is so hard to accept the reality. Is not like if they do it'll prevent them from enjoying all the wonderfull exlcusives Nintendo will cook up, like they always do even on their hardest times... from N64 to the GC.

Instead of wasting the time trying to block the sun with a finger, just sit tight and wait some more until Nintendo drops their software gauntlet. At least the wait will be soften when close to E3 the big guns get announced.

 

[shinra-bansho]

1. Meaning starting from now shinra-bansho posts are on mental ignore, I won't /ignore you (you might say something interesting sometime), just not pay attention to your post that much. I hate strawman, concerning_troll, troll comment and such after spending time reading and sometimes writing in the threads i mentioned before.

2. Like I said, it's slowly selling over a year or two or not at all, never think CoD will take of in any greater sales-speed on a Nintendo platform. This is how CoD sold on Wii, over a long time I don't see that changing.

Sorry, but you did engage in something of a strawman, in saying that people expected to sell like the PS3, 360 version. When nobody said that. If that, for whatever reason, offends you, I'm sorry I guess.

Whether or not Activision is happy with such low sales is a question mark we'll presumably see answered when they stop making PS3 and 360 SKUs, and the opportunity cost involved in making a Wii U SKU changes.

 

[Averon]

I really don't understand how indies will save the Wii U from further market irrelevance that it's in now. You don't think Sony and MS and Google won't go after indies hard? They are! Hell, look at all the praise Sony is getting from indies recently.

Yep, suubscribed to this thread. December can't come soon enough.

Wii U doing shitty? Then the PS4 and Next Box must do crappy as well!!! It has been a running theme in threads like these for a while. Misery loves company.

 

[AzaK]

The PS4/Xbox 3 install base is at zero but they're going to be very closely built in terms of specs. The Wii U will most likely have 1/4th the ram of these systems. Devs can basically build a game for PS3/360 due to the install base and the PS4/Xbox 3 because they're so close in specs. The Wii U is caught in the middle of having a terrible install base AND being so foreign from the PS4/Xbox 3.

Going forward into the next couple of years when the PS3/360 cease getting big releases and everything is released with the PS4/Xbox 3 in mind, do you expect devs to release these games for a system with 1/4th the ram? Lets be honest here. The install base of both of these systems will most likely far eclipse the install base of the Wii U alone, they're going to be closely built enough to allow devs to have an easy time to build a game for both systems at the same time, AND they'll be able to show off their games in a way that impress.

Wii U = lower install base than these two combined
Wii U = MUCH weaker hardware, 1/4th the ram
Wii U = weak hardware will severely limit what these devs want to accomplish

If you are a developer and it's going to cost you extra to port a game to a system with such significantly weaker specs, why would you UNLESS you're being paid to?

I have the same concern as you regarding future support of Wii U once the other machines are lead platforms for their respective companies. However, I can see how almost every single game could be scaled back for a machine of lesser specs. If you look at typical gaming assets, you have models/meshes, textures, audio and data structures taking up the bulk. The first three could quite "easily" be lowered in resolution/size assuming the engine supports scaling down (And given the push for mobile a lot of engines just much). Data structures for things like pathfinding, state data and other algorithms may or may not scale and I'd have to look at modern techniques to see if there's some algorithm just waiting for 4GB of RAM that's going to revolutionise gaming but I highly doubt it. So I'm pretty comfortable that the common requirements of a game to process objects, find paths, make decisions etc can be quite scaleable and produce a game of sufficient quality even with sacrifices.

The bigger issue is really if developers will bother. Wii U needs a big install base and some sort of proven record that those sorts of games will sell on Nintendo hardware so that third parties see cash there. However Nintendo has simply not been able to sell enough machines which restricts any acceptance that gamers will buy core titles on the thing. They've had a couple of years to get people onboard and excited and they've failed.

I'm also secondarily concerned that once it gets an install base and Nintendo realises that third parties aren't coming they'll abandon their "core" push and Nintendo will yet again push the machine too much into the casual realm and therefore third parties will use it for that type of product.

And guess what, Nintendo said it had learned from the 3DS situation with having a shitty launch. Welp. Nintendo also said that they had a strong launch window library. Welp. How's that Pikimin game? How's that Wonderful 101 game? Welp. How's that library that would carry them this year? Welp. That lovely virtual console lineup? Welp. That solid OS from day one? Welp.

Nintendo fucked up the launch. Don't blame this on third parties. Nintendo expected Nintendoland to be their new Wii Sports, the gamepad to be their new Wiimote. When these didn't pan out they were caught with their pants down and flat footed at the same time and their response was 'Please understand'... 'Please understand'... 'Just wait'...

This launch fiasco is Nintendo's to shoulder.

P.S. The PS3 never sold as poorly as the Wii U is (if I am wrong please correct me). Let that sink in. A $599 console outsold the Wii U.

I agree. The state of Wii U is completely their fault. Just like a CEO is held accountable even though he doesn't do everything in the company, Nintendo is accountable for not ensuring enough third party games, not ensuring their quality to show off the Wii U and not having enough of their own titles out to push the machine. Not to mention the OS etc (which is a little bit nicer now after the update thank goodness)

 

[Mithos]

Sorry, but you did engage in something of a strawman, in saying that people expected to sell like the PS3, 360 version. When nobody said that. If that, for whatever reason, offends you, I'm sorry I guess.

Call of Duty 3, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare: Reflex, CoD: World at War, CoD: Black Ops & CoD: MW3, they all sold slow and over a long time, how many more games before people get it, that's how CoD will sell on Nintendo platforms.

Anything better then that is wishful thinking, anyone expecting better then that is dreaming.
And this was on a console that had many-many millions of sold hardware.

And no I don't take offense (so no apology needed), I'm just sick and tired of the comments, since it was every single freaking post in those threads I spoke of, and I'm not even talking about them being directed at me just the existence of them in those threads have made me sick of em.

 

[phosphor112]

This is about a month old, but has this been posted?
http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2013/04/02/satoru-iwata-hubris-versus-western-culture/

 

[shinra-bansho]

Call of Duty 3, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare: Reflex, CoD: World at War, CoD: Black Ops & CoD: MW3, they all sold slow and over a long time, how many more games before people get it, that's how CoD will sell on Nintendo platforms.

Anything better then that is wishful thinking, anyone expecting better then that is dreaming.
And this was on a console that had many-many millions of sold hardware.

And no I don't take offense (so no apology needed), I'm just sick and tired of the comments, since it was every single freaking post in those threads I spoke of, and I'm not even talking about them being directed at me just the existence of them in those threads have made me sick of em.

Okay, I see what you mean now. You're saying that COD on Nintendo platforms has a different than typical sales curve; consequently, one should never really expect comparable sales (and I don't necessarily mean comparable in absolute units) to other platforms.

If we had access to more data we'd probably see that COD has just as long a tail in its sales curve on other platforms; it simple doesn't have blockbuster sales on the Wii or Wii U at the front of the curve? I don't know whether a publisher would really see that positively, presumably a game like COD and a company like Activision values the exposure of being on as many platforms as possible.

 

[wsippel]

Do you think MS and Sony have to use moneyhats to get those games on their platforms?

Of course not. Publishers want their games on those platforms. But they don't want them on Wii U. So what's Nintendo supposed to do about it? Pay the publishers? That might work, but it's costly and it would possibly set a bad precendent.

And why wouldn't the "next big thing" not be on any other platform? Indie devs are being highly sought after. Especially since Nintendo already said that they aren't forcing exclusivity with any devs.

Sure, it could end up on any platforns, or any combination of platforms. Since you'll never know where it'll come from, offering incentives, lowering the barrier of entry and hoping for the best is pretty much all the platform holders can do. Though removing the barrier completely is probably detrimental as well (pricing, signal-to-noise). It's all about finding a good balance.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Of course not. Publishers want their games on those platforms. But they don't want them on Wii U. So what's Nintendo supposed to do about it? Pay the publishers? That might work, but it's costly and it would possibly set a bad precendent.



Sure, it could end up on any platforns, or any combination of platforms. Since you'll never know where it'll come from, offering incentives, lowering the barrier of entry and hoping for the best is pretty much all the platform holders can do. Though removing the barrier completely is probably detrimental as well (pricing, signal-to-noise). It's all about finding a good balance.

Why do you think third parties don't want to out their games on the Wii U?

 

[wsippel]

Why do you think third parties don't want to out their games on the Wii U?

RoI of course. If they believed the audience was there, they'd simply make the Wii U the baseline for their future multiplatform games.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

RoI of course. If they believed the audience was there, they'd simply make the Wii U the baseline for their future multiplatform games.

Do you believe they are mistaken about the ROI?

 

[javac]

I guess the point of 'not caring about the tech in a console' boils down to making it invisible to the end user. If the games look good on screen why care about what's under the hood? Why worry about that when you can see what its capable of. Not a lot of people care if the SGS4 has more oomph then the iPhone if to their eyes it performs better. I guess the whole idea is about the end package. It's not a popular notion but oh well.

 

[Seance]

Since that's what third parties wanted, yes. And what did they do? Halfass ports that they wanted full price from.

Which is what Nintendo wanted. How much of last years E3 was dedicated to the Arkham City port? Seemed like a half hour, lol.

 

[wsippel]

Do you believe they are mistaken about the ROI?

Obviously not. Though it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as they didn't expect much from the get-go and put very little effort into it - skipped a ton of games, released a couple of rushed ports by B teams, don't follow up with patches and DLC and so on. Now, as I always say when it comes to MH on Vita: Sure, it would be a system seller, but selling systems isn't Capcom's job. And it is not EA's or Activision's job, either.

On the other hand, they are very much on board with PS4 and Xbox3, and those two systems have a combined installed base of exactly zero systems. So yeah, self-fulfilling prophecy, confirmation bias and such. Still, I don't blame them.

Nintendo's mistake isn't the hardware. It's in part marketing, but most of all it's software. Nintendo needs to get the system in the hands of as many people as possible, and to do that, they need compelling software. And just Mario and Zelda won't cut it. If they want GTA or Elder Scrolls or Battlefield, they have to build audiences for those games. Ideally by creating excellent first party content catering to those audiences.

 

[Somnid]

I guess the point of 'not caring about the tech in a console' boils down to making it invisible to the end user. If the games look good on screen why care about what's under the hood? Why worry about that when you can see what its capable of. Not a lot of people care if the SGS4 has more oomph then the iPhone if to their eyes it performs better. I guess the whole idea is about the end package. It's not a popular notion but oh well.

This attitude to prevalent among people who fancy themselves technophiles which includes not just typical neogaffers but also people in charge of technology focused companies. This is perhaps that bit of Apple magic. Apple assures people that it has interesting technology, not 8 GB of GDDR RAM, just enough for more funness. This is more or less the approach Nintendo takes too and they also have that exists-outside-reality feel to them. I guess the overall idea is that it's something you could explain to your mother. If Nintendo fails it will be because they failed to do that, not because of they failed to make the same thing as MS and Sony.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

I agree with some of what your saying. One of the main reasons Nintendo went with underpowered hardware with the Wii was to put a damper on development costs by keeping the upper ceiling of visual fidelity low. As a result the Wii did become a little bit of a refuge for some middle-budget games (Fragile Dreams, the Trauma series, etc.). On some level, Nintendo kind of called it right in regards to whether people were ready for HD-level console game development. Tons of western studios bankrupted themselves, a lot of Japanese studios took way too long to adjust to HD-level game development, and even today most games are still only 720p. Developing lower-budget games for the Wii might have been beneficial for a lot of the studios want went under because it would've decreased the chances of them throwing massive budgets at the games.

The other reason those massive budgets happened though was because guys like EA and Activision set a standard for audiovisual presentation in games this generation which required those huge budgets. They're trying to create an environment similar to other media industries where almost the whole market is controlled by the four or five companies that can actually afford the cost of putting out content. Some developers (especially Japanese ones) were smart enough to ignore this and focus on their core audience, even on the PS3 and 360.

Disgaea 3 and 4 are PS3 games, but they pretty much look just like the PS2 games, just running in 720p. I imagine Disgaea 5 is going to be a PS4 game and will probably still have the same graphics, just in 1080p, and that series' fans will still buy it. All developers really have to do to survive on these new expensive platforms if they aren't EA or Take-Two or Activision is play to their audience. They don't necessarily need weaker hardware to force them to lower budgets.

Finally! Someone who makes sense!!

My bad, I read it incorrectly. However it still goes against your point of third parties not supporting the Wii. The fact Suda 51's most successful game is on the 360/ps3 pie rather than Wii pie surely shows why third parties did not need to develop on the Wii. Would it of helped their sales....yes of course but time and resources would need to be spent and whether the venture was worth it was their decision.

You're treating the X360 and PS3 as one console. It's _two_ consoles. You can't compare the sales of two consoles to one console. Compare them individually. Once you do that, you'll understand that the Wii was a viable platform to develop for. There was an audience on the Wii that developers ignored.

3rd parties weren't trying to make fun games. They were trying to make interactive movies they couldn't afford! They didn't ignore the Wii because of resources. They ignored the Wii because they wanted to make big budget movies in HD. Those 3rd party companies failed. You get it? THIS is my point.

I'm not sure what you mean here because I clearly showed this was incorrect with the data I posted?


I misunderstood you when you said the WiiU is looking like the same deal.
I don't see how the WiiU is looking like the same deal.

Furthermore, were talking about the console market here. We know western third parties are reluctant to work on handhelds and thats where the majority of Nintendo's market share is from.

1) You're comparing the sales of two consoles to one console. This is why you're confused.

2) You misunderstood what I said. Don't look too far into it or you'll confuse yourself.

3) I'm telling you that 3rd parties ignored *Nintendo*. Not just the Wii or the Wii U. They completely ignored Nintendo as a company, and therefore, flopped. Some of these western developers could've made games on the DS and still be afloat today, but they weren't having that. Now look where they are.

I remember a developer (can't remember which one) saying that they didn't care if the company went bankrupt, because they wanted the freedom to use the power of the PS360 to show off their creativity. They released a game, it flopped and the entire company went belly up. This was the mentality these 3rd parties had at the time and it killed them. This issue is so very serious right now. 3rd parties are willing to commit kamikaze just to release high budget games they can't afford. It threatens the entire video game market to the point where we could witness another crash. It seems to me like Nintendo is trying their hardest to save the market!

Looking at your source WiiU has something like 7% of market share while PS3 has 25% and 360 20%.

Errrr.....every dev that has made a decent profit.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Commercial_success
http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/1/3941948/mojang-2012-revenue-new-markets

I am sure GTA made more money than Minecraft

1) Ok. I never made this point. You did.

2) Which dev would that be?

3) I believe your original point was that indies can't do well, and I've disproven this logic three times over. Even if GTA sold more, Minecraft is a shinning example of an indie dev doing well.

 

[jvm]

Anyone still up and knows what time the English translation of the Q&A is likely to be posted?

Best I can tell, it was being written about on video game news/blogs by like 8AM Eastern after the January briefing. I'm guessing it might have gone up around 3AM, like we saw with the release of the annual results last week.

Anyone recall the exact time?

 

[cartman414]

When developers are openly singing the praises of one of your competitors' platforms with the other to follow in a similar direction after criticizing yours, that ought to be a real red flag.

 

[phosphor112]

Anyone still up and knows what time the English translation of the Q&A is likely to be posted?

Best I can tell, it was being written about on video game news/blogs by like 8AM Eastern after the January briefing. I'm guessing it might have gone up around 3AM, like we saw with the release of the annual results last week.

Anyone recall the exact time?

One was posted several pages in I think.

 

[jvm]

One was posted several pages in I think.

That was the English translation of the 31 January 2013 Q&A.

I'm talking about the current one.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Finally! Someone who makes sense!!


You're treating the X360 and PS3 as one console. It's _two_ consoles. You can't compare the sales of two consoles to one console. Compare them individually. Once you do that, you'll understand that the Wii was a viable platform to develop for. There was an audience on the Wii that developers ignored.

3rd parties weren't trying to make fun games. They were trying to make interactive movies they couldn't afford! They didn't ignore the Wii because of resources. They ignored the Wii because they wanted to make big budget movies in HD. Those 3rd party companies failed. You get it? THIS is my point.




1) You're comparing the sales of two consoles to one console. This is why you're confused.

2) You misunderstood what I said. Don't look too far into it or you'll confuse yourself.

3) I'm telling you that 3rd parties ignored *Nintendo*. Not just the Wii or the Wii U. They completely ignored Nintendo as a company, and therefore, flopped. Some of these western developers could've made games on the DS and still be afloat today, but they weren't having that. Now look where they are.

I remember a developer (can't remember which one) saying that they didn't care if the company went bankrupt, because they wanted the freedom to use the power of the PS360 to show off their creativity. They released a game, it flopped and the entire company went belly up. This was the mentality these 3rd parties had at the time and it killed them. This issue is so very serious right now. 3rd parties are willing to commit kamikaze just to release high budget games they can't afford. It threatens the entire video game market to the point where we could witness another crash. It seems to me like Nintendo is trying their hardest to save the market!




1) Ok. I never made this point. You did.

2) Which dev would that be?

3) I believe your original point was that indies can't do well, and I've disproven this logic three times over. Even if GTA sold more, Minecraft is a shinning example of an indie dev doing well.

You may not count the 360/PS3 as one console but third parties do. Why? Because they are very close in terms of specs and third parties release their games on both consoles. The Wii was alien compared to them just as the Wii U will be to the PS4/XB3.

You can argue anything you want. You can even argue that the Wii U is just as powerful as the PS4. You can argue that Nintendo has done everything it can to attract third parties. You can even float this third parties hate Nintendo conspiracy laden BS. At the end of the day it's about what third parties actually feel.

 

[royalan]

You may not count the 360/PS3 as one console but third parties do. Why? Because they are very close in terms of specs and third parties release their games on both consoles. The Wii was alien compared to them just as the Wii U will be to the PS4/XB3.

You can argue anything you want. You can even argue that the Wii U is just as powerful as the PS4. You can argue that Nintendo has done everything it can to attract third parties. You can even float this third parties hate Nintendo conspiracy laden BS. At the end of the day it's about what third parties actually feel.

This. This This This This This This THIS.

People can argue all they want about how Nintendo's decisions make absolute perfect sense for Nintendo, but at the end of the day the proof is in the pudding: Nintendo just doesn't get the support. In fact, they get openly derided by 3rd parties for not doing what they need to do in order to earn their support.

This is usually when arguments get let sensible and more emotional, and you start seeing posters rely on the old "3rd parties just hate Nintendo!" arguments.

 

[weepy]

This. This This This This This This THIS.

People can argue all they want about how Nintendo's decisions make absolute perfect sense for Nintendo, but at the end of the day the proof is in the pudding: Nintendo just doesn't get the support. In fact, they get openly derided by 3rd parties for not doing what they need to do in order to earn their support.

This is usually when arguments get let sensible and more emotional, and you start seeing posters rely on the old "3rd parties just hate Nintendo!" arguments.

But hasn't this been the case since the N64 era (Nintendo not having 3rd party support)? Is Nintendo making it difficult for 3rd parties to support them and/or are they (3rd parties) fed up with big N's stubbornness? Is Nintendo not actively/aggressively seeking said support? I'm not being facetious, I want to understand what reason(s) most 3rd parties pass by Nintendo hardware because it has to be more than just the hardware itself.