Support NeoGAF

[BlackJace]

And hopefully after the wii/wii u fiasco they will go back to focusing on hardware instead of controller gimmicks.

We'll see. I think they'll be leaving the Wii/DS philosophy behind after this gen, personallly.

 

[H_Prestige]

lol, this word is used so wrong...Nintendo serves up "gimmicks" while everyone else "innovates"

LOL, who said "innovate"?

 

[AdventureRacing]

Because if rumors are correct about PS4, other Next gen consoles won't be using big and fast CPUs either, there is a change here in hardware, to something much faster. Running code that exists for the GPU and leaving the CPU with only code that is ideal for the CPU. You might have missed the jaguar cores I talked about yesterday, but the reality is these next wave of consoles won't be bigger and better in every way, they will be completely new and different, moving most stuff out of the CPU into dedicated silicon.

I was informed on here yesterday about a DSP for the PS4, in this very thread, so those consoles ability to run current gen ports might be in question too... However it all comes down to user base really. People made games for the PS2 and PS3 not because they were the easiest to design games for, no one in their right mind would say that... They made games for those consoles because developers had built a userbase with the previous Playstation hardware.

They made games for those platforms because they knew those were the most likely places to sell software going into those respective generations. I don't think that mindset has changed, i'm pretty sure most 3rd party devs see nintendos consoles as a more difficult place to move software.

Also i disagree that hardware doesn't play a factor especially with western devs. The 720/PS4 are going to be a lot more powerful than the wii U. Western developers know this and they are pretty much going to skip the wii U for that reason (and the one mentioned above).

 

[Wrestlemania]

I like the idea that a touch screen as an input for games is still seen as a gimmick by some. It's cute.

 

[onilink88]

For the sake of gaming, I honestly hope Nintendo fails hard with the Wii U.

They've been far too stubborn with everything, and the console will need to bomb hard for them to realise this.

You know, there's this bakery that stopped adding sprinkles to their cupcakes that I'm contemplating writing angry letters to. Much more satisfying than going to the bakery across the street that does.

Seriously, guys: get a fucking grip.

Also, hi, BG.

 

[BearPawB]

I still like the idea that a touch screen as an input for games is still seen as a gimmick by some. It's cute.

It is not in and of itself a gimmick, but can certainly be used in gimmicky ways.
Games should control whatever way works BEST, not just throw touch controls on because they can. dont put a grenade button on the touch screen, that belongs on the pad.

 

[Wrestlemania]

It is not in and of itself a gimmick, but can certainly be used in gimmicky ways.
Games should control whatever way works BEST, not just throw touch controls on because they can. dont put a grenade button on the touch screen, that belongs on the pad.

Well, yeah, of course certain uses of it are 'gimmicky'. But people are referring to the touch screen itself as a gimmick, not specific uses of it. It's a proven, worthwhile input method for games now. It's odd that some people can't accept that.

 

[z0m3le]

They made games for those platforms because they knew those were the most likely places to sell software going into those respective generations. I don't think that mindset has changed, i'm pretty sure most 3rd party devs see nintendos consoles as a more difficult place to move software.

Also i disagree that hardware doesn't play a factor especially with western devs. The 720/PS4 are going to be a lot more powerful than the wii U. Western developers know this and they are pretty much going to skip the wii U for that reason (and the one mentioned above).

yeah, that first reason is what I was saying. Wii U isn't a Sony or Microsoft console and will be lacking in 3rd party support because of that first. If you think hardware parity means 3rd party support, can you explain to me why Gamecube got the shaft in it's generation.

Wii U will be fine either way, Wii was fine without any real 3rd party support, because those games just couldn't actually be brought over to the Wii, a whole new game had to be made. This won't be reality with Wii U no matter how much performance difference is there, and honestly current gen graphics only really hurt from the lack of ram and effects, I'd take ME3 with better lighting, tessellation and bigger textures... All of which Wii U should be able to produce.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I do have a problem with the notion that "Nintendo doesn't take hardware seriously", because it seems rather myopic. Nintendo takes a lot of things seriously; like the rather elaborate engineering that went into the gamepad on the Wii U. The problem people have is that Nintendo doesn't take the same things as top priorities that some would prefer.

Which leads back to the problem of wanting Nintendo to "fail" so that they effectively make the Gamecube II, which would accomplish what, exactly? Hardcore people would feel gratified that a box existed with their estimation of what such a device should contain. While it still fails to sell well because it offers nothing aside from a generic gaming experience with some Nintendo exclusives and the same multiplatform games everyone else has. So there's no real reason for anyone other than the hardest core Nintendo fans, who only desire a particular flavor of gaming, to buy it.

Nintendo made the Wii because it seems clear the Gamecube strategy doesn't work. Nintendo lost a lock on the game market in two ways: 1. Not going CD-ROM for N64, and 2. Sony getting serious about breaking into the market. A company with far more resources than Sega, or previous game-centric competition. The Gamecube was, by and large, Nintendo doing what fans of the day would have complained they should have: just make a generic game box like everyone else with no "stupid stuff". I.e. anything different than what the other guys were doing. While the custom media for the GC hurt 3rd party ports, I actually don't think it's the reason the GC didn't go anywhere.

The problem Nintendo faces today is that they have no choice but to be "different" and offer something more than a copy of what everyone else is doing. When it comes to Nintendo, when you say "Nintendo focusing on power would be good for consumers", it unfortunately really means "It would be good for a limited number of Nintendo fans who want to play Nintendo games on a console like the Playstation or Xbox." That's fine but I don't think it really solves much for Nintendo.

And doesn't even get into the issue of why it's pointless to have 3 platforms that are basically generic copies of one another all fighting in the same bloody kiddie pool.

 

[BearPawB]

yeah, that first reason is what I was saying. Wii U isn't a Sony or Microsoft console and will be lacking in 3rd party support because of that first. If you think hardware parity means 3rd party support, can you explain to me why Gamecube got the shaft in it's generation.

Wii U will be fine either way, Wii was fine without any real 3rd party support, because those games just couldn't actually be brought over to the Wii, a whole new game had to be made. This won't be reality with Wii U no matter how much performance difference is there, and honestly current gen graphics only really hurt from the lack of ram and effects, I'd take ME3 with better lighting, tessellation and bigger textures... All of which Wii U should be able to produce.

The Wii was fine?
How was the Wii fine? I haven't touched my Wii since Mario Galaxy 2

 

[AdventureRacing]

yeah, that first reason is what I was saying. Wii U isn't a Sony or Microsoft console and will be lacking in 3rd party support because of that first. If you think hardware parity means 3rd party support, can you explain to me why Gamecube got the shaft in it's generation.

Because PS2 was coming off the back of the PS1 and everyone knew it would be the place to go to sell a lot of software? That plus it was 2 years late to the party. It was also a very different console to develop for (very different architecture, not using DVD's, completely different controller). Why would 3rd parties have developed for that platform?

Nintendo could have made a more powerful console with it being in the same situation as the GC.

 

[Dicer]

The Wii was fine?
How was the Wii fine? I haven't touched my Wii since Mario Galaxy 2

And you missed out on plenty of great software, no one's fault but your own...

 

[z0m3le]

Because PS2 was coming off the back of the PS1 and everyone knew it would be the place to go to sell a lot of software? That plus it was 2 years late to the party. It was also a very different console to develop for (very different architecture, not using DVD's, completely different controller). Why would 3rd parties have developed for that platform?

Nintendo could have made a more powerful console with it being in the same situation as the GC.

all of that sort of proves my point you know. It's because it's nintendo, not because of the hardware, which ran PS2 ports pretty well, mostly with at least similar performance if not better. Xbox also came 2 years late with a different controller too. And seriously 1 button? btw do you know how many Xbox ports used over 1.8GB of ram? it certainly wasn't every game that skipped gamecube.

 

[gamergirly]

I like the idea that a touch screen as an input for games is still seen as a gimmick by some. It's cute.

As with the Wii, I've found that most using the word gimmick don't actually own a Wii U. Thus their experience is limited and from a short minded point of view

 

[Plinko]

The Wii was fine?
How was the Wii fine? I haven't touched my Wii since Mario Galaxy 2

That's a "you" problem.

Skyward Sword, Xenoblade, and The Last Story all came out after Galaxy 2, as did Kirby: Return to Dreamland and other good games.

 

[AdventureRacing]

all of that sort of proves my point you know. It's because it's nintendo, not because of the hardware, which ran PS2 ports pretty well, mostly with at least similar performance if not better. Xbox also came 2 years late with a different controller too. And seriously 1 button? btw do you know how many Xbox ports used over 1.8GB of ram? it certainly wasn't every game that skipped gamecube.

The xbox was far easier to develop for than the gamecube and xbox were much better at courting 3rd parties than nintendo were. The xbox also sold a decent bit better than the GC did outside of Japan (which is the main area nintendo struggle to get support from 3rd parties).

Devs/pubs are in the business of making money, they aren't going to just ignore nintendos platform because of a personal vendetta.

Also you're talking about a completely different situations. The GC had all sorts of things going against it that could have been rectified with the wii U.

The DS and 3DS have shown that nintendo can get 3rd party support anyway.

 

[Meelow]

And hopefully after the wii/wii u fiasco they will go back to focusing on hardware instead of controller gimmicks.

I guess your going to hate the PS4 and 720 when they come out with a new controller.

It's literally impossible to get away with just a traditional controller in this day and age.

 

[onilink88]

As with the Wii, I've found that most using the word gimmick don't actually own a Wii U. Thus their experience is limited and from a short minded point of view

Quoting myself:

The tablet is most certainly a gimmick. Mind you, I'm not referring to the mutated descriptive proliferated by the ignorant gaming masses. No objectively applicable definition of the term carries an inherently negative connotation.

Whether motion controls/gamepad functions constitute positive or negative gimmicks needs to be looked at by a mechanic-by-mechanic basis in my opinion. Personally, I thought motion controlled combat in SS was pretty cool. Motion controlled swimming, however? That was pointlessly superfluous.
/off-topic

 

[AdventureRacing]

I guess your going to hate the PS4 and 720 when they come out with a new controller.

No because he's not saying that he doesn't want new controls, he's saying that he doesn't want them at the expense of decent hardware.

 

[gamergirly]

Quoting myself:



Whether motion controls/gamepad functions constitute positive or negative gimmicks needs to be looked at by a mechanic-by-mechanic basis in my opinion. Personally, I thought motion controlled combat in SS was pretty cool. Motion controlled swimming, however? That was pointlessly superfluous.
/off-topic

There's nothing in your reply that shows the gamepad is a gimmick. Its standard input for the Wii U being used in intuitive ways. Just like the Wiimote was.

 

[onilink88]

There's nothing in your reply that shows the gamepad is a gimmick. Its standard input for the Wii U being used in intuitive ways. Just like the Wiimote was.

I'm under the impression you didn't understand what I said. Something that's called a "gimmick" isn't inherently a bad (or good) thing. Like you said, the gimmick can be used in meaningful, useful ways. I've even denoted what I see as good and bad usage of gimmicks. Don't know how to explain it better than this.

 

[gamergirly]

I'm under the impression you didn't understand what I said. Something that's called a "gimmick" isn't inherently a bad (or good) thing. Like you said, the gimmick can be used in meaningful, useful ways. I've even denoted what I see as good and bad gimmicks. Don't know how to explain it better than this.

Noted

 

[KojiKnight]

I'm under the impression you didn't understand what I said. Something that's called a "gimmick" isn't inherently a bad (or good) thing. Like you said, the gimmick can be used in meaningful, useful ways. I've even denoted what I see as good and bad gimmicks. Don't know how to explain it better than this.

You use "gimmick" but I think a better word for what you mean would be "novelty".

Gimmicks (at least how they are used in American English) generally have a negative connotation (linking gimmicks to scams).

 

[Meelow]

No because he's not saying that he doesn't want new controls, he's saying that he doesn't want them at the expense of decent hardware.

"And hopefully after the wii/wii u fiasco they will go back to focusing on hardware instead of controller gimmicks. "

I have a feeling he just doesn't want a new controller.

 

[onilink88]

You use "gimmick" but I think a better word for what you mean would be "novelty".

Gimmicks (at least how they are used in American English) generally have a negative connotation (linking gimmicks to scams).

Well, I'm looking at the definition right now, and in its applicable form does not carry a negative connotation. See for yourself. Its definition on Wiki doesn't seem to paint it in such a black and white light, either.

 

[z0m3le]

I do have a problem with the notion that "Nintendo doesn't take hardware seriously", because it seems rather myopic. Nintendo takes a lot of things seriously; like the rather elaborate engineering that went into the gamepad on the Wii U. The problem people have is that Nintendo doesn't take the same things as top priorities that some would prefer.

Which leads back to the problem of wanting Nintendo to "fail" so that they effectively make the Gamecube II, which would accomplish what, exactly? Hardcore people would feel gratified that a box existed with their estimation of what such a device should contain. While it still fails to sell well because it offers nothing aside from a generic gaming experience with some Nintendo exclusives and the same multiplatform games everyone else has. So there's no real reason for anyone other than the hardest core Nintendo fans, who only desire a particular flavor of gaming, to buy it.

Nintendo made the Wii because it seems clear the Gamecube strategy doesn't work. Nintendo lost a lock on the game market in two ways: 1. Not going CD-ROM for N64, and 2. Sony getting serious about breaking into the market. A company with far more resources than Sega, or previous game-centric competition. The Gamecube was, by and large, Nintendo doing what fans of the day would have complained they should have: just make a generic game box like everyone else with no "stupid stuff". I.e. anything different than what the other guys were doing. While the custom media for the GC hurt 3rd party ports, I actually don't think it's the reason the GC didn't go anywhere.

The problem Nintendo faces today is that they have no choice but to be "different" and offer something more than a copy of what everyone else is doing. When it comes to Nintendo, when you say "Nintendo focusing on power would be good for consumers", it unfortunately really means "It would be good for a limited number of Nintendo fans who want to play Nintendo games on a console like the Playstation or Xbox." That's fine but I don't think it really solves much for Nintendo.

And doesn't even get into the issue of why it's pointless to have 3 platforms that are basically generic copies of one another all fighting in the same bloody kiddie pool.

absolutely a great post that explains exactly why Wii u has to be different, hopefully it has enough hardware to make ports a matter of scaling done game designs, and used properly, that is what its sounding like.

 

[Apophis2036]

Is it me or has this thread went way, way off topic ?.

It used to be a place to speculate what hardware may be in WiiU, using logic, math and what sources / leaks there were on Gaf to try and accurately gauge it's potential power / performance.

Ever since last weeks revelations about the Ram speed it's been overflowing with trolls and people who just want to make fun of the consoles hardware rather than discus maybe why they took some of the decisions they did.

It has now descended into a 'what console is Black Ops 2 better on' thread...

I think from the start Nintendo had the idea of the second screen, when you are using that tablet controller you are immediately gimped when it comes to the amount of cash you have left to build the rest of the console with, esp if you want to keep it below $300 for the basic and $350 for a version with more flash memory and a 'free' game, thus the reason they went with the slower CPU and Ram. I stil lthink the GPU is more powerful than some guess, i think it will be around 500 GFLOPs with 2011 like features and effects (roughly twice the performance of Xenos).

To all the people that are in here just now complaining about the WiiU hardware, what would you want it to be ?, some 4 core AMD CPU, 4GB's of Ram and a 1TFLOP GPU ?, because if they went for that on top of the controller we would be looking at another $600 console.

As other people have said in this thread it is very unlikely that the PS4 / 720's CPU will be clocked anywhere near 3.2 Ghz, as they will be far more GPU intensive, so to me the WiiU CPU point is moot.

Yes they have been stupid regarding the Ram speed but it still has 4 times as much as PS360 and 32MB's of eDRAM which could turn things around, some people are too fast to judge.

Nintendo cannot compete with Sony and MS for the 'core' gaming market anymore, the Gamecube generation showed there is no room for a 'third wheel', thus the Wii was born and they created a new market for themselves that Sony and MS eventually tried to get in on with Move and Kinect.

Anyone who seriously thought Nintendo would walk away from that massive casual audience they created is insane imo.

So far the WiiU has a few nice exclusives (NSMB U, Nintendo Land, ZombiU) , some nice 6th gen third party ports (Fifa / Madden'13, Black Ops 2, Assassin's Creed III), that were built for different hardware so are not going to run aswell and a bright future with the likes of Wonderful 101, Rayaman Legends, Pikmin 3, Lego City Undercover and Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate all in the first quarter of next year with Bayonetta 2 and at least a couple of the big exclusive Nintendo franchises following in the second half of 2013.

With WiiU they have also caught up and in some respects exceeded what Sony and MS are doing with the online / entertainment aspect of the console aswell which imo should be commended.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

For the sake of gaming, I honestly hope Nintendo fails hard with the Wii U.

They've been far too stubborn with everything, and the console will need to bomb hard for them to realise this.

The I don't like it so I hope it fails attitude is really immature, and part of the problem with gaming as a whole.

The whole for the sake of gaming line is ridiculous. Because a less than crazy power leap is what will kill gaming right?

 

[Raistlin]

As I wrote, it's easy to quote and make cheap, pathetic comments - Nothing to do with the discussion, but I have no desire to be a moderator here. He asked where I had heard the news of engines, and I linked to sites. None were my own words, and none were 'anonymous sources', and they certainly weren't 'some random guy off NeoGAF' - . What's more, I haven't really shared much about my expectations and thoughts on it here, so you've no business trying to troll my posts. I'm not on here for that.

*whoosh*

 

[Writer_Head]

lol, this word is used so wrong...Nintendo serves up "gimmicks" while everyone else "innovates"

No, the others just copy those gimmicks.

 

[H_Prestige]

I guess your going to hate the PS4 and 720 when they come out with a new controller.

It's literally impossible to get away with just a traditional controller in this day and age.

If the ps4 uses something like move or kinect, I'm out.

I wouldn't even mind a gamepad like controller if it didn't come at the expense of the system. It's like Nintendo's entire r/d budget went into the controller and the system was an afterthought.

 

[Out of Working Order]

Retro's art direction alone will probably elevate their Wii U software from most games this gen. Only PS3/360/PC developers I'd rank around them in terms of truely impressive visuals (ignoring the obvious technical limitations Retro are under developing on the Wii) are Naughty Dog, Valve and 343 Studios (who have ex-Retro people on their art team anyway, so...). Good-Feel and EAD Tokyo aren't slouches either in the visuals department. The Wii U power issue is annoying more just because it seems like Nintendo truly didn't give about 3rd party needs again after insisting otherwise leading up to release.

Can't see why Portal 2 would be impossible on the Wii U after some modifications, but what with the weaker CPU it's a shame some of the prettier flourishes would probably have to be toned down since the tablet would've come in handy for the level editor.

I can't remember anything that should be remotely cpu intensive in portal 2. there's usually just a handful of interactive objects per room. You could probably get it to work just fine on a ps2 with downgraded visuals

The wii u can't match a 360/ps3 in terms of raw horse power but can do more modern graphical effects. So if you keep things simple you can do some nicer stuff but more complex games will struggle on the system. It's similar to the ps1/64 days. Ps1 could push more but the n64 had tricks to make up for it.

The real problem with wii u is that it isn't as port friendly like Nintendo was telling developers due to the CPU. They should have upped the speed or gone quad core.


Portal 2 should be possible. That game doesn't require much horse power.

As long as there's enough power there to take Nintendo's game design to the next level (significantly better in the technical respect), I am satisfied.

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Gahiggidy]

I don't want the company to fail, I just personally wish for the Wii U to fail.

I don't think the direction is helping them at all, and the Wii U will need to fail for them to realise this. It's overpriced, essentially old tech. I do appreciate certain aspects however, but it will be another Wii in terms of support.

How is it overpriced if they are selling each unit at a loss?

 

[jmc1987]

If the ps4 uses something like move or kinect, I'm out.

I wouldn't even mind a gamepad like controller if it didn't come at the expense of the system. It's like Nintendo's entire r/d budget went into the controller and the system was an afterthought.

Actually, I'm sure a great deal of R&D went into efficiency of the components put in the system, as well as the gamepad. It's completely wrong to insinuate that the system was an afterthought when you look at things other than raw power. They had a goal, which was to build an efficient, yet marginally more powerful system than current gen with a low power consumption. Nintendo has to do things differently to separate themselves from the competition, because, like several others have said, we know how the Gamecube strategy worked out.

 

[gamergirly]

Is it me or has this thread went way, way off topic ?.

It used to be a place to speculate what hardware may be in WiiU, using logic, math and what sources / leaks there were on Gaf to try and accurately gauge it's potential power / performance.

Ever since last weeks revelations about the Ram speed it's been overflowing with trolls and people who just want to make fun of the consoles hardware rather than discus maybe why they took some of the decisions they did.

It has now descended into a 'what console is Black Ops 2 better on' thread...

I think from the start Nintendo had the idea of the second screen, when you are using that tablet controller you are immediately gimped when it comes to the amount of cash you have left to build the rest of the console with, esp if you want to keep it below $300 for the basic and $350 for a version with more flash memory and a 'free' game, thus the reason they went with the slower CPU and Ram. I stil lthink the GPU is more powerful than some guess, i think it will be around 500 GFLOPs with 2011 like features and effects (roughly twice the performance of Xenos).

To all the people that are in here just now complaining about the WiiU hardware, what would you want it to be ?, some 4 core AMD CPU, 4GB's of Ram and a 1TFLOP GPU ?, because if they went for that on top of the controller we would be looking at another $600 console.

As other people have said in this thread it is very unlikely that the PS4 / 720's CPU will be clocked anywhere near 3.2 Ghz, as they will be far more GPU intensive, so to me the WiiU CPU point is moot.

Yes they have been stupid regarding the Ram speed but it still has 4 times as much as PS360 and 32MB's of eDRAM which could turn things around, some people are too fast to judge.

Nintendo cannot compete with Sony and MS for the 'core' gaming market anymore, the Gamecube generation showed there is no room for a 'third wheel', thus the Wii was born and they created a new market for themselves that Sony and MS eventually tried to get in on with Move and Kinect.

Anyone who seriously thought Nintendo would walk away from that massive casual audience they created is insane imo.

So far the WiiU has a few nice exclusives (NSMB U, Nintendo Land, ZombiU) , some nice 6th gen third party ports (Fifa / Madden'13, Black Ops 2, Assassin's Creed III), that were built for different hardware so are not going to run aswell and a bright future with the likes of Wonderful 101, Rayaman Legends, Pikmin 3, Lego City Undercover and Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate all in the first quarter of next year with Bayonetta 2 and at least a couple of the big exclusive Nintendo franchises following in the second half of 2013.

With WiiU they have also caught up and in some respects exceeded what Sony and MS are doing with the online / entertainment aspect of the console aswell which imo should be commended.

Let's be honest here. While I do believe some of the negativity surrounding the Wii U launch is justified(i.e. laggy OS especially hard locks), most of what's being discussed won't circle outside of the hardcore forums. If someone is picking up a Wii U or not picking up a Wii U, it's not going to generally be because of what somebody on GAF said. It's word of mouth that is going to drive the system's success. Nintendo is taking a big risk here but word of mouth is what allowed Wii to become so successful in the first place. If it was up to others on NeoGaf(similar to the dislike and venom Wii U is getting now), Wii would never have taken off.

 

[Xun]

The I don't like it so I hope it fails attitude is really immature, and part of the problem with gaming as a whole.

The whole for the sake of gaming line is ridiculous. Because a less than crazy power leap is what will kill gaming right?

I admittedly worded the post badly, but I'm more worried for Nintendo's sake than gaming in general.

I feel Nintendo needs third party support, but they once again won't be getting that this time around.

It will sadly take a failing system for them to realise this.

 

[Diablos54]

I feel Nintendo needs third party support, but they once again won't be getting that this time around.

It will sadly take a failing system for them to realise this.

1. They don't need third party support, but it would be a huge boost.
2. Considering the route they went after the GC, I don't see them doing much to pander to third parties, for better for worse.

 

[Joseph Flemming]

With WiiU they have also caught up and in some respects exceeded what Sony and MS are doing with the online / entertainment aspect of the console aswell which imo should be commended.

I was skeptical, but Miiverse is awesome.. really interested in how this will evolve.

I do have a problem with the notion that "Nintendo doesn't take hardware seriously", because it seems rather myopic. Nintendo takes a lot of things seriously; like the rather elaborate engineering that went into the gamepad on the Wii U. The problem people have is that Nintendo doesn't take the same things as top priorities that some would prefer.

Which leads back to the problem of wanting Nintendo to "fail" so that they effectively make the Gamecube II, which would accomplish what, exactly? Hardcore people would feel gratified that a box existed with their estimation of what such a device should contain. While it still fails to sell well because it offers nothing aside from a generic gaming experience with some Nintendo exclusives and the same multiplatform games everyone else has. So there's no real reason for anyone other than the hardest core Nintendo fans, who only desire a particular flavor of gaming, to buy it.

Nintendo made the Wii because it seems clear the Gamecube strategy doesn't work. Nintendo lost a lock on the game market in two ways: 1. Not going CD-ROM for N64, and 2. Sony getting serious about breaking into the market. A company with far more resources than Sega, or previous game-centric competition. The Gamecube was, by and large, Nintendo doing what fans of the day would have complained they should have: just make a generic game box like everyone else with no "stupid stuff". I.e. anything different than what the other guys were doing. While the custom media for the GC hurt 3rd party ports, I actually don't think it's the reason the GC didn't go anywhere.

The problem Nintendo faces today is that they have no choice but to be "different" and offer something more than a copy of what everyone else is doing. When it comes to Nintendo, when you say "Nintendo focusing on power would be good for consumers", it unfortunately really means "It would be good for a limited number of Nintendo fans who want to play Nintendo games on a console like the Playstation or Xbox." That's fine but I don't think it really solves much for Nintendo.

And doesn't even get into the issue of why it's pointless to have 3 platforms that are basically generic copies of one another all fighting in the same bloody kiddie pool.

^Could not have said it better myself. Once again I will own all three of the systems for the exclusive content that can only be found on each one.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Third parties need Nintendo more than Nintendo needs third parties.

 

[Osiris]

Third parties need Nintendo more than Nintendo needs third parties.

Yeah... No.

Without 3rd parties Nintendo would end up as one of them themselves.

It's 2012, no way on earth they could survive having a platform on 1st party output alone.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Yeah... No.

Actually Nintendo makes tons of money with or without 3rd parties. Of course not having 3rd parties hurts us fans, but don't think Nintendo cares either way.

On the other hand you have 3rd parties devs going bankrupt left and right.

Yeah... No.

Without 3rd parties Nintendo would end up as one of them themselves.

It's 2012, no way on earth they could survive having a platform on 1st party output alone.

How many times does Nintendo need to prove people wrong before people realize that they actually know what they are doing. If they can survive the ps2, ps1, 80's market crash, they can survive anything lol. ALso I love how no one seems to question Sony's future yet Nintendo is doomed. Shit Microsoft is not guaranteed anything at this point.

 

[DrWong]

Let's be honest here. While I do believe some of the negativity surrounding the Wii U launch is justified(i.e. laggy OS especially hard locks), most of what's being discussed won't circle outside of the hardcore forums. If someone is picking up a Wii U or not picking up a Wii U, it's not going to generally be because of what somebody on GAF said. It's word of mouth that is going to drive the system's success. Nintendo is taking a big risk here but word of mouth is what allowed Wii to become so successful in the first place. If it was up to others on NeoGaf(similar to the dislike and venom Wii U is getting now), Wii would never have taken off.

Worth a quote.

I do have a problem with the notion that "Nintendo doesn't take hardware seriously", because it seems rather myopic. Nintendo takes a lot of things seriously; like the rather elaborate engineering that went into the gamepad on the Wii U. The problem people have is that Nintendo doesn't take the same things as top priorities that some would prefer.

Which leads back to the problem of wanting Nintendo to "fail" so that they effectively make the Gamecube II, which would accomplish what, exactly? Hardcore people would feel gratified that a box existed with their estimation of what such a device should contain. While it still fails to sell well because it offers nothing aside from a generic gaming experience with some Nintendo exclusives and the same multiplatform games everyone else has. So there's no real reason for anyone other than the hardest core Nintendo fans, who only desire a particular flavor of gaming, to buy it.

Nintendo made the Wii because it seems clear the Gamecube strategy doesn't work. Nintendo lost a lock on the game market in two ways: 1. Not going CD-ROM for N64, and 2. Sony getting serious about breaking into the market. A company with far more resources than Sega, or previous game-centric competition. The Gamecube was, by and large, Nintendo doing what fans of the day would have complained they should have: just make a generic game box like everyone else with no "stupid stuff". I.e. anything different than what the other guys were doing. While the custom media for the GC hurt 3rd party ports, I actually don't think it's the reason the GC didn't go anywhere.

The problem Nintendo faces today is that they have no choice but to be "different" and offer something more than a copy of what everyone else is doing. When it comes to Nintendo, when you say "Nintendo focusing on power would be good for consumers", it unfortunately really means "It would be good for a limited number of Nintendo fans who want to play Nintendo games on a console like the Playstation or Xbox." That's fine but I don't think it really solves much for Nintendo.

And doesn't even get into the issue of why it's pointless to have 3 platforms that are basically generic copies of one another all fighting in the same bloody kiddie pool.

Well said.

 

[Raistlin]

How many times does Nintendo need to prove people wrong before people realize that they actually know what they are doing. If they can survive the ps2, ps1, 80's market crash, they can survive anything lol. ALso I love how no one seems to question Sony's future yet Nintendo is doomed. Shit Microsoft is not guaranteed anything at this point.

The market has changed and evolved quite a bit since then.

I'm not necessarily stating they're doomed, but I don't think you can make a ton of assumptions based on prior generations.

If anything, you can look at the recent past to see signs of where their problems revolve.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

I admittedly worded the post badly, but I'm more worried for Nintendo's sake than gaming in general.

I feel Nintendo needs third party support, but they once again won't be getting that this time around.

It will sadly take a failing system for them to realise this.

1. You don't know what kind of support they will or will not be getting.

2. The Wii has shown that they actually don't need 3rd party support. They missed out on almost all of the major third party releases this gen, and the Wii was still a success.

3. As has been said Nintendo could take a 720 and slap Nintendo on it, and it seems like 3rd parties would still find reasons not to bring their titles to it.

4. Last time Nintendo had parity in the sense of hardware power was the Gamecube. 3rd parties released 6 - 12 month late ports, ignored it, or just made excuses. It came in 3rd world wide, the general gaming public ignored the amazing awesome titles on it.

So you want the business plan that has worked for them to fail, so that they can repeat the business plan that failed them.

 

[Xun]

1. You don't know what kind of support they will or will not be getting.

2. The Wii has shown that they actually don't need 3rd party support.

3. As has been said Nintendo could take a 720 and slap Nintendo on it, and it seems like 3rd parties would still find reasons not to bring their titles to it.

4. Last time Nintendo had parity in the sense of hardware power was the Gamecube. 3rd parties released 6 - 12 month late ports, ignored it, or just made excuses. It came in 3rd world wide, the general gaming public ignored the amazing awesome titles on it.

So you want the business plan that has worked for them to fail, so that they can repeat the business plan that failed them.

No I don't, but I'm basing this entirely off of what happened to the Wii.

I'm not saying I wanted them to go for the GameCube route again, but I'd have liked to see them go for something different this time around. They didn't need to compete on a power level like Sony or Microsoft, but they still should've delivered something that was still a moderate upgrade over the current-gen to entice more support in.

 

[z0m3le]

No I don't, but I'm basing this entirely off of what happened to the Wii.

I'm not saying I wanted them to go for the Gamecube route again, but I'd have liked to see them go for something different this time around. They didn't need to compete on a power level like Sony or Microsoft, but they still should've delivered something that was still a moderate upgrade over the current-gen to entice more support in.

They did, it's called a Wii U, releasing 360 ports superior to PS3's versions made on unfinished hardware.

Wii U is > 360/PS3, by how much is unclear, but it's obviously able to pull off what those consoles can do with slower ram and a lower clocked cpu (at least that is the word going around) So there you go, Nintendo listened to you.

 

[Xun]

They did, it's called a Wii U, releasing 360 ports superior to PS3's versions made on unfinished hardware.

Wii U is > 360/PS3, by how much is unclear, but it's obviously able to pull off what those consoles can do with slower ram and a lower clocked cpu (at least that is the word going around) So there you go, Nintendo listened to you.

I'm still not convinced.

 

[Meelow]

Actually Nintendo makes tons of money with or without 3rd parties. Of course not having 3rd parties hurts us fans, but don't think Nintendo cares either way.

On the other hand you have 3rd parties devs going bankrupt left and right.




How many times does Nintendo need to prove people wrong before people realize that they actually know what they are doing. If they can survive the ps2, ps1, 80's market crash, they can survive anything lol. ALso I love how no one seems to question Sony's future yet Nintendo is doomed. Shit Microsoft is not guaranteed anything at this point.

The Wii lacked a lot of support in it's last 2 years, I don't think Nintendo wants another GameCube type sales.

 

[Luigison]

It's obvious from the work people have done comparing the systems that the Wii U doesn't perform as well as the 360, but in the side by side videos I noticed several spots that I thought the Wii U version looked as good or better. Is it possible that the Wii U could fail performance wise, but still look better? Or am I missing something?

Full disclosure, I don't have a Wii U or 360 and am not a typical FPS gamer.

 

[gamergirly]

We have no idea how much better <insert console here> will eventually look.
Does that mean we can't judge based on the present?

Not the final graphics of the console, certainly. Games will most assuredly look better on Wii U than 360 and PS3 as time goes by. At that point, 360 and PS3 comparisons will fade as 720 and PS4 comparisons take over