I never understood why gaming media hates Nintendo. Nintendo is such an important of gaming history and are responsible for many of the standards we have.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pachter: Nintendo in disarray, blown it with Wii U.
- Thread starter ReyVGM
- Start date
I never understood why gaming media hates Nintendo. Nintendo is such an important of gaming history and are responsible for many of the standards we have.
I veer on the side of unlikely but to say that it doesn't have potential is extremely narrow minded considering the lack of tangible info. We don't even know if nintendo has a "proof of concept" game in the works or how effective it would be. We could have made all kinds of similar statements about the original Wii before any of use actually played Wii Sports and immediately understood what the console was all about.
I'll say it's unlikely to hit 90 million by the end of its lifetime but I wont say it's not going to happen because there's no overwhelming evidence that it wont. A lukewarm E3 2011 response is also not proof of anything. The same could have been said about Kinect's pre-launch E3, and lucky for nintendo, they get a second shot at it too.
There's also the fact that not hitting the same numbers as the previous gen doesn't automatically make the Wii U a failure. Success comes in varying degrees.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
because noone would care if they wrote something about Nintendo being good and rich and beautiful, they want the clicks, they stir controversial bullshit. It's always easy to shoot the winner, expecially when everyone's watching them
say, IGN can write something like "Nintendo. a history of Wii's success", or like "Top five reasons why the WIIU is bound to fail". I'll let you decide which one gets more clicks
not calling Pachter out here because I don't think he needs the popularity since he's already got a salary
TheExplodingHead
Banned
I think it's pretty obvious by now Pachter has a relatively bad track record "predicting" things concerning Nintendo, and basically just not being a consistently accurate analyst concerning Nintendo. If I was a investor/business I wouldn't pay Pachter any attention for anything he say's about Nintendo, so I think we as a community should do the same. Let him enjoy his little Bonus Rounds or whatever, and continue making "predictions".
I wonder how Pachter analyzes a 90% failure rate in predicting Nintendo's business strategies and their fiscal successes/failures.
I wonder how Pachter analyzes a 90% failure rate in predicting Nintendo's business strategies and their fiscal successes/failures.
Gaming media hated Nintendo when they were losers during the GCN era. Media has wanted Nintendo to fold for years.
What has Pachter said makes "business sense". Plus, since Apple is the hottest shit since sliced bread anyone emulating them from a dominant position would be seen by the speculative market with quite good eyes, and he's giving advice to investors.
The problem is that technical limitations make the console model not a very good fit for such business strategy. For instance, it wasn't technical feasible to release a Wii HD that could render Wii games at HD resolutions without significant issues and hardware investment, since games are developed to a very low level.
Another one is that software development requires quite long development cycles. Apple can afford to launch a platform without dedicated software; incremental upgrades that enhances exiting software is enough for them. Is close to year since the A5 released, how much software is there that makes use of it significant advantages over the A4? Apple business is not games, for them having Safari to run smoother and enabling 1080p video decoding is enough reason to justify selling a yearly upgrade, enabling AA in Real Racing 2 is only a byproduct of that.
Now, How would Nintendo fared with a more expensive device that doesn't enhance Wii games and without almost any software of its own?
The problem is that technical limitations make the console model not a very good fit for such business strategy. For instance, it wasn't technical feasible to release a Wii HD that could render Wii games at HD resolutions without significant issues and hardware investment, since games are developed to a very low level.
Another one is that software development requires quite long development cycles. Apple can afford to launch a platform without dedicated software; incremental upgrades that enhances exiting software is enough for them. Is close to year since the A5 released, how much software is there that makes use of it significant advantages over the A4? Apple business is not games, for them having Safari to run smoother and enabling 1080p video decoding is enough reason to justify selling a yearly upgrade, enabling AA in Real Racing 2 is only a byproduct of that.
Now, How would Nintendo fared with a more expensive device that doesn't enhance Wii games and without almost any software of its own?
slidewinder
Banned
He didn't suggest that it doesn't have potential in general, though. And the answer to his question is "no": not even the most optimistic of Nintendo fans believe that the Wii U is going to be the phenomenon that the Wii was.
This.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
because when the PSX came out they were automatically marked as childish and it never really went away, but hatred was nowhere near as close as what we see nowadays, with nefarious individuals like Morgan Webb crawling out of the shadows, expecially after the Wii's huge success
I've said it time and again and I'll say it again. The WiiU sounds like an awful idea and I honestly cannot see how anyone can be excited for it let alone make it a hit on the same scale as the original Wii.
However I said EXACTLY the same thing about the Kinect before its launch and for the life of me I do not understand how that laggy, buggy, ugly chunk of plastic, that lacks a true killer app, could have possibly been the huge hit it was.
And yet......
In short, much like William Goldman's thoughts on showbiz "..., no one knows anything".
However I said EXACTLY the same thing about the Kinect before its launch and for the life of me I do not understand how that laggy, buggy, ugly chunk of plastic, that lacks a true killer app, could have possibly been the huge hit it was.
And yet......
In short, much like William Goldman's thoughts on showbiz "..., no one knows anything".
Lord Ghirahim
Member
Ooh, we're back to discussing three-year hardware cycles? Second time I laughed heartily this week.
The first time was this ↓
The first time was this ↓
I don't think a lot of people in this thread understand what Pachter's job is.
Now I'm no analyst but, from the little I know about the profession, analysts like Pachter are paid to speak in absolutes. So I think that a lot of people saying "You're stupid because we don't yet know anything about the Wii U" are kinda missing the point. Corporations pay guys like Pachter to review data that's available now, and make a judgement call on whether investing in a certain company is wise or not now. They're probably not paying Pachter to say "Oh, I dunno and Nintendo could do anything..." and he'd probably lose his job right quick if he did that.
Of course, speaking in absolutes when it comes to Nintendo will end up with you often being wrong, but I think that's because Nintendo as company tends to defy a lot of conventional logic. Pachter acknowledged this earlier in the thread when he admitted that his Wii HD prediction was based less on what Nintendo would do and more on what they should do in response the realities of their numbers. In that sense he was right - the signs were there that the Wii was peaking and most other companies in a similar position would have done something to maintain momentum (that's what MS did with Kinect). In that sense, even most Nintendo fans admit that Wii U is a little late.
I don't know. I never thought I'd be defending Pachter, but right or wrong I think using the language that he does is part of his job.
Now I'm no analyst but, from the little I know about the profession, analysts like Pachter are paid to speak in absolutes. So I think that a lot of people saying "You're stupid because we don't yet know anything about the Wii U" are kinda missing the point. Corporations pay guys like Pachter to review data that's available now, and make a judgement call on whether investing in a certain company is wise or not now. They're probably not paying Pachter to say "Oh, I dunno and Nintendo could do anything..." and he'd probably lose his job right quick if he did that.
Of course, speaking in absolutes when it comes to Nintendo will end up with you often being wrong, but I think that's because Nintendo as company tends to defy a lot of conventional logic. Pachter acknowledged this earlier in the thread when he admitted that his Wii HD prediction was based less on what Nintendo would do and more on what they should do in response the realities of their numbers. In that sense he was right - the signs were there that the Wii was peaking and most other companies in a similar position would have done something to maintain momentum (that's what MS did with Kinect). In that sense, even most Nintendo fans admit that Wii U is a little late.
I don't know. I never thought I'd be defending Pachter, but right or wrong I think using the language that he does is part of his job.
And that's an unintelligent comment to make at this point. The best answer? 'It depends.' What you're arguing, throughout this post, is that nothing can be done versus the all-powerful scourge of mobile and 'social gaming' (however the hell you plan to define that). And frankly, that's nonsense. You're suggesting that there is no positive source of differentiation upon which Nintendo or any other hardware manufacturer could release a successful product to the mainstream audience again. You're saying that mobile gaming has come up with an adequate replacement for NSMB Wii or Mario Kart or Wii Fit or Kinect for that matter. But it hasn't.
So long as there is room for meaningful differentiation, and hardware and software makers interested in exploiting it creatively, then you can never rule out the possibility of acceptance by the market. It's unrealistic and, further, it's pinioned on an alleged predictability of the market that fails as often as it succeeds.
My examples before remain: Prior to the reveal of the iPhone, what would you have estimated the market interest would be in an Apple cellphone? How much is your average Midwestern elderly couple's willingness-to-pay for a video game console prior to 2006?
Answer these questions honestly and you'll see that the consumer market is never so cut and dry as what you and Pachter allege.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
what's so awful about it? I've only seen a controller with a small touchscreen in it and some minigames
Vermillion
Banned
That's to be seen. I don't know why people are always like "no, it will not sell as much" with no evidence. Not that there's any evidence for the converse, but it's weird that the go to response is "it won't be as successful." Absolutes are a good way to be wrong.
AzureNightmare
Banned
I'm fairly certain that Pachter's brain is in disarray.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
he's been wrong about other stuff, not just Nintendo
while I understand the need to speak in absolutes because investors want definite answers, I don't get why there's someone who thinks his opinions shouldn't cause any controversy. Videogame fans are extremely aggressive when it comes to defending their favourite hobby/company/console/whatever, expecially if they have decades of gaming experience and can speak with some authority
yurinka
Member
This time I agree.
I think Wii U will bomb hard unless they release serious Mario etc stuff at launch and reduce its price a lot selling at loss, like with 3DS.
Because if not, it will be offering more or less the same stuff than currently available consoles but for a more expensive price. Let's hope this time the tablet stuff isn't a gimmick that doesn't reach its potential in the first games as happened with Wii, where its Wiimote controls that were overhyped in the prelaunch announcement but didn't reached its fully potential until Wii Motion Plus.
I think Wii U will bomb hard unless they release serious Mario etc stuff at launch and reduce its price a lot selling at loss, like with 3DS.
Because if not, it will be offering more or less the same stuff than currently available consoles but for a more expensive price. Let's hope this time the tablet stuff isn't a gimmick that doesn't reach its potential in the first games as happened with Wii, where its Wiimote controls that were overhyped in the prelaunch announcement but didn't reached its fully potential until Wii Motion Plus.
No one will disagree with "Nintendo will fail if they dont' release first party titles" or "Nintendo systems don't sell without first party titles." People disagree with "not knowing the price last year has ruined the Wii U's chances." Can't just put words in his mouth so you can agree with them. You're just agreeing with yourself.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
Well, I don't think the failure to list a price is the problem with the WiiU. The problem with the WiiU is that most gamers just don't care about it. I remember how excited people were before the launch of the Wii. Everyone was talking about it, some good some bad but it wasn't being ignored.
Who here is really excited about the new controller? That's really all we know about it.
Who here is really excited about the new controller? That's really all we know about it.
east of eastside
Banned
I'm not saying that though.. I'm saying the same thing that Pachter is saying that the traditional console and portable markets have lost, by and large, the casual segment to mobile and social gaming. I really think we are looking at a concept passing its time, by this I refer to the traditional gaming sector in terms of its relevance to the casual gaming segment. I do subscribe to the permanent decline view of traditional gaming as well. Eventually the current fps/tps craze will go bust. That may very well be the permanent downturn of mainstream gaming.
That's basically my point. A simple matter of degree of novelty. Miyamoto may make a great use of the Wii tablet, but its inherent novelty, in terms of drawing casual and non-gaming audiences, can't hold a candle to the Wii remote.
Motion controlled gaming was something new to humanity that Nintendo introduced to the masses via Wii. Touch tablets, tablet interfaces, and tablet gaming is nothing new.
This can not be argued.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
It's important to note that Pachter is basically already wrong, when it comes to his recent similar prediction about the 3DS. He suggested that Nintendo make games for iOS instead, because "blah blah blah smartphones have taken over".
Nintendo released a couple of Mario games, and basically proved that theory absolutely wrong. Nintendo would have been foolish to listen to Pachter's advice.
I agree.
I don't think the Wii U is a market-shocking game changer like the Wiimote was... but even just showing up to the tablet party and marrying it to HDTV gaming will probably be reasonably successful. It just won't be the same level of overwhelming success as the Wii was.
I think the concept of a tablet game machine is actually more promising now than it was a year ago when we first saw Wii U... the world is iPad crazy, and they are often used in front of the TV, so an inexpensive home tablet option seems right at home in 2012.
Nintendo released a couple of Mario games, and basically proved that theory absolutely wrong. Nintendo would have been foolish to listen to Pachter's advice.
I agree.
I don't think the Wii U is a market-shocking game changer like the Wiimote was... but even just showing up to the tablet party and marrying it to HDTV gaming will probably be reasonably successful. It just won't be the same level of overwhelming success as the Wii was.
I think the concept of a tablet game machine is actually more promising now than it was a year ago when we first saw Wii U... the world is iPad crazy, and they are often used in front of the TV, so an inexpensive home tablet option seems right at home in 2012.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
I use my handhelds in front of the TV but have no desire to plug them into the TV. The reason is because I play a handheld game while watching TV.
If memory serves, the WiiU will have a short range Remote Play function like the PS3/PSP/Vita has, thus far very few (including me) have any interest in that.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Well if you're watching TV, you could still use the Wii U tablet to surf the web, probably post to FB/Twitter, etc.... or even in certain cases, play a full game.
Plus there's the option of playing games on the TV, with the additional interaction of a second screen. iPads can't really do that... not with a full HD console capability, anyway.
It'll also be much cheaper than an iPad. Basically it'll be a great poor man's iPad in the household, as well as let you do some other things that an iPad cannot.
If all we keep seeing are the same old things from gaming companies with little variation or distinction to the experience delivered beyond that provided by mobile gaming, I would agree with you. But as much as I enjoy mobile gaming, and I very much do, I find it completely ridiculous that people would suggest that there is no valuable difference between the two, or that anyone's tastes are so narrowly defined by one type of attribute without the chance of appeal from another quarter.
And why is that? The Wii Remote was designed to resemble something that people were not intimidated by while offering a new functionality to that familiarity. I don't see how the Wii U is doing much different from that. And until we know more of their plans, it's hard to rule out entirely.
People focus way too much on motion control when it comes to the Wii's success. Stop looking at motion control as some magic bullet and recognize that it was merely the means chosen to help consumers fulfill a certain want. Nothing shown of the Wii U indicates that Nintendo is abandoning that want fulfillment; it's simply attempting a new method for doing so while attempting to play nice with 3rd parties.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
I just don't see that appeal. I can plug my PSP straight into the TV, but I don't want to. I can use remote play with my PS3/PSP, but I don't want to. If I want to surf the web, I have a laptop and sometimes I use it to read walkthroughs for handheld games while watching TV...talk about sensory overload.
If I ever want to play a touchscreen game, I have a DSi XL. I can say that I avoid games where I am forced to use the touchscreen. It's half that I don't like that control method and half that I don't want scratches on my screen.
I am pretty sure that I am not the only one who sees the WiiU as a waste of money. What does it do that is remotely appealing?
It's, like, a traditional controller with a highly customizable source of input added on. It could pretty much be used for any purpose - from inane to vital, small to large. It's up to each developer to determine how best to use it, but there's nothing innate to its existence that should warrant the sort of dismissal we see from people on here.
EatinOlives
Member
Motion control was a gigantic factor in the Wii's initial success and appeal. I can't believe people can't see this.
Again, I'm pretty sure that what Pachter gets paid for is NOT analyzing video game companies. IIRC he listed the companies he gets paid to track and they are stuff like Netflix - general tech companies. I believe he is responsible for MS but not just gaming I don't think, and I'm almost certain that he isn't assigned to follow Nintendo or Sony.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
I only want the traditional controller part. The Wii ruined games by putting in motion controls where they weren't needed (or wanted). Did we really need motion controls in Mario Galaxy or NSMB Wii? How about the horrible use of motion controls in Metroid: Other M and Skyward Sword. Now look at the DS, most people wanted NORMAL Zelda games and what did we get?
So, I don't have alot of faith in developers (especially Nintendo) making good use of the touch screen. I also don't want to pay for the touch screen because given the choice, I would never use it.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
no, it was obviously the games that all the casuals loved that they no longer play or buy.
right?
You're misunderstanding me pretty seriously here. What job did motion controls perform? People aren't interested in hardware for hardware's sake - they're interested in what the product does for them.
To state that motion controls were the reason for the Wii's success is missing the point. What job did motion controls allow the Wii to do for people?
Think of it like this:
[Product Feature or Attribute] ----------> [Job or Want Demanded by Audience]
Motion Controls -------> _____________
Fill in the blank. Or are you suggesting that Motion Controls -----------> Motion Controls, and all people ever wanted was motion controls?
No offense, but this thread isnt about you. The same shit you are decrying from this gen, is the exact same things that made Nintendo the biggest success in the market this generation. So, your opinion is a bit irrelevant when we are discussing the markets acceptance of the WiiU here.
Based on this, I'm shocked you're not thrilled Nintendo has moved back towards a more traditional controller. I mean, yes, there's a big touchscreen in the center, but it's still a standard controller for all intents and purposes - outside of what developers feel the touchscreen might buy them. Seriously, there's nothing stopping them from using the damn thing for little more than a Friends List notification system or a chat window or whatever else that has bugger all to do with how a traditional type game actually would play on it.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
Fair enough but let's just see how it goes, I don't think it's going to do very well because it offers nothing that people can't get elsewhere.
By the way, I'm pretty sure launching a Wii HD in 2009 that was literally just a Wii in HD would have been a complete disaster, and I'm also pretty sure that Pachter (or anyone who predicted it) didn't think through what a Wii HD would actually consist of.
It has what...the same architecture as the Wii but outputs 720? Ok, then it's going to run at 10 FPS. So it has...a better GPU? Ok, but with the RAM it has you can't do textures at HD res. So...it has more RAM and a better GPU? Is the GPU still using fixed-function TEV stuff? Is the CPU still single-core? Both of those mean porting to it is still going to be hard. And now when you make a game you do what, create it with texture res and assets and programmable shaders and such so that it looks modern on the HD Wii, and pack in an alternate version with fixed-function shaders and lower res assets for the Wii?
To make an "HD Wii" that outputted HD and allowed for easier ports would mean a complete change to basically every component. It would essentially be a new system.
Now you could make an HD Wii with the same RAM, same processing power, everything the same except that it outputs 720 thanks to a stronger GPU. But that wouldn't make ports any easier and games still would not look anywhere near as good as PS3/360. So you do that in 2009 then launch another new system a few years later?
It has what...the same architecture as the Wii but outputs 720? Ok, then it's going to run at 10 FPS. So it has...a better GPU? Ok, but with the RAM it has you can't do textures at HD res. So...it has more RAM and a better GPU? Is the GPU still using fixed-function TEV stuff? Is the CPU still single-core? Both of those mean porting to it is still going to be hard. And now when you make a game you do what, create it with texture res and assets and programmable shaders and such so that it looks modern on the HD Wii, and pack in an alternate version with fixed-function shaders and lower res assets for the Wii?
To make an "HD Wii" that outputted HD and allowed for easier ports would mean a complete change to basically every component. It would essentially be a new system.
Now you could make an HD Wii with the same RAM, same processing power, everything the same except that it outputs 720 thanks to a stronger GPU. But that wouldn't make ports any easier and games still would not look anywhere near as good as PS3/360. So you do that in 2009 then launch another new system a few years later?
How would you possibly know that?
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Pachter's troll has generated nearly 60,000 thread views. Mission accomplished.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
Going by information that we have so far. We have seen the controller, we know it will be an HD console and more powerful than the PS3/360. I can't imagine that it can do much more than what we have been shown and I don't imagine it can do anything that other devices can't do. Can you?
Do you have a sneaky suspicion that it's going to do something extraordinary?
Since it's a combination of features that we've never seen before? Yes, I'd imagine there are some pretty good possibilities for innovative software on the thing.
I think it's the best design imaginable for making both the stereotypical Wii audience and traditional gaming audience happy, but that also comes down to how Nintendo and others utilize it. But yes, I think the potential is there.
Honestly, there's a part of me that agrees that with Pachter in that I think that Nintendo has put themselves in a position where the interest in the "Wii" brand may not be there anymore. Let's face it; the casual market that the "Wii Stuff" games are marketed towards have moved on to smartphone games (Angry Birds, Gravity Guy, Temple Run, etc.) because they're on the go, and they're integrated with their cell phone's OS. There's also the fear that Nintendo will pull a 3DS and fail to portray clear differences between the Wii U and the Wii, resulting in a loss in profits. As well, Nintendo have to really try to market this towards more of a "serious" audience in order to prevent a lot of their missteps made this past gen; so far, it doesn't seem like they've managed to accomplish this goal. Then again, of course they haven't showed much that will be released on the console, but I still have this lingering feeling that more serious gamers won't readily attach themselves to the console due to A) the bizarre and potentially uncomfortable controller interface, and B) the fact that a lot of the new features that the Wii U is toting have been outdated (on the other current consoles) for years now, and of course it still seems to be lacking in a lot of hardware standards, like memory storage. Couple this with the fact that Nintendo still doesn't seem to grasp proper online infrastructures in a world where Microsoft dominates even with a paid model, and in my opinion I feel that Nintendo have a recipe for disaster.
They can still break free from these chains if they get themselves and third parties to focus on compelling new IPs, versions of popular franchises that can compete with the Sony and Microsoft versions, and build upon what they've learned about online in the past six years.
They can still break free from these chains if they get themselves and third parties to focus on compelling new IPs, versions of popular franchises that can compete with the Sony and Microsoft versions, and build upon what they've learned about online in the past six years.
Reallink
Member
The only problem I see with that is does 6", 480p, resistive device have the potential to be a desired product? I mean it's obvious to anyone that the tablet aspect is going to be a "poor man's" substitute at best. None of the general functionality (e.g. browsing, social apps, media apps, ect...) is likely to compare to a decent 2012+ tablet--even being tethered to the specually superior hub. If Sony can't pull off competitive functionality with the Vita or PS3 (i.e. broken browsers, crippled apps, anemic selection), the odds of Nintendo managing it are slim to none. Ultimately, I think the market will agree that it's an elaborate and gimmicky controller--nothing more, nothing less. There will be some cross over functionality, but I don't see anyone buying a Wii U for tablet functionality and I don't see the next Wii craze starting over some illusion or promise of tablet functionality. Not that it matters one way or the other, I fully expect Wii U will dominate the market if Sony/MS are truly stupid enough to give them 1+ years uncontested and it's not technically weak
Projectjustice
Banned
Just because you lack imagination doesn't mean others don't either. This is why the people that come up with things others haven't in the past get paid the big bucks.
EatinOlives
Member
It's clear you don't understand just how important that was for the Wii's initial success, so I'll start my post off by quoting what I said up at the beginning of this page:
I have the feeling you're talking about regular gamers, but I'm strictly talking about non-gamers because that's obviously how the Wii got its explosive sales and mainstream pop culture appeal.
That's an incredibly easy question to answer. Motion controls allowed the Wii to give gameplay experiences to people who never picked up a game console before, and gave them completely intuitive forms of playing them that required absolutely no knowledge before hand. Fill in the blank: Motion Controls -------> Complete intuitive ways to get any person to be able to play a game (aka, their "blue ocean" strategy). Look at this teaser from the Wii that had people going apeshit back in the day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8aWdWpYLcs&feature=related
^THAT is how they sold people. Absolutely no games shown at all. Just intuitive motion controls and sounds to let people's imaginations run amok. This exact way was the way they sold the Wii as their "blue ocean" market. With any other button-based controller they had absolutely no chance to achieve the success they did. It is completely and absolutely ignorant to state that motion controls did not play a key part. This isn't even debatable.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
Oh now we're talking about innovative software. Well, maybe there will be innovative software but I haven't enjoyed their innovative software on the DS or the Wii. Try to understand that I am just not excited about seeing them bring a touch screen Zelda game to my HDTV.
There's always potential but I don't think it will work out well for the WiiU. Maybe they will show something ay E3 that changes my mind but Nintendo is Nintendo and I expect the jump from Wii to WiiU to be similar to the jump from DS to 3DS.
If you are expecting Nintendo to blow you away at E3, well, I hope you aren't disappointed.
oneils
Member
That is the bubble that pacther keeps talking about. What happened to the investors who hung on? Do the gaffers in this thread think that NTDOY will quadruple again with 3DS and Wii-U?
If so, are they putting their money where their mouth is? Who here is going to buy NTDOY now that Wii-U is coming out?
I know who I would listen to first for investing advice.
Pachter is not saying that Wii-U will suck, or anything like that. Investors have lost confidence in Nintendo, hence the drop in price. How will Nintendo get their confidence back? Is it Wii-U? I, personally, don't know.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but Pachter seems to think that Wii-U will not turn their value around. No one is saying that the Wii-U as a console will be terrible. The implication is that it just won't be all that great for business. Or good enough, at least, to see what we saw during 05-07 ish.
Clairvoyance
Member
So basically what you've been saying the last few posts is that the Wii U will fail because you don't like it's features. That makes sense, thanks.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
I'm not interested in trading insults with you.
Non-gamers bought the system because it looked like something that would allow them to have fun with their families. Motion controls provided them an ease of use aspect, but over the long term the rationale behind purchasing it wasn't for motion controls in and of themselves, but because of this ability to bring people together socially. Why do you think the most successful games on the system are local multiplayer titles?
And I'm not saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is that the long-term success of the Wii - it broke records for over three years straight - is not due to motion controls in and of themselves, but rather how it allowed them to play games with their kids and grandkids finally. Something they weren't able to do before. It turned gaming into both a meeting point for people with varying degrees of gaming knowledge, but in addition it made gaming into a spectacle that people didn't mind watching.
Yes, motion controls were the feature which allowed these jobs to be done - but they certainly aren't the only means by which they can be.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
I said that the WiiU doesn't have any unique features that people can't get elsewhere.
I think I am done here, I don't need this fanboy BS. The only opinion welcome in this thread is that Pachter is wrong and the WiiU will be amazing and shit magic sparkles.