Nintendo President Says Wii U Sales Are "Not Bad"

Nintendo President Says Wii U Sales Are "Not Bad"

image

Nintendo's new console is selling well, but not as well as the Wii.

Hop on any gaming forum, and it's clear that the Wii U draws in a dizzying variety of opinions, ranging from "messianic device" to "harbinger of the apocalypse." While the newest iteration of the console wars plays out, the system itself seems to be selling just fine according to Nintendo's president. While sales have slowed since its initial seven days, Satoru Iwata believes that the system's current selling power is well within reason.

Iwata discusses the Wii U's holiday sales in terms of its predecessor, explaining that the new system has not quite reached the level of demand that the Wii commanded. "At the end of the Christmas season, it wasn't as though stores in the U.S. had no Wii U left in stock, as it was when Wii was first sold in that popular boom," he says. "But sales are not bad, and I feel it's selling steadily." Iwata remains hesitant to make any sales predictions, but believes that increasing production of the 32-gig Deluxe model will move a few more units. "Inventory levels for the premium, deluxe package was (sic) unbalanced as many people wanted that version and couldn't find it."

Nintendo still wants to sell 5.5 million Wii Us by April. Consumers won't know just how feasible this goal is until Nintendo releases solid sales figures for the month of December, but in the meantime, Nintendo's head honcho doesn't seem too worried. Either way, the Wii U still has a long way to go before it matches the original Wii's near-100 million sales.

Source: Reuters

Permalink

If I had just released a next-gen console I would be hoping to be able to use descriptions more exciting than "steady" and "not bad" when describing the sales. Still, steady sales make for steady income I guess.

It's gonna be like the 3DS, slow start but once Nintendo releases some good first party games, sales will increase.

Fasckira:
If I had just released a next-gen console I would be hoping to be able to use descriptions more exciting than "steady" and "not bad" when describing the sales. Still, steady sales make for steady income I guess.

It's sold 2.2 million in just over a month and a half. That really isn't too shabby at all, and is pretty much exactly the same sort of figures the 360 and PS3 pulled in when they launched.

Google Translate from Executive-ese: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!! WE ARE FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-"

Fasckira:
If I had just released a next-gen console I would be hoping to be able to use descriptions more exciting than "steady" and "not bad" when describing the sales. Still, steady sales make for steady income I guess.

Is what way is it "next gen" when all the games for it look and perform INDISTINGUISHABLY from the Xbox 360 versions that came out in 2005.

To give you an idea of how long ago 2005 was, youtube didn't even exist at the beginning of that year. That's 8 years ago!

Treblaine:

Is what way is it "next gen" when all the games for it look and perform INDISTINGUISHABLY from the Xbox 360 versions that came out in 2005.

Oh for the love of...

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released. The PS3, 360 and Wii were all seventh generation consoles, despite differences in power. Just as the PS2 was as much a sixth generation console, despite being underpowered compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. Or how the PS1 was a fifth generation console despite having about half the power of the N64.

Seriously, stop bandying about this term as if 'next generation' is some sort of title which needs to be earned with high end technology. It's not. It is nothing more than a term used to describe when a console came out. The Wii was Nintendo's seventh gen console. The Wii U is being released ahead of the new consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Therefore, by definition, it is the first console of the eighth generation.

Secondly, the Wii U has a higher end GPU and more RAM than either the 360 or PS3, so is more advanced than them by default. Stop acting as if it's some sort of woefully underpowered machine not even comparable with current gen. Games like Trine 2 and Nano Assault have already started to show what the machine is capable of, and it's only been out a month. The 360 had to wait a year for Gears to come out and actually show off what it could do. Before then, it was derided for being 'Xbox 1.5'

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Fasckira:
If I had just released a next-gen console I would be hoping to be able to use descriptions more exciting than "steady" and "not bad" when describing the sales. Still, steady sales make for steady income I guess.

It's sold 2.2 million in just over a month and a half. That really isn't too shabby at all, and is pretty much exactly the same sort of figures the 360 and PS3 pulled in when they launched.

I don't really know where you got those figures, cause as far as I know Nintendo hasn't released sales figures yet, but you're absolutely right, it's not too bad. People have been acting like, just because a system doesn't break records, it's not good enough. I think both gamers and investors have been spoiled by the success of the original Wii, and games like Call of Duty, and have forgotten that gaming is a risky business where things almost always are more rocky than they are stellar.

Still, the Wii U is doing fairly well.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Treblaine:

Is what way is it "next gen" when all the games for it look and perform INDISTINGUISHABLY from the Xbox 360 versions that came out in 2005.

Oh for the love of...

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released. The PS3, 360 and Wii were all seventh generation consoles, despite differences in power. Just as the PS2 was as much a sixth generation console, despite being underpowered compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. Or how the PS1 was a fifth generation console despite having about half the power of the N64.

Seriously, stop bandying about this term as if 'next generation' is some sort of title which needs to be earned with high end technology. It's not. It is nothing more than a term used to describe when a console came out. The Wii was Nintendo's seventh gen console. The Wii U is being released ahead of the new consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Therefore, by definition, it is the first console of the eighth generation.

Secondly, the Wii U has a higher end GPU and more RAM than either the 360 or PS3, so is more advanced than them by default. Stop acting as if it's some sort of woefully underpowered machine not even comparable with current gen. Games like Trine 2 and Nano Assault have already started to show what the machine is capable of, and it's only been out a month. The 360 had to wait a year for Gears to come out and actually show off what it could do. Before then, it was derided for being 'Xbox 1.5'

If next-gen isn't a descriptor of technology, what's the point of releasing new consoles? We could just use existing technology then.

Also, talking about how the Wii U has better GPU and RAM right after having said that next-gen apparently doesn't need to be earned with high-end technology.

Lolzors!

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Treblaine:

Is what way is it "next gen" when all the games for it look and perform INDISTINGUISHABLY from the Xbox 360 versions that came out in 2005.

Oh for the love of...

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released. The PS3, 360 and Wii were all seventh generation consoles, despite differences in power. Just as the PS2 was as much a sixth generation console, despite being underpowered compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. Or how the PS1 was a fifth generation console despite having about half the power of the N64.

Seriously, stop bandying about this term as if 'next generation' is some sort of title which needs to be earned with high end technology. It's not. It is nothing more than a term used to describe when a console came out. The Wii was Nintendo's seventh gen console. The Wii U is being released ahead of the new consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Therefore, by definition, it is the first console of the eighth generation.

Secondly, the Wii U has a higher end GPU and more RAM than either the 360 or PS3, so is more advanced than them by default. Stop acting as if it's some sort of woefully underpowered machine not even comparable with current gen. Games like Trine 2 and Nano Assault have already started to show what the machine is capable of, and it's only been out a month. The 360 had to wait a year for Gears to come out and actually show off what it could do. Before then, it was derided for being 'Xbox 1.5'

That's just not true. A new generation of consoles has always meant better technology than the previous generation. If someone would release a console with 8-bit era technology, I doubt you would call it next-gen. They basically released a slightly better current-gen console right near the generation's end, but I doubt that it would prevent them from cashing in on Mario, Zelda and Metroid games for it.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Treblaine:

Is what way is it "next gen" when all the games for it look and perform INDISTINGUISHABLY from the Xbox 360 versions that came out in 2005.

Oh for the love of...

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released. The PS3, 360 and Wii were all seventh generation consoles, despite differences in power. Just as the PS2 was as much a sixth generation console, despite being underpowered compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. Or how the PS1 was a fifth generation console despite having about half the power of the N64.

Seriously, stop bandying about this term as if 'next generation' is some sort of title which needs to be earned with high end technology. It's not. It is nothing more than a term used to describe when a console came out. The Wii was Nintendo's seventh gen console. The Wii U is being released ahead of the new consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Therefore, by definition, it is the first console of the eighth generation.

Secondly, the Wii U has a higher end GPU and more RAM than either the 360 or PS3, so is more advanced than them by default. Stop acting as if it's some sort of woefully underpowered machine not even comparable with current gen. Games like Trine 2 and Nano Assault have already started to show what the machine is capable of, and it's only been out a month. The 360 had to wait a year for Gears to come out and actually show off what it could do. Before then, it was derided for being 'Xbox 1.5'

I would also like to point out that, while the PS2 was the weakest of the Sixth Generation, it still pulled beautiful graphics. Look at Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, or Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. If the Wii U is as "underpowered" compared to Durango or PS4 (whatever they are calling them), it isn't like it can't pull beautiful graphics.

Regardless, the Wii U is still more powerful than either the 360 or PS3. Just as the PS3 has some mediocre graphics at launch (go back and play Resistance. Those graphics were atrocious), it has gotten better near the middle and end of its life-cycle as all consoles do (Play God of War 3 or CastleVania: Lords of Shadow, both have amazing graphics).

Doom972:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Treblaine:

Is what way is it "next gen" when all the games for it look and perform INDISTINGUISHABLY from the Xbox 360 versions that came out in 2005.

Oh for the love of...

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released. The PS3, 360 and Wii were all seventh generation consoles, despite differences in power. Just as the PS2 was as much a sixth generation console, despite being underpowered compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. Or how the PS1 was a fifth generation console despite having about half the power of the N64.

Seriously, stop bandying about this term as if 'next generation' is some sort of title which needs to be earned with high end technology. It's not. It is nothing more than a term used to describe when a console came out. The Wii was Nintendo's seventh gen console. The Wii U is being released ahead of the new consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Therefore, by definition, it is the first console of the eighth generation.

Secondly, the Wii U has a higher end GPU and more RAM than either the 360 or PS3, so is more advanced than them by default. Stop acting as if it's some sort of woefully underpowered machine not even comparable with current gen. Games like Trine 2 and Nano Assault have already started to show what the machine is capable of, and it's only been out a month. The 360 had to wait a year for Gears to come out and actually show off what it could do. Before then, it was derided for being 'Xbox 1.5'

That's just not true. A new generation of consoles has always meant better technology than the previous generation. If someone would release a console with 8-bit era technology, I doubt you would call it next-gen. They basically released a slightly better current-gen console right near the generation's end, but I doubt that it would prevent them from cashing in on Mario, Zelda and Metroid games for it.

/facepalm

No, you are incorrect. The Wii had Sixth Generation graphics, yet it was touted as "Next Generation" or the Seventh Generation of consoles.

Also, fans, especially of Nintendo have much higher standards than normal fans. Look at Metroid: Other M or New Super Mario Bros 2. Both sold exceptionally poorly (hell, the gamestop here had to cease returns on it because they had far too many). Nintendo First-Party titles are not cash-grabs or instant money.

Mimsofthedawg:
I don't really know where you got those figures, cause as far as I know Nintendo hasn't released sales figures yet,

Apparently VGChartz did a bunch of research to find out.

Jubbert:

If next-gen isn't a descriptor of technology, what's the point of releasing new consoles? We could just use existing technology then.

No, because new technology allows developers to do more with games, regarding visuals, AI, phsyics, level design and such. All of which is hugely important, but none of which has anything to do with whether a console is part of the next generation or not.

Also, talking about how the Wii U has better GPU and RAM right after having said that next-gen apparently doesn't need to be earned with high-end technology.

Lolzors!

I was addressing the oft-made claim that technologically the Wii U is no better that current gen consoles, something that is patently untrue given that it has more RAM and a higher end GPU. Once again, that has nothing to do with 'nect gen' and everything to do with countering false information.

Doom972:

That's just not true. A new generation of consoles has always meant better technology than the previous generation. If someone would release a console with 8-bit era technology, I doubt you would call it next-gen. They basically released a slightly better current-gen console right near the generation's end, but I doubt that it would prevent them from cashing in on Mario, Zelda and Metroid games for it.

Compared to the Gamecube and the Xbox, the PS2 was barely a step up from the PS1. It's RAM was pitiful, it had woeful texture support, next to no aliasing, and no native support for online play. That had to be bodged in afterwards. The Gamecube and Xbox were capable of running the likes of Starfox Adventures and Doom 3, visually stunning titles for their time. The PS2, by contrast, was barely able to keep the likes of SOTC running at a stable framerate. And yet it was still the leader of the sixth generation.

And yes, if someone released an 8-bit console, it would be part of the 8th generation of consoles. So it would class as a next-gen system. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

Capitano Segnaposto:

I would also like to point out that, while the PS2 was the weakest of the Sixth Generation, it still pulled beautiful graphics. Look at Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, or Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. If the Wii U is as "underpowered" compared to Durango or PS4 (whatever they are calling them), it isn't like it can't pull beautiful graphics.

Thank you. Anyone who thinks otherwise, go play Trine 2: Directors Cut. The developers have stated multiple times that they were able to push the graphics on the Wii U version beyond what the PS3 and 360 are capable of. And it looks it. If other games can look as beautiful as Trine 2, then the Wii U has nothing to worry about in terms of eyecandy.

Regardless, the Wii U is still more powerful than either the 360 or PS3. Just as the PS3 has some mediocre graphics at launch (go back and play Resistance. Those graphics were atrocious), it has gotten better near the middle and end of its life-cycle as all consoles do (Play God of War 3 or CastleVania: Lords of Shadow, both have amazing graphics).

Anyone remember the launch titles for the 360? None of them looked as good as the original Xbox's graphical high-point, Chaos Theory. That game pushed the Xbox about as far as it could go, and it wasn't until games like Gears started coming out that the 360 started upping visual quality even more.

Jeez, don't people have any sense of history any more? It's as if anything before the current gen, nobody remembers it anymore.

Capitano Segnaposto:

Doom972:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Oh for the love of...

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released. The PS3, 360 and Wii were all seventh generation consoles, despite differences in power. Just as the PS2 was as much a sixth generation console, despite being underpowered compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. Or how the PS1 was a fifth generation console despite having about half the power of the N64.

Seriously, stop bandying about this term as if 'next generation' is some sort of title which needs to be earned with high end technology. It's not. It is nothing more than a term used to describe when a console came out. The Wii was Nintendo's seventh gen console. The Wii U is being released ahead of the new consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Therefore, by definition, it is the first console of the eighth generation.

Secondly, the Wii U has a higher end GPU and more RAM than either the 360 or PS3, so is more advanced than them by default. Stop acting as if it's some sort of woefully underpowered machine not even comparable with current gen. Games like Trine 2 and Nano Assault have already started to show what the machine is capable of, and it's only been out a month. The 360 had to wait a year for Gears to come out and actually show off what it could do. Before then, it was derided for being 'Xbox 1.5'

That's just not true. A new generation of consoles has always meant better technology than the previous generation. If someone would release a console with 8-bit era technology, I doubt you would call it next-gen. They basically released a slightly better current-gen console right near the generation's end, but I doubt that it would prevent them from cashing in on Mario, Zelda and Metroid games for it.

/facepalm

No, you are incorrect. The Wii had Sixth Generation graphics, yet it was touted as "Next Generation" or the Seventh Generation of consoles.

Also, fans, especially of Nintendo have much higher standards than normal fans. Look at Metroid: Other M or New Super Mario Bros 2. Both sold exceptionally poorly (hell, the gamestop here had to cease returns on it because they had far too many). Nintendo First-Party titles are not cash-grabs or instant money.

/2x facepalm

So, two wrongs make a right?
Just because the Wii was recognized a 7th gen console, while it used 6th gen level of technology, doesn't mean that it was right, nor does it make calling the Wii U a next-gen console right.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Mimsofthedawg:
I don't really know where you got those figures, cause as far as I know Nintendo hasn't released sales figures yet,

Apparently VGChartz did a bunch of research to find out.

Jubbert:

If next-gen isn't a descriptor of technology, what's the point of releasing new consoles? We could just use existing technology then.

No, because new technology allows developers to do more with games, regarding visuals, AI, phsyics, level design and such. All of which is hugely important, but none of which has anything to do with whether a console is part of the next generation or not.

Also, talking about how the Wii U has better GPU and RAM right after having said that next-gen apparently doesn't need to be earned with high-end technology.

Lolzors!

I was addressing the oft-made claim that technologically the Wii U is no better that current gen consoles, something that is patently untrue given that it has more RAM and a higher end GPU. Once again, that has nothing to do with 'nect gen' and everything to do with countering false information.

Doom972:

That's just not true. A new generation of consoles has always meant better technology than the previous generation. If someone would release a console with 8-bit era technology, I doubt you would call it next-gen. They basically released a slightly better current-gen console right near the generation's end, but I doubt that it would prevent them from cashing in on Mario, Zelda and Metroid games for it.

Compared to the Gamecube and the Xbox, the PS2 was barely a step up from the PS1. It's RAM was pitiful, it had woeful texture support, next to no aliasing, and no native support for online play. That had to be bodged in afterwards. The Gamecube and Xbox were capable of running the likes of Starfox Adventures and Doom 3, visually stunning titles for their time. The PS2, by contrast, was barely able to keep the likes of SOTC running at a stable framerate. And yet it was still the leader of the sixth generation.

And yes, if someone released an 8-bit console, it would be part of the 8th generation of consoles. So it would class as a next-gen system. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

I agree that the PS2 was the weakest of the three, but it was still a major step up from the PS1. The PS1 couldn't run a slightly graphically poorer version of GTA3, could it?

Also, calling an 8-bit console a next-gen console would be like me tying a leash to a cardboard box and calling it my pet. People would nod in agreement but would probably think that I need some mental treatment. Just because it's not properly defined, it doesn't mean that people don't expect a next-gen console to have next-gen technology.

Doom972:

I agree that the PS2 was the weakest of the three, but it was still a major step up from the PS1. The PS1 couldn't run a slightly graphically poorer version of GTA3, could it?

It was a step up from the PS1, but compared to what the Xbox and the Gamecube brought, it was paltry. It didn't even have an integrated hard-drive. The Xbox had over twice the RAM (64mb compared to 32mb), a CPU clocked at 733MHZ compared to the PS2s' 295MHZ, more internal cache, texture compression... fuck it, just read this chart. It compares the specs, and shows just how utterly dwarfed the PS2 was dwarfed by the Xbox, and even the Gamecube.

So yeah, if we're arguing tech-specs as some kind of qualifier for whether something is 'next gen' or not, then the PS2 never even counted as part of the last generation. If you're going to argue that the PS2 was part of the sixth generation, then by the same logic, the Wii U is part of the eighth. It doesn't matter how much more powerful Sony and Microsoft's new consoles are going to be, such things are irrelevant to the discussion.

Also, calling an 8-bit console a next-gen console would be like me tying a leash to a cardboard box and calling it my pet. People would nod in agreement but would probably think that I need some mental treatment. Just because it's not properly defined, it doesn't mean that people don't expect a next-gen console to have next-gen technology.

What are you talking about? That comparison makes no sense at all.

No, next-gen consoles do not have to provide a leap in technology, that is simply a process that has happened to occur in the past. Case in point, the Ouya. In most respects, its specs are quite modest, but its coming out this year as a new challenger in the eighth generation. It is an eighth-generation console, as it is appearing at the end of the current gen, and at the start of the next one. Same for the Gamestick.

Secondly, regarding the Wii U, it does have so-called 'next gen' technology. It's got four times the RAM of current consoles, and has got a GPGPU, that is, a GPU also capable of handling CPU tasks. That in itself is way more advanced than anything inside the 360 or PS3.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Doom972:

I agree that the PS2 was the weakest of the three, but it was still a major step up from the PS1. The PS1 couldn't run a slightly graphically poorer version of GTA3, could it?

It was a step up from the PS1, but compared to what the Xbox and the Gamecube brought, it was paltry. It didn't even have an integrated hard-drive. The Xbox had over twice the RAM (64mb compared to 32mb), a CPU clocked at 733MHZ compared to the PS2s' 295MHZ, more internal cache, texture compression... fuck it, just read this chart. It compares the specs, and shows just how utterly dwarfed the PS2 was dwarfed by the Xbox, and even the Gamecube.

So yeah, if we're arguing tech-specs as some kind of qualifier for whether something is 'next gen' or not, then the PS2 never even counted as part of the last generation. If you're going to argue that the PS2 was part of the sixth generation, then by the same logic, the Wii U is part of the eighth. It doesn't matter how much more powerful Sony and Microsoft's new consoles are going to be, such things are irrelevant to the discussion.

Also, calling an 8-bit console a next-gen console would be like me tying a leash to a cardboard box and calling it my pet. People would nod in agreement but would probably think that I need some mental treatment. Just because it's not properly defined, it doesn't mean that people don't expect a next-gen console to have next-gen technology.

What are you talking about? That comparison makes no sense at all.

No, next-gen consoles do not have to provide a leap in technology, that is simply a process that has happened to occur in the past. Case in point, the Ouya. In most respects, its specs are quite modest, but its coming out this year as a new challenger in the eighth generation. It is an eighth-generation console, as it is appearing at the end of the current gen, and at the start of the next one. Same for the Gamestick.

Secondly, regarding the Wii U, it does have so-called 'next gen' technology. It's got four times the RAM of current consoles, and has got a GPGPU, that is, a GPU also capable of handling CPU tasks. That in itself is way more advanced than anything inside the 360 or PS3.

Technology is an issue - According to most people's expectations, next gen = better technology. Otherwise, what's the point of having a new generation?
The PS2 was adequate to run all of the games that weren't exclusive to a single console. You might say that those games were made with the PS2 in mind and therefor were able to run it - but note that the Wii didn't get the same treatment in this console generation, and that's because its technology was too inferior to make current-gen games for it, unlike the PS2.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released.

Not it isn't.

If it was then it would be a worthless descriptor.

We've had this conversation before, I remember vaguely, and it seems you're still making the same argument I refuted months ago.

Treblaine:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released.

Not it isn't.

If it was then it would be a worthless descriptor.

We've had this conversation before, I remember vaguely, and it seems you're still making the same argument I refuted months ago.

You didn't refute anything. You simply stuck your fingers in your ears.

It isn't a worthless descriptor, for the reason that it is meant to describe the period in which a console came out. That is all it is supposed to mean. If the term were in any way meant to apply to actual specs, then it would be a meaningless term given just how much consoles of different generations have differed from each other in terms of specs and power. It's a historical term. That's it. It's no different than if I were to say the period of Henry VII, VIII and Elizabeth I was the Tudor era. It denotes a time period, and that is all.

The PS1 had around half the power of the N64. The PS2 had about half the power of the Xbox. The Wii had less than half the power of the PS360. Yet every credible source lists those consoles as entries in the fifth, sixth and seventh console generations respectively. If you're going to argue that specs are somehow a player in defining 'generation', then you need to go back and re-write nearly twenty years of gaming history, because every single console generation since the PS1 has been won by the console with the least impressive specs. The PS2 therefore couldn't have been won the sixth generation, because it never had the specs to compete in that generation in the first place. The Wii couldn't have won the seventh, because it never had the power to go up against the PS3 and 360.

So you not see how ludicrous this is? You're basically having to rewrite history, just so you can use a term in a way that it's not meant to be used. It is far simpler to say that the PS1 and N64 were released in the same time period of gaming, and were therefore the fifth generation. The Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube all came out in the same period of gaming, so they're the sixth generation. The Wii, 360 and PS3 all came out during a similar period, so they're the seventh generation of consoles. Now we have the Wii U coming out, and the Ouya about to hit stores, kicking off the eighth generation. That is the way the term works, and it makes far more sense that trying to cherry pick definitions based on arbitrary expectations of specs and power.

Aaah, console succes/performance arguments... How I've missed you these past 8 years.

Doom972:
Also, calling an 8-bit console a next-gen console would be like me tying a leash to a cardboard box and calling it my pet. People would nod in agreement but would probably think that I need some mental treatment. Just because it's not properly defined, it doesn't mean that people don't expect a next-gen console to have next-gen technology.

Treblaine:

Not it isn't.

If it was then it would be a worthless descriptor.

We've had this conversation before, I remember vaguely, and it seems you're still making the same argument I refuted months ago.

Then can I say it's a worthless descriptor? Because that's what it is: It's about the era they come out, not their power. For example, here's 2 consoles that came out in the 7th Generation (The one Before): The HyperScan and The Zeebo. These two systems are downgrades from the current gen, and I can prove it:

These consoles just plain suck, but they are considered 7th Generation because they came out when the 7th Generation was! In conclusion, Generation = Time, Generation =/= Power.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Treblaine:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released.

Not it isn't.

If it was then it would be a worthless descriptor.

We've had this conversation before, I remember vaguely, and it seems you're still making the same argument I refuted months ago.

You didn't refute anything. You simply stuck your fingers in your ears.

And yet the rest of your post is covering a load of points I distinctly remember showing to be irrelevant months ago.

There is an exact case of you sticking your fingers in YOUR ears.

I'm not going to fight you Jeffers, I know there is reason in you.

Mr.Mattress:
Generation = Time, Generation =/= Power.

Nintendo proves that it's better to spend money in marketing than hardware. That's not the old definition, it's an entirely new and not widely accepted definition.

It was a wonderful bit of PR, just rebrand the and segregate the Gamecube to help create a false dichotomy of comparing it against PS3 rather than against the PS2.

If Sony pulled the same thing EVERYONE WOULD FLIP THEIR EVER LOVING SHIT! If the Playstation 4 was released and we learned it was nothing but a PS3 with a new controller, and a 3x higher price tag... you thought there was a shitstorm over PSN going down.

Treblaine:

Mr.Mattress:
Generation = Time, Generation =/= Power.

Nintendo proves that it's better to spend money in marketing than hardware. That's not the old definition, it's an entirely new and not widely accepted definition.

It was a wonderful bit of PR, just rebrand the and segregate the Gamecube to help create a false dichotomy of comparing it against PS3 rather than against the PS2.

If Sony pulled the same thing EVERYONE WOULD FLIP THEIR EVER LOVING SHIT! If the Playstation 4 was released and we learned it was nothing but a PS3 with a new controller, and a 3x higher price tag... you thought there was a shitstorm over PSN going down.

Actually, if Sony pulled that off, I would say "Yeah, I was expecting that. They're finally playing smart again. Sure, I won't buy it, but that's because I'm not a fan of Sony". No, it would be people who scream "Nintendo's consoles aren't truely this generation!" (like you) who would cry bloody murder when there wasn't any murder.

And I'm sorry, find me the Nintendo commercial that says "Oh, sure, the Wii is not as powerful as the 360/PS3, but hey, a generation isn't defined by power!" It is the old definition, your trying to create a new one.

You know, for a next gen consol--

*Sees random discussion about next gen consoles*

Never mind...I'm not taking that bullet. have fun, kiddies!

OT: it might be because I'm older or something but when the WiiU was announced, all I could manage was a "eh". When the Wii was announced, though, I was excited and curious about the new technology. I even bought a Wii (Of course, i was later disappointed but still). I dunno, it could be just me.

Nintendo worries me anyway. Not just because of this but because of the decisions they've been doing lately.

Mr.Mattress:
They're finally playing smart again.

No, that's not playing smart, that's treating its customers like idiots and exploiting them. Even you admit you wouldn't fall such a phony PS4 console, you just would admire Sony for exploiting other gamers who didn't know.

Nintendo repeatedly referred to the Wii as "next gen" in relative to Gamecube, and refused to allow any comparison between PS2 and Wii, only the likes of Wii and PS3.

Regardless of semantics, I don't care if Nintendo somehow declares that WiiU is an 11th generation console, it doesn't mean that it does not have the mediocre graphics for a price far higher price than other consoles that do jsut as well or better.

Xbox 360 proved right on launch day it's superior graphics with games like Call of Duty 2, Condemned Criminal origins and Dead or Alive 4 where it was immediately apparent the graphical quality was a whole leap above anything on PS2 or Gamecube or Xbox. WiiU has shown it's just an overpriced poorly supported Xbox.

Treblaine:

Mr.Mattress:
They're finally playing smart again.

No, that's not playing smart, that's treating its customers like idiots and exploiting them. Even you admit you wouldn't fall such a phony PS4 console, you just would admire Sony for exploiting other gamers who didn't know.

I don't like Playstations though. That's the only reason I wouldn't buy: My PS1 when I was a kid only had Spyro, my PS2 only had the Kingdom Hearts series and Shadow of the Colossus, and My PS3 hasn't played a video game since 2010.

Nintendo repeatedly referred to the Wii as "next gen" in relative to Gamecube, and refused to allow any comparison between PS2 and Wii, only the likes of Wii and PS3.

Because Generation is time, not graphical power, and when the Wii first came out, no one compared it to the PS2, because back then no one was like "Ah, Graphics are what make a Generation, not the time they were released!" And Nintendo didn't refuse anyone to compare it to the PS2, people simply didn't.

Regardless of semantics, I don't care if Nintendo somehow declares that WiiU is an 11th generation console, it doesn't mean that it does not have the mediocre graphics for a price far higher price than other consoles that do jsut as well or better.

If they said they were 11th Generation, then yeah, I would agree that that's not true. But they aren't declaring themselves that, they are saying it's 8th Generation, which is true.

Secondly, I have a WiiU now, and I can tell you it does not have Mediocre Graphics. As evidence, here is Trine 2: Directors cut, which Creator Frozenbyte has declared the best version of Trine 2 on a console:

Compared with Trine 2 for the Xbox Live Arcade:

WiiU's Trine 2 > Xbox 360's Trine 2

Xbox 360 proved right on launch day it's superior graphics with games like Call of Duty 2, Condemned Criminal origins and Dead or Alive 4 where it was immediately apparent the graphical quality was a whole leap above anything on PS2 or Gamecube or Xbox. WiiU has shown it's just an overpriced poorly supported Xbox.

Bold accusation, and a down right incorrect one.

Condemned Gampelay:

It looks like a Poor Man's Shenmue and it can't even run 720p.

Call of Duty 2 Gameplay:

Just look at that hand when he's reloading his gun! That's Graphical prowess right there... Except it looks horrendous! And again, it can't run 720p! Not only that, there's no debris, no blood on the victem who died, and the bodies look like molded clay.

Dead Or Alive 4 Gameplay:

I would have given you this one, if it didn't look only slightly better then Dead or Alive 2 for the Dreamcast:

All in All, all these games graphics look horrendous, especially compared to late Xbox games like Halo 2. You cannot claim that the Xbox 360 was a graphical powerhouse right off the bat, when all of it's games looked like crap off the bat!

I wonder if Nintendo is making a habit of releasing a next-gen console before everyone else with silly name? It's gonna be difficult for them Generation 9 then. Frankly I'm not sure they can top WiiU in terms of name.

I think once we see the PS4/Xbox720 on the playing field, we're going to see an all around drop in console sales overall. And it won't be pretty.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here