Support NeoGAF

[Gormless Noodle]

Quality over quantity. Most of those Nintendo games have become routine at this point. They have reached Madden Status.

This. I've played 3D Land, New Super Mario Bros 2, Pilot Wings Resort and so on. None of them feel like true Nintendo games. None of them have that spark anymore. They indeed feel like routine jobs and when I look at what's coming for Wii U, that is what I see. Safe, boring and devoid of a true vision.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the Wii U doing even worse next year.

 

[StreetsAhead]

Again, it has nothing to so with yearly releases.

How was any one supposed to know that from your original post?

The only thing preventing them from releasing faster is Nintendo's size. If Nintendo was a bigger company, you can safely bet most of these games would come out each and every year.

That's an interesting leap in logic. Your evidence for it is?

 

[JoeM86]

Again, it has nothing to so with yearly releases.

The only thing preventing them from releasing faster is Nintendo's size. If Nintendo was a bigger company, you can safely bet most of these games would come out each and every year.

Ok, so let's do it based on Gameplay shall we, to prove it's not just "roster updates"

New Super Mario Bros U (Everywhere) - I'll give you this one, since not much has changed, but it is the pinnacle of 2D Mario games. The level design is second to none
NintendoLand (Everywhere) - Various ideas never included in any game before
Game & Wario (Everywhere) - Various ideas never included in any game before
Sing Party (America and Europe) - Karaoke...not really much to add to this
Lego City: Undercover (America and Europe) - A massive openworld made of Lego that you can build up and destroy. Uses GamePad in exclusive ways
Pokémon Rumble U (Japan) - Dozens of new mechanics plus the first Wii U game to use NFC

Pikmin 3: Implements new features such as controlling three characters at the same time.
Wonderful 101: Massive new IP with loads of features that are not possible on another console
The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker HD - It's a remake, yet it adds loads of cool features including an online message system
Wii Party U: New mini-games using various ideas never included in any game before
Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze: not too familiar with many of the mechanics here, but it's not that "roster update"-ish
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games: New mini-games based on the winter Olympics, plays different.
Super Mario 3D World: Four player co-op. Various new power-ups that change how you play a 3D Mario...unless you could climb up the side of walls before.
Wii Fit U: Offers various new exercises and comes with a pedometer that helps you track stuff more easily
Sonic Lost World (published by Nintendo in Europe): Features completely unique level design unseen in any Sonic game before

So, how are these just "incremental" updates?

 

[Ushae]

Unfortunately he's right. In the wake of PS4 and X1 launches Nintendo doesn't have a prayer ... yet. When those exclusives start rolling in they're back in the game. The way I feel right now is that most eyes are on MS and Sony because they're considerd next generation consoles, not to mention their huge 3rd party support. All the major pubs are backing these consoles first and foremost.

 

[family_guy]

I don't think third party support really matters at this point. You aren't going to buy a Wii U for those games. Nintendo will do just fine with supporting the system by themselves if they have to kind of like with Gamecube. No large sales numbers, but as long as they make profits that will be sufficient. However they absolutely have to do something about the price. The larger market that most of Nintendo's games would appeal to aren't buying it at $300-350.

 

[jblank83]

Quality over quantity. Most of those Nintendo games have become routine at this point. They have reached Madden Status.

Same thing can be said of every manufacturer. Halo had a ludicrous SIX games in its series, only one of which was a legit spinoff, last generation. God of War and Uncharted are quickly becoming near yearly franchises. In fact, I think God of War may actually qualify as such.

Every publisher has cash cows. Expecting Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo to dump a 10+ million seller is beyond ridiculous. A smaller publisher would kill for a series that sold that well. For instance, when Ubisoft hits it big with a series, they grind it into the dirt for all its worth, squeezing until every... last... drop... as with AssCreed, which will have had SIX completely carbon copy games after the release of IV, not even counting the numerous handheld iterations.

Meanwhile, Nintendo releases 2 NSMB games on both Wii U and 3DS and get burned at the stake for it.

That's also a disingenous criticism, as it doesn't take into account the more experimental or niche titles that Nintendo (and Sony) do put out, either directly or indrectly, like X, Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Pikmin 3, Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon, Pushmo/Crashmo, and so on. Those are titles that may only hit 1 million, nowhere near Mario's 20+. It would be like ignoring Pupetteer when looking at Sony's development efforts.

It's funny that on one hand Nintendo is criticized for doing things too differently and not rehashing enough (Mario 3D World =\= Galaxy, Game & Wario =\= Wario Ware) and for rehashing too much at the same time (Mario 3D World = NSMB [???], Mario Kart = Mario Kart). It would seem like, at some point, the cognitive dissonance has to break on the trolling.

There are a lot of people that only play console (me), if PS4 consisted of only Sony exclusives and a small smattering of 3rd party games, I wouldn't buy it.

People will defend Nintendo till the bitter end, but they deserve every bit of the hardships they're going through with the Wii U.

And people buy more than Nintendo games on Nintendo systems. The Wii sold over 500 million units of 3rd party software. I'm sure the criticism will be that it was all Just Dance, though.

Too bad no one bought genuine efforts like No More Heroes. That just proves how kiddy Nontendo is. If games like that were released on real systems, they would have done much better.

*looks at PS3/360*... hmm.

 

[R_thanatos]

Same thing can be said of every manufacturer. Halo had a ludicrous SIX games in its series, only one of which was a legit spinoff, last generation. God of War and Uncharted are quickly becoming near yearly franchises. In fact, I think God of War may actually qualify as such.

Every publisher has cash cows. Expecting Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo to dump a 10+ million seller is beyond ridiculous. A smaller publisher would kill for a series that sold that well. For instance, when Ubisoft hits it big with a series, they grind it into the dirt for all its worth, squeezing until every... last... drop... as with AssCreed, which will have had SIX completely carbon copy games after the release of IV, not even counting the numerous handheld iterations.

Meanwhile, Nintendo releases 2 NSMB games on both Wii U and 3DS and get burned at the stake for it.

That's also a disingenous criticism, as it doesn't take into account the more experimental or niche titles that Nintendo (and Sony) do put out, either directly or indrectly, like X, Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Pikmin 3, Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon, Pushmo/Crashmo, and so on. Those are titles that may only hit 1 million, nowhere near Mario's 20+. It would be like ignoring Pupetteer when looking at Sony's development efforts.

It's funny that on one hand Nintendo is criticized for doing things too differently and not rehashing enough (Mario 3D World =\= Galaxy, Game & Wario =\= Wario Ware) and for rehashing too much at the same time (Mario 3D World = NSMB [???], Mario Kart = Mario Kart). It would seem like, at some point, the cognitive dissonance has to break on the trolling.




And people buy more than Nintendo games on Nintendo systems. The Wii sold over 500 million units of 3rd party software. I'm sure the criticism will be that it was all Just Dance, though.

Too bad no one bought genuine efforts like No More Heroes. That just proves how kiddy Nontendo is. If games like that were released on real systems, they would have done much better.

*looks at PS3/360*... hmm.

I agree that everyone has cash cows ..but i disagree with your example , for example God of war 2 was 2007, 3 was 2010 , 4 was 2013 , hardly yearly releases

And the problem is not that "everyone does it" , the problem is that nintendo has no escuse for doing so. The main difference between AssCreed and NSMB if that Asscreed is continuing a story that ends on cliffangers..Players/regular people will tell you that they want to see the rest of the story, there is at least that added value .Nintendo focusing on gameplay as they claim make the difference between their games very little. It's like the "barbie with a hat" meme.

Now what happens with Asscreed is a problem, but they do get critics on that part ( see Creed 3 reactions ), so why shouldn't nintendo get critized too ?

Also, nintendo make new franchises , but they aren't alone ... sony made plenty of franchises , this gen ..so did microsoft , EA & Ubi ..
Nintendo isn't the only one taking risks ... isn't what sony did with heavy rain , even more risky ? What about journey ?

 

[amr]

Again, it has nothing to so with yearly releases.

The only thing preventing them from releasing faster is Nintendo's size. If Nintendo was a bigger company, you can safely bet most of these games would come out each and every year.

Mario Party came out every year until Mario Party 7 in 2005. Pokemon's missed only three years since 1998, and since 2009 it's missed none. When they want to, Nintendo is perfectly capable of putting out yearly updates.

And I agree with JoeM86, the only game on the list you quoted that's "become routine" is New Super Mario Bros., a series that appears once per Nintendo platform but has, I'll give you, not changed much since it debuted.

 

[dcx4610]

As someone who grew up with the NES and been a diehard Nintendo fan until they lost their minds, I agree with Patcher.

The problem is are people willing to pay $350 to play 1st party Nintendo games? There are still hardcore Nintendo fans out there but are there enough that are willing to buy the Wii U and keep Nintendo profitable?

Correct me if I'm wrong but these past two years are the first time in Nintendo's history that they have lost money for their fiscal year. Fast forward to 2014 and Nintendo has little to no 3rd party support, I just don't see things going well for them.

If I were Nintendo, I would quietly let the Wii U die much like the VirtualBoy and focus on the 3DS for the new few years. After that, you release a new Nintendo successor which replaces both the handheld line and console- A tablet that can be used a portable or docked to your TV as a console at home.

 

[diamount]

Bayonetta 2

That won't sell more than 500k copies.

 

[SmokyDave]

Lego City: Undercover (America and Europe) - A massive openworld made of Lego that you can build up and destroy. Uses GamePad in exclusive ways

Oh god, I wish that were true. Maybe with the next-gen consoles.

In reality, it's the same as every other LEGO game, but with a larger hub world. Very good game though, regardless.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Ok, so let's do it based on Gameplay shall we, to prove it's not just "roster updates"

New Super Mario Bros U (Everywhere) - I'll give you this one, since not much has changed, but it is the pinnacle of 2D Mario games. The level design is second to none
NintendoLand (Everywhere) - Various ideas never included in any game before
Game & Wario (Everywhere) - Various ideas never included in any game before
Sing Party (America and Europe) - Karaoke...not really much to add to this
Lego City: Undercover (America and Europe) - A massive openworld made of Lego that you can build up and destroy. Uses GamePad in exclusive ways
Pokémon Rumble U (Japan) - Dozens of new mechanics plus the first Wii U game to use NFC

Pikmin 3: Implements new features such as controlling three characters at the same time.
Wonderful 101: Massive new IP with loads of features that are not possible on another console
The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker HD - It's a remake, yet it adds loads of cool features including an online message system
Wii Party U: New mini-games using various ideas never included in any game before
Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze: not too familiar with many of the mechanics here, but it's not that "roster update"-ish
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games: New mini-games based on the winter Olympics, plays different.
Super Mario 3D World: Four player co-op. Various new power-ups that change how you play a 3D Mario...unless you could climb up the side of walls before.
Wii Fit U: Offers various new exercises and comes with a pedometer that helps you track stuff more easily
Sonic Lost World (published by Nintendo in Europe): Features completely unique level design unseen in any Sonic game before

So, how are these just "incremental" updates?

Yup, I've seen more offered in stand alone expansion packs for the PC. And, you know, those cost a reasonable penny as opposed to charging the full monty. But Nintendo isn't the only culprit in making the equivalent of an expansion pack and selling it at a full value. *stares down Ubisoft*

 

[Lordwindowlicker]

Because it has games that I want to play.

Most of those games are Nintendo owned, but still!
There are already some Wii U only gems out and in development, so who knows what the future will hold for this console.

 

[Lagaff]

I bought a wii u 3 days ago and it was for my kids and to play with them, as parent I like them to play Nintendo product i'm sure they wont see any blood etc..but other than that I don't see so far what would interest me on it

 

[casmith07]

As someone who grew up with the NES and been a diehard Nintendo fan until they lost their minds, I agree with Patcher.

The problem is are people willing to pay $350 to play 1st party Nintendo games? There are still hardcore Nintendo fans out there but are there enough that are willing to buy the Wii U and keep Nintendo profitable?

Correct me if I'm wrong but these past two years are the first time in Nintendo's history that they have lost money for their fiscal year. Fast forward to 2014 and Nintendo has little to no 3rd party support, I just don't see things going well for them.

If I were Nintendo, I would quietly let the Wii U die much like the VirtualBoy and focus on the 3DS for the new few years. After that, you release a new Nintendo successor which replaces both the handheld line and console- A tablet that can be used a portable or docked to your TV as a console at home.

As an "old head" Nintendo fan who was basically raised on an NES and SNES, yeah, I would pay $350 to play 1st party Nintendo games. The problem? Where are those games? Every other Nintendo console release had excellent first party games either available at launch or shortly thereafter (except maybe Wii -- took a while to get Mario Galaxy).

My brother has a launch Wii U and NSMBU. We've played and beaten it. It isn't worth spending $350 for. Why Nintendo didn't create their next epic 3D platforming Mario game to launch either with or soon after the Wii U is beyond me.

 

[amr]

The main difference between AssCreed and NSMB if that Asscreed is continuing a story that ends on cliffangers..Players/regular people will tell you that they want to see the rest of the story, there is at least that added value .Nintendo focusing on gameplay as they claim make the difference between their games very little. It's like the "barbie with a hat" meme.

I'd say it's the opposite. Rapid releases of story-driven games are way more insidious because not only do they require the writers to pad out the story, wasting your time, but they suggest that if you don't buy the sequel every year, you'll miss something, even if it's minor. No one wants to be out of touch with a story they love; they don't want to hear, "You don't know about that? Oh, that was explained in..." I'm sure everyone's had that experience, and it blows.

On the other hand, while all the New Super Mario Bros. games have been samey, Nintendo's put just one on each of their platforms, and if you're tired of them, there's nothing to them that's leading you on or pressuring you to keep updating.

 

[Subitai]

I have a friend who more or less has WiiU for Monster Hunter. He's put 300 hours in, so I guess for some it may be worth it for that.

Still, no EA sports will cut you out of the market for a lot of buyers. I have a cousin who bought a Wii for her son and daughter. Her son got the latest Madden or NCAA every other year.

 

[JoeM86]

Yup, I've seen more offered in stand alone expansion packs for the PC. And, you know, those cost a reasonable penny as opposed to charging the full monty. But Nintendo isn't the only culprit in making the equivalent of an expansion pack and selling it at a full value. *stares down Ubisoft*

Are you actually being serious? Because, if so, then every single company who has ever made a new game in an existing franchise has and that is ridiculous

 

[Uno Venova]

That's how I've felt about a lot of the Nintendo consoles, that's why I wait until they are really cheap and have good backlog, same with the Wii U.

If they day comes that they will match everyone in power and work on third party relations they could have a great console.

 

[diffusionx]

Nintendo needs a Kaz/Cerny type guy to pull them into the 21st century. There really is no reason why the Wii U hardware came out in the shape it did. The idea that the Wii U will live or die based on Nintendo games alone is madness. The idea that you get basically nothing but Nintendo games on Wii U is crazy.

What defines platforms today is not hardware but software. The iPhone and Galaxy S4 run on basically the same hardware design, but its the software that defines each.

Nintendo just so happens to have some of the greatest software out there. But they won't allow themselves to slip into that standardized hardware game. Imagine if they released a Wii U that was powerful enough to run 3rd party X1/PS4 ports... along with all those Nintendo games.

Yea, chasing the power game didn't work 10 years ago, or 15 years ago... but 10 years ago in computing and consumer electronics might as well be 100 years. Nintendo is so afraid of reliving the N64 that they are now... reliving the N64.

 

[casmith07]

Imagine if they released a Wii U that was powerful enough to run 3rd party X1/PS4 ports... along with all those Nintendo games.

Complete and utter domination of the market. It wouldn't be fair. But you can go all the way back to the N64:

• Imagine if the Wii had HD graphics capability
• Imagine if the Gamecube used standard DVDs
• Imagine if the N64 ran off CD-ROMs

 

[JoeM86]

Complete and utter domination of the market. It wouldn't be fair. But you can go all the way back to the N64:

• Imagine if the Wii had HD graphics capability
• Imagine if the Gamecube used standard DVDs
• Imagine if the N64 ran off CD-ROMs

If the Wii had HD graphics capability, it would have been more expensive. As such, it is extremely unlikely for it to have been the hit it was.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Are you actually being serious? Because, if so, then every single company who has ever made a new game in an existing franchise has and that is ridiculous

Not really. There are some pretty clear standards to what constitutes an expansion pack and a non-expansion pack, at least on the PC. When you reuse a lot of the same assets and use the same engine but make gameplay tweaks that used to generally be an expansion pack on the PC. Most of the non-expansion pack games utilized all new assets, a majority of them new engines. The amount of new gameplay features was never really central.

It was really about production costs. Most console companies now-a-days are passing off their expansions as sequels. Its a bit frustrating.

 

[Mechanized]

At this point I'm ok with this. It's been this way for a while now. You buy a Nintendo console if you primarily want Nintendo games. Anything 3rd parties decide to put out is just icing on the cake.

 

[JoeM86]

Not really. There are some pretty clear standards to what constitutes an expansion pack and a non-expansion pack, at least on the PC. When you reuse a lot of the same assets and use the same engine but make gameplay tweaks that used to generally be an expansion pack on the PC. Most of the non-expansion pack games utilized all new assets, a majority of them new engines. The amount of new gameplay features was never really central.

It was really about production costs. Most console companies now-a-days are passing off their expansions as sequels. Its a bit frustrating.

Ok, and other than NSMBU, which games of those I listed have reused assets? Ignoring the fact that this is a totally different console, too. Imagine it's all one unified system like the PC. The fact it isn't reduces the impact of what you said. The Wii U is not the Wii. The PS4 is not the PS3 and so forth. New iterations in the franchises on the new systems shouldn't be dismissed as "oh, it's just like an expansion pack", even if that was even remotely true.

Nintendo needs a Kaz/Cerny type guy to pull them into the 21st century. There really is no reason why the Wii U hardware came out in the shape it did. The idea that the Wii U will live or die based on Nintendo games alone is madness. The idea that you get basically nothing but Nintendo games on Wii U is crazy.

What defines platforms today is not hardware but software. The iPhone and Galaxy S4 run on basically the same hardware design, but its the software that defines each.

Nintendo just so happens to have some of the greatest software out there. But they won't allow themselves to slip into that standardized hardware game. Imagine if they released a Wii U that was powerful enough to run 3rd party X1/PS4 ports... along with all those Nintendo games.

Yea, chasing the power game didn't work 10 years ago, or 15 years ago... but 10 years ago in computing and consumer electronics might as well be 100 years. Nintendo is so afraid of reliving the N64 that they are now... reliving the N64.

There is a problem with this, though. While it's great that the PS4 and Xbox One are really powerful (relatively speaking), it's also the downfall. The PS3 was draining Sony's money for years. They drained any they made from the PS2 and just severely dented their bank and they have yet to make much of it back. Thankfully, they have other departments so it's not a total loss for the company. There is absolutely no way that Sony and Microsoft aren't losing money on the PS4 and Xbox One with each console sold. Hell, Microsoft are trying to recoup the losses of gaming by marketing it as an entertainment box to get more people.

People call for Iwata's head now. Imagine how it'd be if they had even more losses than the last two years (within which the 3DS was being sold a loss, I might add). Yes, Nintendo have had this approach in the past, but with things getting more and more expensive, it's not one that a solely gaming company can do for long. It'd deplete Nintendo's warchest within several years and put the company in dire straits.

 

[redcrayon]

I agree that everyone has cash cows ..but i disagree with your example , for example God of war 2 was 2007, 3 was 2010 , 4 was 2013 , hardly yearly releases

It's not far off when you count the PSP games, all containing similar gameplay, whereas NSMB gets complained about for having 4 games on 4 different systems in the same timeframe.

I think Nintendo could do with putting Mario and Co in less different franchises, rather than paper/rpg/2d/3d/kart/golf/tennis/party etc etc, but that the core platformer games are just fine, and the core case of their characters also kind of act as a mark of quality too- even the second-tier titles are usually pretty good within their own genre.

Not only that, but at least the quality of their stuff holds up- Mario Bros is as good a platformer for new gamers today as it was 30 years ago, it needs two buttons to play and the physics are spot on. Sometimes I think people forget that new gamers aren't fed up with the feeling they have retrod the same same games for the last 20 years. Nobody needs to buy everything they make, I've been playing Mario games since the NES but probably only buy 1 in every 10 games that he's in.

In the same vein, some people aren't tired of God of War or CoD, but then they probably haven't bought all the portable versions as well as the home console versions either, in fact the portable versions don't get a fraction of the media coverage that portable Mario games do. The reason for that is that Nintendo does portable versions in-house, treats them as deserving of the same level of quality control, which leads to both a decent portable library and also the perception that Mario and Zelda are somehow comparable in terms of 'tiredness' to the yearly releases of Assassins Creed etc this gen.

 

[Yado]

Complete and utter domination of the market. It wouldn't be fair. But you can go all the way back to the N64:

This PS4 comparable Wii U would have launched with the same games and sold just the same.

 

[Gartooth]

I think what Pachter is trying to do is say that nobody wants the Wii U as a machine, lets be honest its hardware is outdated by several years, its operating software is still a joke, the online is laughable, and the gamepad similar to 3D on the 3DS, is ultimately something nobody gives a shit about. (Even Nintendo devs at this point it seems)

Getting a Wii U is just a means to an end to play Nintendo games, and when the hardwae is as awful as it is, you can see why some wish for a third party Nintendo.

 

[ShikaTheReaper]

I agree with this fully. Not that its a bad thing as I look forward to Nintendo games. Shame though thats its only a handful of games.

 

[casmith07]

If the Wii had HD graphics capability, it would have been more expensive. As such, it is extremely unlikely for it to have been the hit it was.

I disagree. People bought it not based on price, but on the novelty. If it still had the same novelty but HD graphics, it's likely that it could have reached out to better 3rd party support in addition to the first party and casual novelty. Remember -- PS3 still cost $499/$599. "HD" (really all it would've needed as 720p) wouldn't have made the Wii cost any more than maybe $250. And I'd be willing to bet Nintendo still would've launched it at $199 and ate the loss based on the absurd demand. With how much they made, they would've still ended up ahead.

This PS4 comparable Wii U would have launched with the same games and sold just the same.

Doubtful. It would've launched with the same games, and then likely would've had plenty more games in development that otherwise couldn't have come to Nintendo's previous console.

 

[diffusionx]

There is a problem with this, though. While it's great that the PS4 and Xbox One are really powerful (relatively speaking), it's also the downfall. The PS3 was draining Sony's money for years. They drained any they made from the PS2 and just severely dented their bank and they have yet to make much of it back. Thankfully, they have other departments so it's not a total loss for the company. There is absolutely no way that Sony and Microsoft aren't losing money on the PS4 and Xbox One with each console sold. Hell, Microsoft are trying to recoup the losses of gaming by marketing it as an entertainment box to get more people.

People call for Iwata's head now. Imagine how it'd be if they had even more losses than the last two years (within which the 3DS was being sold a loss, I might add). Yes, Nintendo have had this approach in the past, but with things getting more and more expensive, it's not one that a solely gaming company can do for long. It'd deplete Nintendo's warchest within several years and put the company in dire straits.

PS3 was so expensive to make because Sony/IBM designed a giant friggin' processor that had insanely poor yields at launch and even owned a bunch of factory to make them. They also put in this new and largely unproven disc technology with, again, very low yields. Even today Sony isn't benefitting from economies of scale the way MS is. Microsoft has been making money from the Xbox 360 for years (and no, they're not marketing it as an entertainment box to "recoup losses", they're doing it to increase revenues, which is standard business practice).

PS4 and Xbox One are both built on fairly standard PC technology. Spec-wise, outside of the GDDR5 RAM, neither is particularly special. Both will benefit from technological advancements and competition and prices will go down. It really is not at all like the situation with PS3. Again, the situation is not the same as it was 5-15 years ago. Things change. The market has moved towards standardized hardware and customized software. Both Sony and MS have embraced this move, Nintendo has not.

 

[JoeM86]

PS3 was so expensive to make because Sony/IBM designed a giant friggin' processor that had insanely poor yields at launch and even owned a bunch of factory to make them. They also put in this new and largely unproven disc technology with, again, very low yields. Even today Sony isn't benefitting from economies of scale the way MS is. Microsoft has been making money from the Xbox 360 for years (and no, they're not marketing it as an entertainment box to "recoup losses", they're doing it to increase revenues, which is standard business practice).

Yeah but Microsoft was still losing money on the Xbox 360 for a few years after launch. It was not instantly profitable, it was heavily unprofitable, especially with the 60% failure rate of early consoles. This is the point I'm making. Consoles sold at massive losses seldom recoup. Microsoft got lucky, with boosts from things such as Xbox Live as well as the 360 really taking off in the US once it became profitable. However, these things take time and the damage may not be repairable if the console doesn't take off massively.

 

[diffusionx]

Yeah but Microsoft was still losing money on the Xbox 360 for a few years after launch. It was not instantly profitable, it was heavily unprofitable, especially with the 60% failure rate of early consoles.

I still don't see why this matters. The Xbox 360 was pretty cutting edge tech at launch - the One is not. Just because the 360 did this and this doesn't mean the One will, or the hypothetical Wii U would. The Xbox 360 came out eight years ago!

People need to stop looking back many years to try to tie up historical events to what is happening now. I mean, it's just natural, but this market changes quickly.

Plus it's not like Nintendo's actual made decisions regarding the Wii U have bore fruit. Considering what the Wii U is facing now, maybe it would've been better to absorb some mild losses if it meant real 3rd party support to fill in the gaps between Nintendo releases.

 

[Nyoro SF]

This PS4 comparable Wii U would have launched with the same games and sold just the same.

Now that I can't agree with. Having the multiplatforms that were shown at E3 be on the Wii U as well would be a big boost.

As long as it can't compete this way it's forever doomed as an "accessory console" of the hardcore.

 

[drspeedy]

At this point I'm ok with this. It's been this way for a while now. You buy a Nintendo console if you primarily want Nintendo games. Anything 3rd parties decide to put out is just icing on the cake.

But it's hardly a business plan... you're just begging for people to late adopt and wait for price drops.

 

[Yado]

Doubtful. It would've launched with the same games, and then likely would've had plenty more games in development that otherwise couldn't have come to Nintendo's previous console.

Really? is the Wii U not getting current gen games because of it's power of because of poor sales?

Consumers aren't going to rush out in droves to buy it because it's powerful just so they can play NSMBU. & the sales would be the same because the launch games and the titles that followed were not enough of an incentive to buy a Wii U. All of the future third party games that were announced at E3 would still be skipping this fantasy Wii U because the install base would still be abysmal.

 

[Woo-Fu]

The Wii was the first Nintendo console in a long time to offer more than just established Nintendo properties. Probably not a coincidence that it was wildly successful.

Pachter is right, you buy a Wii U to play Nintendo games. The problem with this analysis is that that is all Nintendo really cares about in the first place. Pachter is basically being master of the obvious.

 

[amr]

I disagree. People bought it not based on price, but on the novelty.

With novelty comes risk. The $250 price tag made people comfortable with trying something different.

See also 2K's brilliant $19.99 NFL 2K5, whose low barrier of entry got a lot of Madden devotees to give it a shot. If NFL 2K5 had been $49.99, Madden fans would've just bought Madden again because that's the conservative choice when both games are the same price and you know you like Madden. EA bought the NFL license six months later.

 

[VanWinkle]

Nintendo have 9 first party published titles coming out between now and the end of the year. There are also several already out somewhere in the world

Already Out:
New Super Mario Bros U (Everywhere)
NintendoLand (Everywhere)
Game & Wario (Everywhere)
Pokémon Rumble U (Japan)

Coming by end of 2013
New Super Luigi U (Retail)
Pikmin 3
The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker HD
Wii Party U
Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze
Super Mario 3D World
Wii Fit U

Other than the two Sonic games, Nintendo has either financed them, or developed them inhouse. They have even said there is more to come by 2014, too

Let's come back in a year and compare Microsoft and Sony's first party offerings in the first year of their consoles.

That's fair, but I changed your post to reflect first-party like the metric you proposed rather than simply exclusive games. Do keep in mind that there's 11 first-party games there, and Sony has said there will be 20 first party games for PS4 in the first year, and I believe Microsoft said 15 first-party games in the first year of the Xbox One (although he may have been talking about exclusives in general - I can't remember for sure).

 

[Kouriozan]

I always bought Nintendo console to play Nintendo games (and the other on PC) and it was always worth it.
Some GOTY are Nintendo games too, no one can miss those.

 

[Zing]

The same reason I had for playing the GameCube and Wii. I don't give a shit about third party games on Nintendo systems. I only have a dozen games for the Wii after six years of ownership and its still worth it.

Although, the Wii U is failing even at that. Even if I look at all games announced for the system, it still isn't worth owning. I guess 2015 may be the year, if it is still in production.

 

[Amakusa]

If I were a fan of Nintendo, I would have a Wii U as well. But I'm not, haven't played a Mario game since Nintendo 64. Haven't beat a Zelda game since Super NES. Haven't beat a Medroid game since..... Justin Bailey

 

[Mechanized]

But it's hardly a business plan... you're just begging for people to late adopt and wait for price drops.

Not disagreeing on that one. lol

 

[DyTonic]

Anyone could said this, why does this asshat get a thread lol..

 

[schwabdizzle]

He should of said "Would anyone buy a Wii U except to play exclusive Wii U games" Because Wonderful 101 is not made by Nintendo.

 

[KageMaru]

Sadly I agree with Pachter. I only really care for Metroid and Zelda, throw in the few other games that interest me (X, Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101) and there aren't many titles to push me to jump in. Add in the fact that the ps4 will only $50 more than the higher priced SKU and it's a no brainer to just wait for a price drop, which does little to help Nintendo's situation.

Yeah but Microsoft was still losing money on the Xbox 360 for a few years after launch. It was not instantly profitable, it was heavily unprofitable, especially with the 60% failure rate of early consoles. This is the point I'm making. Consoles sold at massive losses seldom recoup. Microsoft got lucky, with boosts from things such as Xbox Live as well as the 360 really taking off in the US once it became profitable. However, these things take time and the damage may not be repairable if the console doesn't take off massively.

The point is to not sell consoles at a massive loss. Sony played it smart with the PS1 and PS2 while MS did pretty good with the 360. We usually see problems when a system is engineered poorly with little forethought on expected price drops. We easily saw this issue with the Sega Saturn and original Xbox. Sega designed a Frankenstein of a machine, with poor last minute revisions, which made the system more expensive. MS was inexperienced in console development and didn't fully understand what was necessary to bring console components down in price. The issues with the PS3 have already been explained.

The point is it's been proven to be a successful strategy to launch with a loss leading console at first and continue to branch out your market as your system goes down in cost. On the contrary, Nintendo looks to be running into more issues with their drive for profitable hardware and only lucked out on the Wii through hype, word of mouth, and clever advertising. Of the three new systems, I see Nintendo as being the least successful with their next gen offering. I don't fault them for their hardware strategies, they can't afford to dump as much money as Sony or MS into a higher end system, but that doesn't mean their way of doing hardware is the only way or even the right way.

 

[schwabdizzle]

Sadly I agree with Pachter. I only really care for Metroid and Zelda, throw in the few other games that interest me (X, Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101) and there aren't many titles to push me to jump in. Add in the fact that the ps4 will only $50 more than the higher priced SKU and it's a no brainer to just wait for a price drop, which does little to help Nintendo's situation.

That is what pissed me off the most about Nintendo. I am hoping they drop the price to $249 or (fingers crossed)$199 for the 32gb because I would be all over that like stink on shit.

 

[FairXchange]

Was just playing Game and Wario with two other friends, and it was an awesome time. We spent almost 3 and a half hours playing the fruit thief and Islands games.

If Nintendo can keep delivering experiences like these, I'll always see value in my Wii U purchase.

I think more people should definitely give the Wii U a look, but once Mario Kart 8, Mario 3D Land and that impressive X title come out, I think they already will have.

 

[JoeM86]

That's fair, but I changed your post to reflect first-party like the metric you proposed rather than simply exclusive games. Do keep in mind that there's 11 first-party games there, and Sony has said there will be 20 first party games for PS4 in the first year, and I believe Microsoft said 15 first-party games in the first year of the Xbox One (although he may have been talking about exclusives in general - I can't remember for sure).

You shouldn't have removed The Wonderful 101. While it's being developed by Platinum, it's solely finances by Nintendo. It's as much theirs as any of their properties. Same with Lego City really. It wasn't just published, but solely financed. No different to Microsoft with Killer Instinct, and you can bet that they're counting that

 

[NoirVisage]

Bayonetta 2

I wanted that game. Not enough to Buy a WiiU. So no.