Support NeoGAF

[Turrican3]

Now that Nintendo announced a game that comes out 10 months later are we finally done with the stupidity that they hold secret many major Wii U announcements (just because)?

I believe they are trying to counter Microsoft/Sony E3 nextgen blowout by keeping every major first/second party announcements on hold until then.

Makes sense to me, considering we're still in the early months of the console's lifecycle where buyers are typically hardcore fans/early adopters, and most price-sensitive buyers are waiting for a bigger lineup (and possibly less expensive hardware).

I mean, what can Nintendo actually gain by announcing all of their fall big guns now, and having an "empty" show at E3 against PS/Xbox next?

 

[pieatorium]

I believe they are trying to counter Microsoft/Sony E3 nextgen blowout by keeping every major first/second party announcements on hold until then.

Makes sense to me, considering we're still in the early months of the console's lifecycle where buyers are typically hardcore fans/early adopters, and most price-sensitive buyers are waiting for a bigger lineup (and possibly less expensive hardware).

I mean, what can Nintendo actually gain by announcing all of their fall big guns now, and having an "empty" show at E3 against PS/Xbox next?

I'm pretty sure he is talking about q1 and q2 games, it's often brought up that sometimes Nintendo annouces games only a couple of months before release.

 

[wsippel]

Now that Nintendo announced a game that comes out 10 months later are we finally done with the stupidity that they hold secret many major Wii U announcements (just because)?

We're not, because that's actually what they do. Iwata even said as much. "Early" announcements like Pokémon X & Y or SSB Next are exceptions, not the rule.

 

[metalslimer]

We're not, because that's actually what they do. Iwata even said as much. "Early" announcements like Pokémon X & Y or SSB Next are exceptions, not the rule.

Iwata says a lot of things. Like he would ever admit right now that their lineup is going to have some huge holes. Also unless there is a pricedrop, I don't see how people expect Vita to sell anywhere near 20k a week. Phantasy Star is not going to put up any signficant numbers. Sony's best chances right now are the Tales of Hearts remake which based on the ToI remake isn't going to do much and Soul Sacrifice and I've yet to be convinced that Soul Sacrifce will be anything more than niche.

 

[donny2112]

Like he would ever admit right now that their lineup is going to have some huge holes.

Every lineup has huge holes, so they could announce everything from PS3 is coming to Wii U, and it'd still be possible to say the lineup has huge holes. Terrible metric to go by there.

Edit:
Wii U's currently dated lineup is paltry. That doesn't mean that their long-stated intention of not announcing games until pretty close to their release is suddenly null and void. 3DSXL was announced post-E3 in a Nintendo Direct ~1 month before it came out in Japan. Project X Zone was announced ~7 months before it came out. Doesn't mean that they'll announce anything for the next three months in Japan, but it also doesn't negate their announcement policy.

 

[metalslimer]

Every lineup has huge holes, so they could announce everything from PS3 is coming to Wii U, and it'd still be possible to say the lineup has huge holes. Terrible metric to go by there.

True, probably bad wording. Iwata would not admit right now that the current lineup for Wii u is all/most of what you're going to see because it would be admitting that 3rd party support is abysmal. For example, it wasn't until after the 3DS underperformed at launch that Nintendo retroactively admitted the lineup was less than stellar. They will let sales play out and see where it goes before making a statement on it. Lineups are all relative to their sales performance anyway.

 

[donny2112]

Iwata would not admit right now that the current lineup for Wii u is all/most of what you're going to see

Yeah, it'd be an admittal by absence of talk. If they have a Nintendo Direct talking about the next few months for Wii U and don't mention anything new from third-parties. That'd be the only admission they'd probably give at this point.

 

[electroplankton]

Yeah, that too. It seems that Vita is being used as the main comparison to the Wii U, i guess that can be a bit telling as well, showing that both systems are in a though situation even if it isnt 1:1 exactly the same regarding sales numbers.

I have no idea about Dreamcast and Wonderswan software sales unfortunately.

I think the comparison come out from the fact that last year many people refused to admit the platform was selling like shit, and they always postponed its death by saying that game X or game Y would have saved it.

 

[BriBri]

I wouldn't be surprised if they (at least indirectly) admitted weak 3rd party support after it's become obvious Wii U is horribly underperforming. Without a huge success like Wii it's hard to neglect the elephant in the room.

Horribly under performing? Is this a UK sales thread?

 

[metalslimer]

Horribly under performing? Is this a UK sales thread?

In the future that is, meaning there's no way they would say anything now. Of course Iwata will probably have to address those European sales at the next investors meeting.

 

[BriBri]

In the future that is, meaning there's no way they would say anything now. Of course Iwata will probably have to address those European sales at the next investors meeting.

So it's not horribly under performing now but will be under performing? No maybes.

 

[metalslimer]

So it's not horribly under performing now but will be under performing? No maybes.

Based off the current lineup? Yes, but then again we will have to see what Nintendo expects from the Wii U in the next FY.

 

[Nirolak]

In the future that is, meaning there's no way they would say anything now. Of course Iwata will probably have to address those European sales at the next investors meeting.

So it's not horribly under performing now but will be under performing? No maybes.

So far the hardware sales in the US and for the most part Japan have been fine.

It's mostly the upcoming Media-Create weeks (and perhaps today with the December NPD) that are in question, since we're going to be passing by the holiday season on and the initial launch rush.

In about 1-2 months we should have a very clear picture, but yeah, most of this is speculation right now, which is half the point of these threads (the other half being analysis).

 

[electroplankton]

In the future that is, meaning there's no way they would say anything now. Of course Iwata will probably have to address those European sales at the next investors meeting.

And if it could manage to sell 25-30k without games?

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

Vita - 33,309

I know I am way late on this, but I have never seen this gif and just bursted out laughing. You won the internet, good job.

 

[BriBri]

So far the hardware sales in the US and for the most part Japan have been fine.

It's mostly the upcoming Media-Create weeks (and perhaps today with the December NPD) that are in question, since we're going to be passing by the holiday season on and the initial launch rush.

In about 1-2 months we should have a very clear picture, but yeah, most of this is speculation right now, which is half the point of these threads (the other half being analysis).

I don't disagree with anything you say, I merely wanted to point out that it isn't under performing, nor will definitively under perform, so speculation should be labeled as such.

I'm almost inclined to go with the theory that Nintendo are reserving the big announcements to combat the PS4 and Xbox720 announcements, although whether they achieve the balance between announcing enough to please the consumer/potential consumer or not enough (as is the issue now) is questionable.

 

[AzaK]

Yeah, soaps can get so dramatic at times

love it

Good Wii U sales GIF.

 

[test_account]

I think the comparison come out from the fact that last year many people refused to admit the platform was selling like shit, and they always postponed its death by saying that game X or game Y would have saved it.

That could be a reason too indeed. There seems to be several parallels between the Vita and the WiiU.

 

[saichi]

Probably because those 4 titles might not be much of a system seller. I guess that is where the comparsion is.

Wii Fit U alone is bigger than any game announced on VITA. and that's not including NSMBU and NintendoLand. Unless I misunderstood what VITA'd means, you and others are saying that bigger games on Wii U would not prevent Wii U sale number go down to VITA level.

 

[Road]

Well, the Vita is also kind of an incredibly low bar.

Like, correct me if I'm wrong, but both the Dreamcast and Wonderswan did better than it software wise so far, no?

Dreamcast, yes, WonderSwan, not really, but that's what the Vita is currently closer to:

 

[BriBri]

However it doesn't seem to outrageous right now to speculate that it'll inevitably drop quite a bit in the upcoming months and that it's going to stay quite a bit below their expectations.

Again, my issue isn't with speculation in itself, but speculating objectively. Distinctions need to be clear between what is and isn't speculation.

Back to the thread, does anyone expect a 3DS Lite/Mini to see release this year to replace the original model? I guess this could coincide greatly with the new Pokémon (smaller machine for a game played by many smaller hands).

 

[stilgar]

Dreamcast, yes, WonderSwan, not really, but that's what the Vita is currently closer to:

My god. I didn't realize it was THIS bad.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

Again, my issue isn't with speculation in itself, but speculating objectively. Distinctions need to be clear between what is and isn't speculation.

Back to the thread, does anyone expect a 3DS Lite/Mini to see release this year to replace the original model? I guess this could coincide greatly with the new Pokémon (smaller machine for a game played by many smaller hands).

I don't feasibly see them making a smaller version of the 3DS since it's only a very slight bit bigger than the DS Lite unless they decide to make a GB Micro like device and make the screens dramatically smaller.

 

[BriBri]

I don't feasibly see them making a smaller version of the 3DS since it's only a very slight bit bigger than the DS Lite unless they decide to make a GB Micro like device and make the screens dramatically smaller.

A GB Micro like 3DS would be amazing! However I doubt they'd do is (unfortunately, the Micros sales were relatively poor) but I would expect the cheaper build etc (and less fingerprinty!) plastic of the LL/XL to be used on a new Lite/Mini model and increase the profit margin on units sold.

 

[Kazerei]

Dreamcast, yes, WonderSwan, not really, but that's what the Vita is currently closer to:

Thanks. Dreamcast had a great tie ratio.

 

[test_account]

Wii Fit U alone is bigger than any game announced on VITA. and that's not including NSMBU and NintendoLand. Unless I misunderstood what VITA'd means, you and others are saying that bigger games on Wii U would not prevent Wii U sale number go down to VITA level.

I didnt say that, i just guessed what the other people ment. But yeah, i guess that it means that those 4 titles wont result in that the WiiU from getting big hardware sales boost. WiiFitU is a wild card, so i will not say much about how it will preform. I think it will do less than WiiFit/Plus, but other than that i dont know.

 

[Orgen]

I finished (or as close as you can get to that for a multiplayer title) 16-18 games this year despite two of them taking about 500 hours combined (Dota 2 and Guild Wars 2), and having a full time job.

Played quite a few more than that too that I didn't finish or play extensively enough to count on the online front.

When the moderators were comparing, I'm on the low end, even notably less than someone who tends to work 10-12 hour days including commutes and primarily games on the weekend.

Of course, I play on way more than one platform, but I could understand why people with one platform would have a significant problem with Nintendo's output, especially if they're younger and have even more free time.

When you consider that quite a few of Nintendo's titles aren't things that you can play indefinitely, that also helps add to the problem.

To give an example of how you can wrack up a lot of time, averaging 2 hours of video games a day gives you 712 hours to work with, and many games are only 6-10 hours to begin with. You could finish 89 eight hour games this way.

I was referring only to the first party issue. How many of your beaten games were first party? I'd say that the hardcore gamers (hate this name, but I hope you understand what I'm saying) tend to own more than one platform, so I don't think anyone who wants to buy 20 games per year is going to own only one platform. Everyone knows that Nintendo consoles are not the best candidates to get most of the third party titles available, but they'll get Mario, Zelda and the others. And it's here where I don't see any problem with the pacing of the releases for now.

Regarding the third party issue Nintendo did a good job getting third-party support for launch (they got the 3 biggest third party titles of the year if I'm not mistaken (blops 2, FIFA 2013 and assassin's creed 3)) but they didn't seem to plan anything besides the launch so we're looking now at a barren scenario. The big games (gta, bioshock, dead space...) have no Wii U version announced (and probably will never have) but now it's the time to talk again with activision, ea, ubisoft... And make sure that their big fall hits (call of duty, battlefield/Fifa and next assassin's creed) get a Wii U version. We'll see if Nintendo is doing its homework.

Diversity is the major issue here. People generally just don't buy things that don't interest them so the fewer games and genres represented the less people buy in and the more likely people look elsewhere for what interests them.

Also that last sentance is pretty silly.

For Japan they have a platform game (rayman), strategy (pikmin), minigame collection (wario), adventure/sandbox (Lego city), fitness casual (wii fit U) and adventure (wonderful 101) for the next months. I'd say that's a diverse line up but it's not a FPS, MMO, sports games, action game and a third person shooter, that's for sure. I don't think diversity is the issue but the lack of others genres not suited to Nintendo.

And the last sentence could be silly but is not far from the truth.

It's not about having 20 first party games that I buy. Because people won't be interested in all of them. Out of say 20, I might only care about say 10 of them which is okay. But out of say 6, I'll only care about 3 which isn't enough.

Not everyone will want to buy every game. It's about providing more options.

As I've said above the problem is not the output but the preferences. It's highly unlikely that we see a FPS, MMO, dance, action or sandbox game made by Nintendo, so they try (for better or worse) to publish other titles like wonderful 101, bayonetta 2 and Lego city to fill this holes. Now, would you prefer if Nintendo published the next Bioshock, Fallout and Red Dead games?

 

[metalslimer]

Wii Fit U alone is bigger than any game announced on VITA. and that's not including NSMBU and NintendoLand. Unless I misunderstood what VITA'd means, you and others are saying that bigger games on Wii U would not prevent Wii U sale number go down to VITA level.

I don't think it will be "Vita'd" as in drop and stay at sub 10k, but I think sub 20k is easily possible and also likely. Also, you know the Japanese market is very sensitive to barren lineups even when there are huge games dispersed in there. Despite the Wii having games that are bigger than anything on Vita it spent the majority of last year below 10k. So in terms of hardware, at its very worst sub 10k is possible (the PS3 certainly went there), but in terms of software obviously the Wii U is in a much better position.

 

[Nirolak]

I was referring only to the first party issue. How many of your beaten games were first party? I'd say that the hardcore gamers (hate this name, but I hope you understand what I'm saying) tend to own more than one platform, so I don't think anyone who wants to buy 20 games per year is going to own only one platform. Everyone knows that Nintendo consoles are not the best candidates to get most of the third party titles available, but they'll get Mario, Zelda and the others. And it's here where I don't see any problem with the pacing of the releases for now.

Regarding the third party issue Nintendo did a good job getting third-party support for launch (they got the 3 biggest third party titles of the year if I'm not mistaken (blops 2, FIFA 2013 and assassin's creed 3)) but they didn't seem to plan anything besides the launch so we're looking now at a barren scenario. The big games (gta, bioshock, dead space...) have no Wii U version announced (and probably will never have) but now it's the time to talk again with activision, ea, ubisoft... And make sure that their big fall hits (call of duty, battlefield/Fifa and next assassin's creed) get a Wii U version. We'll see if Nintendo is doing its homework.

The bolded is the core of Nintendo's issue though, right?

If core gamers are only really buying a Nintendo system to play Nintendo games, and treat other devices as their primary gaming machines, then why would they pick up the Wii U versions of third party core games?

They're already heavily invested in another platform. If multiplayer is of interest to them, then presumably all their friends are on that platform as well.

Then, if the core audience for these third party ports isn't buying them in significant number, there's no point in third parties making them, and thus they don't go out of their way to develop them, which further reinforces the notion that Nintendo consoles are only for Nintendo games.

Either Nintendo needs to make and release games that keep the core audience constantly using the Wii U, or they need every third party game available (presumably through notable monetary incentives since many publishers are assuming it's not worth their while otherwise) so at least a core consumer has the option of making it their primary game machine.

As soon a drought sets it, it just sends people right back to their other machines instead of getting more invested in the Wii U. That's the biggest problem with having them in general.

To tie this more to Japan, if I was thinking about buying a Wii U, looked at upcoming console games, and decided what I really wanted to play was One Piece Musou 2, Dynasty Warriors 7, Lightning Returns, Dark Souls 2, and Metal Gear Solid V, my only option would be to just keep using my PS3, since as it stands none of those are actually on the platform I was thinking about getting. If that was the case, it's very plausible that I would just decide to stick with my PS3 and not bother picking up a Wii U until it had what I really wanted. If the Wii U had all of those games on the other hand, it would probably seem a lot more attractive than it does right now.

So I ultimately feel that they either need to A.) greatly increase first party output both in volume and variety to substitute third party support or B.) nail down across the board third party support to achieve what they seem to want to achieve (a system for Nintendo, "casual", and "core" audiences).

 

[metalslimer]

Isn't the point of a business to continually try and expand your market/make more profits. Nintendo throwing their hands in the air and giving up on 3rd parties and having huge droughts in their lineup eventually is going to create consumer distrust in their product. We saw how badly the Wii died when the release schedule dried up. Nintendo isn't doing themselves any favors here. I can imagine Iwata would be literally ejected from Nintendo's building if he went to the board and said they were leaving billions of dollars on the table in software royalties. "Everyone knows" creates a self fufilling prophecy that if Nintendo has given up on 3rd party support and with it having a stable release schedule than they are the cause of it.

 

[extralite]

Nintendo throwing their hands in the air and giving up on 3rd parties and having huge droughts in their lineup eventually is going to create consumer distrust in their product.

Can you elaborate on how Nintendo is giving up on 3rd parties?

 

[Anth0ny]

Dreamcast, yes, WonderSwan, not really, but that's what the Vita is currently closer to:

how much longer til vita is dead at this rate? jesus.

 

[Nekki]

Can you elaborate on how Nintendo is giving up on 3rd parties?

He isn't saying they're doing it, just mentioning what would happen if they did. I don't think they'll give up on that front, even if they never get any significant support.

 

[AOC83]

Can you elaborate on how Nintendo is giving up on 3rd parties?

They don´t try to create an environment in which third parties can sell their games.

 

[AOC83]

how much longer til vita is dead at this rate? jesus.

It already is.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

They don´t try to create an environment in which third parties can sell their games.

They don't? How exactly?

 

[AOC83]

They don't? How exactly?

No.
1. Considerably worse online experience than on the other consoles.
2. No exclusive high quality core titles.
3. Crappy hardware.

 

[Nekki]

They don't? How exactly?

People argue that not having competitive online infrastructure, and possibly hardware power, are detrimental to enticing third parties to develop for your machine.

I would argue about the hardware power, but the infrastructure... we don't really know the full extent of its capabilities for now.

And there are many things which we just can't know. They surely approach third parties, but how do they try to convince them? By offering localization, helping in the porting process, just what is enough to convince other companies? We can only speculate here sadly.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

No.
1. Considerably worse online experience than on the other consoles.
2. No exclusive high quality core titles.
3. Crappy hardware.

But none of these 3 things is particularly true, even at Wii U launch. Online experience is comparable, hardware is competitive, and if Nintendo had launched with Zelda/Metroid/F-Zero/Starfox/FE/etc/etc, I doubt many would see that as "creating an environment in which third parties can sell their games" or whatever.

 

[extralite]

He isn't saying they're doing it, just mentioning what would happen if they did. I don't think they'll give up on that front, even if they never get any significant support.

That's a later sentence and expresses a different notion, openly saying something. The part I quoted isn't in any way accentuated as a hypothesis, it is stated as real.

3rd party support is lacking, true. But what Nintendo are doing about it, for the most part we don't know. They failed to make a hardware that can just grab the same multiplatform titles as other established or upcoming platforms. That's already a lost opportunity, but that wouldn't be giving up but having already given up.

We don't know if they're money hatting, but going by past examples this wouldn't do much good anyway. They're giving incentives and work with 3rd parties to create better games. This has proven to have limited success, but at least it's something.

They may be courting 3rd parties heavily, they may be even getting many titles in the future we don't know about. The point is, we don't know. Even if they are, they might be not getting any games or if they do they might not sell in the end. Which is why 3rd parties are so cautious.

Unless metalslimer has inside info, I don't know how he can claim that Nintendo is giving up on 3rd party support. But I do think that many 3rd parties have given up on Wii a long time ago though, for the same (partially self fulfilling) bias towards Nintendo and their audience. Even if the Wii gets something, like a new FF game, it's always a fallback on old stereotypes, like chibi designs or on-rails games for people who think 3D is too complicated.

Edit: Added some text in the last paragraph.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Unless metalslimer has inside info, I don't know how he can claim that Nintendo is giving up on 3rd party support.

I don't think he is claiming that. I read the whole paragraph as building to what a clusterfuck it would be, but not definitively stating that it's what Nintendo's doing.

 

[Pancakes R Us]

So I ultimately feel that they either need to A.) greatly increase first party output both in volume and variety to substitute third party support or B.) nail down across the board third party support to achieve what they seem to want to achieve (a system for Nintendo, "casual", and "core" audiences).

IMO, A is the only solution here. I just don't think they can reach a good place with the third party situation, for a variety of reasons:

- For their last few consoles, a large number of the 'core' gamers that bought the system bought it for Nintendo games. These people don't invest much in other games. It just seems to be part and parcel with a large part of the core audience that owns Nintendo consoles

- Power. This is a big issue. Nintendo just won't be classed as important when the much more powerful successors to PS360 are released. I know I'm making an assumption here, but I expect to see a significant difference between Wii U and what Sony / Microsoft will be released. As a result, Nintendo is a non-player. It can say core/casual combination all it wants, but that audience the company claims it wants to grab just won't be interested.

- As much as Nintendo claims it wants the best of both worlds, it is extremely good at alienating people and being behind the times. Why are digital purchases still tied to the machine instead of an account? Why is opening / closing apps and switching between things in the OS slow? Consumers these days have so many electronic devices. They expect things fast. Now there is a hardcore Nintendo fanboy base that will overlook these things (and pretty much any fault of Nintendo's) because they are so invested in Nintendo as a brand / platform / whatever. For those people that aren't though, it leaves a bad impression. Little things add up, and you slowly start losing people. Especially the people that owned your platform for the great games, but will happily move to another because they're not invested in system wars or don't have enough nostalgia holding them back.

So what's going to happen to Wii U? I think it'll do alright. It'll sell to the usual core Nintendo base as always, but I think that specific base is going to be smaller in size than it was for Wii. Leave your system to die for the last year or two of its life a few too many times, and the shit will hit the fan eventually.

I'm not sure what to call them, but there's this based of 'super' core Nintendo fans. Love Nintendo games, own most of the first party titles and own lots of systems. Whilst they love Nintendo's stuff, they also want third parties to invest like the other systems in the platform, because they'd like to own just the one console (and want Nintendo to be the superpower it once was). Unfortunately for them, it's just not going to happen for some of the reasons above, and the fact that Nintendo likes to ignore industry trends often to do things its own way (it may sound a bit hard, but please get over it). Personally, I think it's a good thing. I don't to have another generation where one manufacturer holds all the cards ever again.

 

[anon_mastermind]

But none of these 3 things is particularly true, even at Wii U launch. Online experience is comparable, hardware is competitive, and if Nintendo had launched with Zelda/Metroid/F-Zero/Starfox/FE/etc/etc, I doubt many would see that as "creating an environment in which third parties can sell their games" or whatever.

Online is even better in some ways, e.g. Miiverse. I've chatted with the developers of some indie games in the communities.

 

[AOC83]

But none of these 3 things is particularly true, even at Wii U launch. Online experience is comparable, hardware is competitive, and if Nintendo had launched with Zelda/Metroid/F-Zero/Starfox/FE/etc/etc, I doubt many would see that as "creating an environment in which third parties can sell their games" or whatever.

Ok let me go into detail:

1. Online: No achievements, Account bound to console (lol). Just to name the 2 worst offenders.

2. Software: NSMBU, which looks like it could´ve been made on a level generator. Resolution aside you need a microscope to tell any differences to the Wii version.

Nintendoland, minigamecrap.

ZombiU, mediocre low budget zombie flick with extremely repetitive gameplay and graphics that wouldn´t even impress anybody if you traveled back in time to 2008.

Add ports that look worse than on 7 year old hardware.

3. Hardware: 2008 low end gpu garnished with the most ridiculous bottlenecks in the history of console gaming. Wouldn´t have imagined this in my worst nightmares.

 

[AOC83]

Online is even better in some ways, e.g. Miiverse. I've chatted with the developers of some indie games in the communities.

That´s nice and all but core gamers buy a console to, you know, actually play games and not to engage on a poor mans facebook and talk about the nonexistant software support.

 

[Mpl90]

Ok let me go into detail:

1. Online: No achievements, Account bound to console (lol). Just to name the 2 worst offenders.

2. Software: NSMBU, which looks like it could´ve been made on a level generator. Resolution aside you need a microscope to tell any differences to the Wii version.

Nintendoland, minigamecrap.

ZombiU, mediocre low budget zombie flick with extremely repetitive gameplay and graphics that wouldn´t even impress anybody if you traveled back in time to 2008.

Add ports that look worse than on 7 year old hardware.

3. Hardware: 2008 low end gpu garnished with the most ridiculous bottlenecks in the history of console gaming. Wouldn´t have imagined this in my worst nightmares.

Is it just me or your opinions on the Wii U titles you've mentioned are so superficial / hating for the hell of it?

 

[Nekki]

Ok let me go into detail:

1. Online: No achievements, Account bound to console (lol). Just to name the 2 worst offenders.

2. Software: NSMBU, which looks like it could´ve been made on a level generator. Resolution aside you need a microscope to tell any differences to the Wii version.

Nintendoland, minigamecrap.

ZombiU, mediocre low budget zombie flick with extremely repetitive gameplay and graphics that wouldn´t even impress anybody if you traveled back in time to 2008.

Add ports that look worse than on 7 year old hardware.

3. Hardware: 2008 low end gpu garnished with the most ridiculous bottlenecks in the history of console gaming. Wouldn´t have imagined this in my worst nightmares.

Even if I agree with some of these, the amount of bias that permeates through this post makes me unable to take you seriously, lol.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

But none of these 3 things is particularly true, even at Wii U launch. Online experience is comparable, hardware is competitive, and if Nintendo had launched with Zelda/Metroid/F-Zero/Starfox/FE/etc/etc, I doubt many would see that as "creating an environment in which third parties can sell their games" or whatever.

Hardware is competitive? LOL. I think Nintendo places to much emphasis in a family friendly image(lol at wii u and 3ds ui). People might think I'm crazy but I think that definitely keeps core third party titles off of the system. Did zombieu even chart? I think Nintendo should have just made the Upad optional(but highly encourage developers to support it) and made a decent console. Nothing to fancy but nothing weak like wii u. That could have just put a i3/i5/whatever the hell CPUs AMD makes equivalent and one of those new nvidia/amd laptop GPUs that could easily compete with whatever the hell is in orbis/nextbox. It would have used regular x86 architecture so porting things probably would have been a blast. Even if Nintendo uses a low tier i3 it's still probably much stronger than whatever is in the wii u now. 1gb of gddr5 and 3gb of ddr3 ram. Wii u would would have been better than ps3/360 in every conceivable way(without exactly breaking the bank too) . Imagine Nintendo having a true next gen a year or two before Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo always tries to think outside the box and that isn't always a good thing imo.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Ok let me go into detail:

1. Online: No achievements, Account bound to console (lol). Just to name the 2 worst offenders.

2. Software: NSMBU, which looks like it could´ve been made on a level generator. Resolution aside you need a microscope to tell any differences to the Wii version.

Nintendoland, minigamecrap.

ZombiU, mediocre low budget zombie flick with extremely repetitive gameplay and graphics that wouldn´t even impress anybody if you traveled back in time to 2008.

Add ports that look worse than on 7 year old hardware.

3. Hardware: 2008 low end gpu garnished with the most ridiculous bottlenecks in the history of console gaming. Wouldn´t have imagined this in my worst nightmares.

Right, so nothing that has any real impact on "creating an environment in which third parties can sell their games". Let me know when you've dug deeper and come up with something relevant.

 

[liger05]

Ok let me go into detail:

1. Online: No achievements, Account bound to console (lol). Just to name the 2 worst offenders.

2. Software: NSMBU, which looks like it could´ve been made on a level generator. Resolution aside you need a microscope to tell any differences to the Wii version.

Nintendoland, minigamecrap.

ZombiU, mediocre low budget zombie flick with extremely repetitive gameplay and graphics that wouldn´t even impress anybody if you traveled back in time to 2008.

Add ports that look worse than on 7 year old hardware.

3. Hardware: 2008 low end gpu garnished with the most ridiculous bottlenecks in the history of console gaming. Wouldn´t have imagined this in my worst nightmares.

I understand criticisms but dude stop hating