Why is the Wii U not selling as well as expected?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I can't speak for anyone else. But I didn't buy one because my Wii is currently only justifying it's existence by keeping my N64 company as the only consoles I keep in storage because I never play them.

Crono1973:

Arqus_Zed:
Many have said it before, but... Games. The are many factors, but games have always been the main reason. I see the Wii as a crappy console in many regards (not in the least the forced motion controls on so many games), but when Xenoblade Chronicles (and in lesser extend The Last Story and Pandora's Tower) hit the market, I just had to buy one. Especially since you could play Xenoblade Chronicles with a normal controller!

Same with the Wii U, the whole "tablets are popular, let's put an entire freakin' iPad in one of our controllers and just keep the retarded motion control for all the rest"-scheme didn't really impress me and there are no games to convince me.

Yet.

When Monolith Soft announced they were working on a new RPG for the Wii U, they had my curiosity.

Ever since I've seen the trailer for it, they've had my attention.

I played Xenoblade Chronicles and then I went back to play the superior version of the game, Final Fantasy XII. Sadly, Final Fantasy XII even looks better than Xenoblade Chronicles which looked like pixel soup.

That's funny, whenever someone asks me: "What's Xenoblade Chronicles?"
I always answer: "Think FF XII, but done right."

As in, having characters I can actually care about, instead of a Han Solo rip-off, running around with a playboy bunny instead of a wookie, with two orphans tagging along who have no place of being there, the "totally not acting like a bitch"-princess and the guy with the identical twin who happens to be a *gasp!* bad guy who framed his brother by posing like him. Plus, Xenoblade Chronicles actually had a decent plot you could get invested in. In FF XII, I constantly felt they were hopelessly trying to bring back the "valuable resource" McGuffin from FF VII, but with magicite and nethecite instead of mako and materia. Not to mention the dull geopolitics...

That said, yes, FF XII did use higher resolution textures. Now, what did that gives us? Dungeons broken up into tiny morsels and connected with loading times. They have these giant structures like the Pharos at Ridorana, but soon as you enter, its just a bunch of empty planes and small rooms. Compare this with the Fallen Arm of Xenoblade, a huge area full of enemies, but also a settlement, with everything locating around or in a gargantuan, mechanical arm that has become one with the landscape. You can even climb to the top of one of the fingers, no loading times whatsoever. Personally, I prefer the "pixel soup" over FF XII "golden cage".

As for the gameplay, well, first of all, you can actually do the battles yourself instead of, you now, just hanging around being a spectator. Second, the ADB-system went to shit every time you started using magic against larger groups of enemies. Everything starts getting queued, physical attacks keep going, magic users just keep around doing nothing, once the spell is cast you can't do anything till it has passed every target (instead of all at once), etc.

But, hey, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Forlong:
SNIP

The thing is, while the Wii U does have games, it doesn't have a killer app yet. Every console needs a game that justifies purchasing it. The XBox had Halo, the 360 had Gears, the PS2 had Final Fantasy, and the PS3 had Uncharted.

Thus far, the Wii U doesn't really have an 'OMG MUST OWN!' title yet. I kinda get the impression Nintendo were banking on Nintendo Land being that must-have app, but that doesn't really seem to have panned out, well received as the game is.

There's still time though. The 36o didn't start getting must-have titles until a year in, same with the PS3. Nintendo's got their own EAD studio, Retro and Platinum all working on exclusives, so they have the potential to really bring the thunder. EAD alone have been on spectacular form with their recent Mario games, so I'm really excited to see where they take the series.

The real problem right now is that Nintendo is telling us games like Pikmin 3 and Wonderful 101 are just round the corner, yet they've still not given us release dates beyond vague "Q1-Q2" statements. That's pretty inexcusable. I understand Nintendo doesn't like to rush games, and that's a good thing in this industry, but they should still give us at least pencilled-in release dates so we've got some idea of when the likes of Pikmin 3 are landing. The problem with the Wii U's library isn't lack of exclusives (it's got more exclusives than the 360 for chrissakes) but the fact that we've no fucking clue if and when any of those games will drop.

SMT x Fire Emblem? Fucking stoked. That game could be the crossover hit of the decade. When't it coming out? I have no idea.

X? Trailer footage looked incredible. Like Xenoblade hooked up with Transformers, took a load of ecstasy then had a threeway with Monster Hunter. When are they shooting for a release? Erm... some time in the future?

Bayonetta 2? Sequel to one of the greatest hack-and-slash games of all time? A game that could potentially be the high-point of an already high quality genre? Fuckin' A! Can't wait for that. I want that game inside me! When's it going to be released? Maybe this year, maybe next. Who knows.

I'm hoping as Nintendo starts putting more resources into the Wii U, now that they've given the 3DS the kickstart it needed, we'll start seeing more concrete info given. Right now, even the Nintendo games that are supposed to be next on the release schedule are still undated. Iwata needs to sort that out right now.

Also, they need to market the eShop more. There's a whole host of great indie titles available to download that people simply don't know about. Get some marketing, and get people aware that great Wii U games aren't just being released at brick-and-mortar stores, they're being released on the eShop, ready to download. Runner 2. The Cave. Nano Assault Neo. Trine 2: Director's Cut. All great games that people can currently buy. Why isn't Nintendo marketing that.

Arqus_Zed:

Crono1973:

Arqus_Zed:
Many have said it before, but... Games. The are many factors, but games have always been the main reason. I see the Wii as a crappy console in many regards (not in the least the forced motion controls on so many games), but when Xenoblade Chronicles (and in lesser extend The Last Story and Pandora's Tower) hit the market, I just had to buy one. Especially since you could play Xenoblade Chronicles with a normal controller!

Same with the Wii U, the whole "tablets are popular, let's put an entire freakin' iPad in one of our controllers and just keep the retarded motion control for all the rest"-scheme didn't really impress me and there are no games to convince me.

Yet.

When Monolith Soft announced they were working on a new RPG for the Wii U, they had my curiosity.

Ever since I've seen the trailer for it, they've had my attention.

I played Xenoblade Chronicles and then I went back to play the superior version of the game, Final Fantasy XII. Sadly, Final Fantasy XII even looks better than Xenoblade Chronicles which looked like pixel soup.

That's funny, whenever someone asks me: "What's Xenoblade Chronicles?"
I always answer: "Think FF XII, but done right."

As in, having characters I can actually care about, instead of a Han Solo rip-off, running around with a playboy bunny instead of a wookie, with two orphans tagging along who have no place of being there, the "totally not acting like a bitch"-princess and the guy with the identical twin who happens to be a *gasp!* bad guy who framed his brother by posing like him. Plus, Xenoblade Chronicles actually had a decent plot you could get invested in. In FF XII, I constantly felt they were hopelessly trying to bring back the "valuable resource" McGuffin from FF VII, but with magicite and nethecite instead of mako and materia. Not to mention the dull geopolitics...

That said, yes, FF XII did use higher resolution textures. Now, what did that gives us? Dungeons broken up into tiny morsels and connected with loading times. They have these giant structures like the Pharos at Ridorana, but soon as you enter, its just a bunch of empty planes and small rooms. Compare this with the Fallen Arm of Xenoblade, a huge area full of enemies, but also a settlement, with everything locating around or in a gargantuan, mechanical arm that has become one with the landscape. You can even climb to the top of one of the fingers, no loading times whatsoever. Personally, I prefer the "pixel soup" over FF XII "golden cage".

As for the gameplay, well, first of all, you can actually do the battles yourself instead of, you now, just hanging around being a spectator. Second, the ADB-system went to shit every time you started using magic against larger groups of enemies. Everything starts getting queued, physical attacks keep going, magic users just keep around doing nothing, once the spell is cast you can't do anything till it has passed every target (instead of all at once), etc.

But, hey, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen game having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen.

Crono1973:

LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen game having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen.

Why is that an issue? Xenoblade was a proper open world game. Final Fantasy XII wasn't.

Guess what? Fallout 3 has got crappier textures and a crappier lighting engine than Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, despite the latter being a sixth-gen game. That's what happens when you focus your hardware on rendering lots of area-space all at once, rather than doing little tiny levels one at a time.

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

Zhukov:

PS. Jeffers, it's the N signal!

Quick Slippy! To the Nintendomobile!

image

Desert Punk:

Exius Xavarus:

Funny, that was actually my first thought upon seeing the thread title. "Oh, boy! Time for more Nintendefense: Jeffers!"

Mine as well, I was really shocked he wasnt here already.

A Nintendofan is never late, Desert Punk. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to.

....except when his alarm clock doesn't go off and he oversleeps but ARGLEBARGLENINTENDONINTENDONINTENDO!

If you are going to the Escapist Expo...

...You and Moviebob have to have a fanboy-off, to find out who, once and for all, is nintendo's number 1 uber fan!

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

Crono1973:

LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen game having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen.

Why is that an issue? Xenoblade was a proper open world game. Final Fantasy XII wasn't.

Guess what? Fallout 3 has got crappier textures and a crappier lighting engine than Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, despite the latter being a sixth-gen game. That's what happens when you focus your hardware on rendering lots of area-space all at once, rather than doing little tiny levels one at a time.

Fallout 3 doesn't look like pixel soup.

Look, I really don't care to argue over which game is better. I think XC is overrated and that FF12 is a better game. You and others think the opposite. It doesn't really matter in the end.

Desert Punk:

If you are going to the Escapist Expo...

...You and Moviebob have to have a fanboy-off, to find out who, once and for all, is nintendo's number 1 uber fan!

Are you shitting me? I can't go up against MovieBob. He'd destroy me. He knows about every niche game Nintendo ever put out, on consoles I didn't even know existed back in the day. He'd stomp on me like a Goomba.

...and I'm in the UK, so if the EE is in the States, no way in hell I can afford a trip like that.

I just get tired on people pissing on Nintendo because they made a console without dual analogue controls, that's all. And I like Nintendo as a company. They seem to have the least amount of bullshit out of the big three, and their higher-ups actually know how to make games.

Arqus_Zed:

Crono1973:

Arqus_Zed:
Many have said it before, but... Games. The are many factors, but games have always been the main reason. I see the Wii as a crappy console in many regards (not in the least the forced motion controls on so many games), but when Xenoblade Chronicles (and in lesser extend The Last Story and Pandora's Tower) hit the market, I just had to buy one. Especially since you could play Xenoblade Chronicles with a normal controller!

Same with the Wii U, the whole "tablets are popular, let's put an entire freakin' iPad in one of our controllers and just keep the retarded motion control for all the rest"-scheme didn't really impress me and there are no games to convince me.

Yet.

When Monolith Soft announced they were working on a new RPG for the Wii U, they had my curiosity.

Ever since I've seen the trailer for it, they've had my attention.

I played Xenoblade Chronicles and then I went back to play the superior version of the game, Final Fantasy XII. Sadly, Final Fantasy XII even looks better than Xenoblade Chronicles which looked like pixel soup.

That's funny, whenever someone asks me: "What's Xenoblade Chronicles?"
I always answer: "Think FF XII, but done right."

As in, having characters I can actually care about, instead of a Han Solo rip-off, running around with a playboy bunny instead of a wookie, with two orphans tagging along who have no place of being there, the "totally not acting like a bitch"-princess and the guy with the identical twin who happens to be a *gasp!* bad guy who framed his brother by posing like him. Plus, Xenoblade Chronicles actually had a decent plot you could get invested in. In FF XII, I constantly felt they were hopelessly trying to bring back the "valuable resource" McGuffin from FF VII, but with magicite and nethecite instead of mako and materia. Not to mention the dull geopolitics...

That said, yes, FF XII did use higher resolution textures. Now, what did that gives us? Dungeons broken up into tiny morsels and connected with loading times. They have these giant structures like the Pharos at Ridorana, but soon as you enter, its just a bunch of empty planes and small rooms. Compare this with the Fallen Arm of Xenoblade, a huge area full of enemies, but also a settlement, with everything locating around or in a gargantuan, mechanical arm that has become one with the landscape. You can even climb to the top of one of the fingers, no loading times whatsoever. Personally, I prefer the "pixel soup" over FF XII "golden cage".

As for the gameplay, well, first of all, you can actually do the battles yourself instead of, you now, just hanging around being a spectator. Second, the ADB-system went to shit every time you started using magic against larger groups of enemies. Everything starts getting queued, physical attacks keep going, magic users just keep around doing nothing, once the spell is cast you can't do anything till it has passed every target (instead of all at once), etc.

But, hey, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

I agree totally I am a FF fan and have finished all the main single player entries (except 13-2) but Xenoblade blew almost the entire series out of the water especially 12 which is my second least favourite game in the FF series, the graphics may not have been great but the areas were incredible to look at artistically I would spend ages checking out each area many of which were huge, whereas FFXII looked worse than X probably because it was more open but I also found the art design a bit poor and the terrible characters, battle system and story didnt help it. Good post game though second only to X imo.

As for the wii u I think they have their work cut out from what I have seen a lot of gamers have ignored it due to the negative effect the wii had on them while the non gamers dont care and have moved on to other fads.

Personally I will probably get one when Xenoblade 2 (or whatever they cal it) comes out and ofc for Bayonetta 2, I also saw monster hunter running on it today and that looked impressive. As of this moment I dont know anyone who owns a wii u or is thinking of getting one (to the best of my knowledge anyhow) which is a first in new mainstream console releases.

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

Desert Punk:

If you are going to the Escapist Expo...

...You and Moviebob have to have a fanboy-off, to find out who, once and for all, is nintendo's number 1 uber fan!

Are you shitting me? I can't go up against MovieBob. He'd destroy me. He knows about every niche game Nintendo ever put out, on consoles I didn't even know existed back in the day. He'd stomp on me like a Goomba.

...and I'm in the UK, so if the EE is in the States, no way in hell I can afford a trip like that.

I just get tired on people pissing on Nintendo because they made a console without dual analogue controls, that's all. And I like Nintendo as a company. They seem to have the least amount of bullshit out of the big three, and their higher-ups actually know how to make games.

THEN THE NINTENDO-OFF SHALL BE LIVE STREAMED! :P

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
and their higher-ups actually know how to make games.

This is true. They know how to make the same Mario Zelda and Metroid games over and over again.

-snickers- :3

Crono1973:

Arqus_Zed:

Crono1973:

I played Xenoblade Chronicles and then I went back to play the superior version of the game, Final Fantasy XII. Sadly, Final Fantasy XII even looks better than Xenoblade Chronicles which looked like pixel soup.

That's funny, whenever someone asks me: "What's Xenoblade Chronicles?"
I always answer: "Think FF XII, but done right."

As in, having characters I can actually care about, instead of a Han Solo rip-off, running around with a playboy bunny instead of a wookie, with two orphans tagging along who have no place of being there, the "totally not acting like a bitch"-princess and the guy with the identical twin who happens to be a *gasp!* bad guy who framed his brother by posing like him. Plus, Xenoblade Chronicles actually had a decent plot you could get invested in. In FF XII, I constantly felt they were hopelessly trying to bring back the "valuable resource" McGuffin from FF VII, but with magicite and nethecite instead of mako and materia. Not to mention the dull geopolitics...

That said, yes, FF XII did use higher resolution textures. Now, what did that gives us? Dungeons broken up into tiny morsels and connected with loading times. They have these giant structures like the Pharos at Ridorana, but soon as you enter, its just a bunch of empty planes and small rooms. Compare this with the Fallen Arm of Xenoblade, a huge area full of enemies, but also a settlement, with everything locating around or in a gargantuan, mechanical arm that has become one with the landscape. You can even climb to the top of one of the fingers, no loading times whatsoever. Personally, I prefer the "pixel soup" over FF XII "golden cage".

As for the gameplay, well, first of all, you can actually do the battles yourself instead of, you now, just hanging around being a spectator. Second, the ADB-system went to shit every time you started using magic against larger groups of enemies. Everything starts getting queued, physical attacks keep going, magic users just keep around doing nothing, once the spell is cast you can't do anything till it has passed every target (instead of all at once), etc.

But, hey, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen game having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen.

Well... yeah.

The Wii is weak. I know this, you know this, everybody knows this.
If we're talking hardware, the Wii fits more in with the consoles of the 6th generation.
That's why multiplatform games use the same team for the PS2 and Wii versions, instead of X360 and PS3, that's why- No, you know what, fuck it, I really shouldn't be explaining this! The thing's been out for almost 7 years and your telling me you didn't know this?

Christ...

Anyway, no, just as graphics are far from being the most important part of a game, having lower res textures - which are in and of itself a part of what we define as "graphics" - doesn't make a game bad. Especially if said choice makes sure that the game plays a lot smoother and is a lot more fun then if you had used higher res textures. It's not rocket science, you know.

Honestly, I think you're just trolling. You quote my post, I reply, I provide a counter argument, you reply and you do not even attempt to refute or agree with anything I said. You just go: "LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen game having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen." I mean, I'm just guessing here, but if the number in you username reflects your birth year, you're 29 or 30 years old. If that's the case, I was really hoping more than a one line reply starting with "LOL".

Arqus_Zed:

Crono1973:

Arqus_Zed:

That's funny, whenever someone asks me: "What's Xenoblade Chronicles?"
I always answer: "Think FF XII, but done right."

As in, having characters I can actually care about, instead of a Han Solo rip-off, running around with a playboy bunny instead of a wookie, with two orphans tagging along who have no place of being there, the "totally not acting like a bitch"-princess and the guy with the identical twin who happens to be a *gasp!* bad guy who framed his brother by posing like him. Plus, Xenoblade Chronicles actually had a decent plot you could get invested in. In FF XII, I constantly felt they were hopelessly trying to bring back the "valuable resource" McGuffin from FF VII, but with magicite and nethecite instead of mako and materia. Not to mention the dull geopolitics...

That said, yes, FF XII did use higher resolution textures. Now, what did that gives us? Dungeons broken up into tiny morsels and connected with loading times. They have these giant structures like the Pharos at Ridorana, but soon as you enter, its just a bunch of empty planes and small rooms. Compare this with the Fallen Arm of Xenoblade, a huge area full of enemies, but also a settlement, with everything locating around or in a gargantuan, mechanical arm that has become one with the landscape. You can even climb to the top of one of the fingers, no loading times whatsoever. Personally, I prefer the "pixel soup" over FF XII "golden cage".

As for the gameplay, well, first of all, you can actually do the battles yourself instead of, you now, just hanging around being a spectator. Second, the ADB-system went to shit every time you started using magic against larger groups of enemies. Everything starts getting queued, physical attacks keep going, magic users just keep around doing nothing, once the spell is cast you can't do anything till it has passed every target (instead of all at once), etc.

But, hey, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen game having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen.

Well... yeah.

The Wii is weak. I know this, you know this, everybody knows this.
If we're talking hardware, the Wii fits more in with the consoles of the 6th generation.
That's why multiplatform games use the same team for the PS2 and Wii versions, instead of X360 and PS3, that's why- No, you know what, fuck it, I really shouldn't be explaining this! The thing's been out for almost 7 years and your telling me you didn't know this?

Strawman. You are talking about something that no one else is talking about and then attacking me for supposedly not knowing what we weren't talking about. Well, as it turns out I know more about the specs of the Wii and the PS2 than you do. The Wii is more than twice as powerful than the PS2 was. I wasn't arguing that the Wii was weak but more that XC looked like shit and it didn't have to.

Anyway, no, just as graphics are far from being the most important part of a game, having lower res textures - which are in and of itself a part of what we define as "graphics" - doesn't make a game bad. Especially if said choice makes sure that the game plays a lot smoother and is a lot more fun then if you had used higher res textures. It's not rocket science, you know.

Don't remember FF12 running badly. Seemed to run pretty damn smooth to me.

Honestly, I think you're just trolling. You quote my post, I reply, I provide a counter argument, you reply and you do not even attempt to refute or agree with anything I said. You just go: "LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen game having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen." I mean, I'm just guessing here, but if the number in you username reflects your birth year, you're 29 or 30 years old. If that's the case, I was really hoping more than a one line reply starting with "LOL".

I just don't care to try and change your mind, I was just giving you my opinion. I honestly don't think a Wii game should look worse than a PS2 game.

The Wii-U's failure isn't due to people revolting against new consoles, nor is it entirely about games (though that is part of the equation). The real issue is price point. Right now people are having to financially justify their purchases more than ever, and the Wii-U just isn't ready for that yet. Once some proper games come out, the initial sales price drops, and devs stop making games for the current gen machines you will see the sales spike. Until that time, Wii-U will continue its slow drizzle of sales. Mostly from people who don't have a Wii, or their Wii broke.

Desert Punk:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
and their higher-ups actually know how to make games.

This is true. They know how to make the same Mario Zelda and Metroid games over and over again.

-snickers- :3

...really? You want me to do it? You want me to go into the whole spiel about the differences between Mario Bros/Mario 64/Galaxy, or Super Metroid/Metroid Prime/Other M? Don't make me do it. I'll write reams and reams of text about how those mainline games have continually reinvented themselves. I'll fill this entire thread with a TLDR on the subject.

And it's not as if that's all Nintendo do. Pokemon? Animal Crossing? Pikmin? Sin And Punishment? Fire Emblem? Star Fox? F-Zero? Kid Icarus?

Come on man, you're better than that...

TizzytheTormentor:
Because games...

This. Mario can sell consoles to an extent but not when it's just him, a Nintendo-themed amusement part and, a 1st-person-zombie game. Those 3 games are great but they aren't good enough to have people playing them from (potentially) November until this past week. Yeah, the Wii U had some popular ports but a lot of the games you can buy on the U are games that you likely already bought (Arkham City, Mass Effect 3) or they're games on systems you already own (Black Ops 3, Assassin's Creed 3, Sonic All-Star Racing). Nobody is going to buy new hardware for the sake of software they already have access to.

I've joked that "I am the 1% in that the first time I played Arkham City and Mass Effect 3 was on the Wii U". The punchline of that joke is the truth behind it. People who wanted to play the Wii U ports have already played, beaten and/or, traded in those games. It's a great sign that Nintendo seems to have better ties with 3rd party developers but it won't mean anything if all the U gets are year-old games.

If the worst rumors about Durango are true then there could be a nice little migration of former Xbox-owners over to the U possibly.

barbzilla:
The Wii-U's failure isn't due to people revolting against new consoles, nor is it entirely about games (though that is part of the equation). The real issue is price point. Right now people are having to financially justify their purchases more than ever, and the Wii-U just isn't ready for that yet. Once some proper games come out, the initial sales price drops, and devs stop making games for the current gen machines you will see the sales spike. Until that time, Wii-U will continue its slow drizzle of sales. Mostly from people who don't have a Wii, or their Wii broke.

When devs start making next gen games, the WiiU will likely be left out in the cold again.

you know, when the wii came out, it came out with something that no one has ever seen before. Motion Controls and a console slated for the non gamers. That got people curious enough to come out in droves and see what it's about. Not gamers, but people.

And yes, it got a whole group of people interested in a medium they thought they had no place in. And oddly enough, it opened up the path for the very reason why I think the Wii U isn't selling.

It made mainstream realize the fun they can have with games, which Apple took over in droves with the iPad.

To many in my life who are not gamers, they've told me they love video games but the controls are too intense. In comes iPad and it's simplistic games. While you and I look for more innovation and deeper game play, Angry Birds shatters records even to this day.

So, when Nintendo decided to go back to their market that they supposedly brought into gaming, that market looks at the Wii U and goes 'Well, I already got my new iPad 4, so I'm good". and us 'hardcore' gamers are still reeling from not being their demographic any more... Add that to the fact that no third party ever seems to want to develop for the Wii U, and Nintendo short sightedly dug their own hole.

Crono1973:

barbzilla:
The Wii-U's failure isn't due to people revolting against new consoles, nor is it entirely about games (though that is part of the equation). The real issue is price point. Right now people are having to financially justify their purchases more than ever, and the Wii-U just isn't ready for that yet. Once some proper games come out, the initial sales price drops, and devs stop making games for the current gen machines you will see the sales spike. Until that time, Wii-U will continue its slow drizzle of sales. Mostly from people who don't have a Wii, or their Wii broke.

When devs start making next gen games, the WiiU will likely be left out in the cold again.

Well the thing is, people are saying why should I buy a new console for X amount of dollars when I have a 360/PS3 that does the same graphics and has a normal controller already?

barbzilla:

Crono1973:

barbzilla:
The Wii-U's failure isn't due to people revolting against new consoles, nor is it entirely about games (though that is part of the equation). The real issue is price point. Right now people are having to financially justify their purchases more than ever, and the Wii-U just isn't ready for that yet. Once some proper games come out, the initial sales price drops, and devs stop making games for the current gen machines you will see the sales spike. Until that time, Wii-U will continue its slow drizzle of sales. Mostly from people who don't have a Wii, or their Wii broke.

When devs start making next gen games, the WiiU will likely be left out in the cold again.

Well the thing is, people are saying why should I buy a new console for X amount of dollars when I have a 360/PS3 that does the same graphics and has a normal controller already?

I agree. It's hard to see who Nintendo was targeting with the WiiU. The name isn't helping it either. Super Wii or Wii 2 would have been better.

Crono1973:

Arqus_Zed:

Crono1973:

LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen game having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen.

Well... yeah.

The Wii is weak. I know this, you know this, everybody knows this.
If we're talking hardware, the Wii fits more in with the consoles of the 6th generation.
That's why multiplatform games use the same team for the PS2 and Wii versions, instead of X360 and PS3, that's why- No, you know what, fuck it, I really shouldn't be explaining this! The thing's been out for almost 7 years and your telling me you didn't know this?

Strawman. You are talking about something that no one else is talking about and then attacking me for supposedly not knowing what we weren't talking about. Well, as it turns out I know more about the specs of the Wii and the PS2 than you do. The Wii is more than twice as powerful than the PS2 was. I wasn't arguing that the Wii was weak but more that XC looked like shit and it didn't have to.

Anyway, no, just as graphics are far from being the most important part of a game, having lower res textures - which are in and of itself a part of what we define as "graphics" - doesn't make a game bad. Especially if said choice makes sure that the game plays a lot smoother and is a lot more fun then if you had used higher res textures. It's not rocket science, you know.

Don't remember FF12 running badly. Seemed to run pretty damn smooth to me.

Honestly, I think you're just trolling. You quote my post, I reply, I provide a counter argument, you reply and you do not even attempt to refute or agree with anything I said. You just go: "LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen game having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen." I mean, I'm just guessing here, but if the number in you username reflects your birth year, you're 29 or 30 years old. If that's the case, I was really hoping more than a one line reply starting with "LOL".

I just don't care to try and change your mind, I was just giving you my opinion. I honestly don't think a Wii game should look worse than a PS2 game.

1) Read my comment again, check your specs again. I said the Wii fits in more with the 6th gen than the 7th gen. My argument still stands. And, I admit, because of the brevity of your answer, I automatically assumed you didn't know what you were talking about. My bad.

2) I'm not talking about lag or anything, I'm talking about the constant loading times and the way the broken ADB-system breaks when you face multiple enemies and try to use magic that targets multiple enemies. I had already mentioned this in my first comment.

3) Hey, you can give all the opinions you want, I won't stop you. But if you give your opinion while quoting one of my posts, well, I just assume you expect me to react if I do not share the same view. (By the way, speaking of opinions, I don't think Xenoblade looks worse than FF XII. What it lacks in high detail texturing, it makes up with huge, beautiful landscapes where everything is reachable. There is more than one way for a game to look good.)

Forlong:
The Wii U sales haven't been steller. And I mean in terms of most Nintendo hardware. Saying the Nintendo product "isn't selling as expected" is like saying that Donald Trump is losing money. There is no real reason to worry.

However, this is a pattern that has emmerged in the youth of the eighth console generation. The 3DS had similar sales issues, and the Vita had them in spades. If what Sony says about PS4 specs is any indicator, this selling issue will hit it like a wrecking ball. Microsoft will fair no better than Nintendo. As for the fabled Steambox...er...we can download Steam onto our computers, so Valve will need to throw one hell of a sales pitch at E3.

I think what happened was that gamers in general have gotten wise to this ploy. Developers long believed they always needed to be on the cutting edge of inovation. New graphics, new control mods, new features, ect. But thanks to the development of technology, inovation can take the back seat. We certainly still need inovation, just not in the form of new tech every seven years. Sure Nintendo needed a new console, but do Sony and Microsoft really need it? Nope.

The bad news is that the console providors will be in denial of this fact for quite a while. We might indeed, have to watch Sony go bankrupt. We my have to suffer through more of Microsoft struggling to come up with "hip" names for new consoles. We can only hope EA makes a botched console that we all comfortably laugh at.

The good news is that, once they figured this out, we won't be seeing new consoles for a long time. A console generation will last for an average of 12 years, instead of 8. We might see a few upgrade parts, like the ROM addaptor for the N64, but not as much new consoles. Game devs will clue in soon after and step in line, focusing on just making good games rather than being on the cutting edge 100% of the time.

A man can dream...a man can dream...

I COMPLETELY disagree with this idea that we don't need new consoles. The current gen (or should I now say previous gen?) tech is simply BAD. Everything is watered down, murky, and simply weak. Developers are legitimately held back not just in terms of graphics but more importantly in what they can do with physics, game engines, etc. You'll do well to notice that the PS4 is only a marginal improvement graphically over the PS3 - the emphasis will and should be on overall processing power to create systems that have more depth. All you need to do is look at games such as Skyrim to see that current gen consoles are desperately lacking in the power developers need to express their creativity.

Something that points both to the NEED for new consoles as well as this idea that the Wii U just came out at a bad time is that sales are also down 25% overall. People just aren't buying as many games as they used to. The reason for this is complicated and can't be explained by one single reason, though I'd venture a guess that it's related to the homogenization of the market (all games are beginning to, at least superficially, look a like). Here, your notion that we need more "creativity"/"innovation" has most of its credence, but your ideas fail to explain why innovation isn't happening on consoles - it's happening on PC and mobile platforms - platforms routinely updated every YEAR never mind the leaps and bounds they grow over the course of 7 (ask any mobile developer if they could do what they can now on a 1st gen android and they'll probably say no).

But getting back to the Wii U specifically it's failing because of both poor marketing and bad development. Why should anyone buy one? They barely marketed the damn thing, and I want someone to name me 5, quality, console exclusive games that justify a CURRENT purchase. There's really only one: The New Super Mario Bros U... but even this is lackluster compared to breathtaking games that usually accompany console launches (Halo, that new Infamous, etc.). Nevermind the fact that the Wii U shipped with the majority of it's tech not even working (no WiiTV, no internet functions, no Amazon, etc.). Nintendo simply botched the launch of their home console. That's why no one's buying it.

Give it some time. Give it another few console exclusives. Let them STOP losing exclusives (Rayman, I'm looking at you -.-) and we'll be having a very different discussion.

But let me make one thing clear: the fact they're updating the consoles is NOT the problem. you can question the relevance of consoles (verses PC's/tablets), but the release of new ones in and of themselves is not the problem.

Arqus_Zed:

Crono1973:

Arqus_Zed:

Well... yeah.

The Wii is weak. I know this, you know this, everybody knows this.
If we're talking hardware, the Wii fits more in with the consoles of the 6th generation.
That's why multiplatform games use the same team for the PS2 and Wii versions, instead of X360 and PS3, that's why- No, you know what, fuck it, I really shouldn't be explaining this! The thing's been out for almost 7 years and your telling me you didn't know this?

Strawman. You are talking about something that no one else is talking about and then attacking me for supposedly not knowing what we weren't talking about. Well, as it turns out I know more about the specs of the Wii and the PS2 than you do. The Wii is more than twice as powerful than the PS2 was. I wasn't arguing that the Wii was weak but more that XC looked like shit and it didn't have to.

Anyway, no, just as graphics are far from being the most important part of a game, having lower res textures - which are in and of itself a part of what we define as "graphics" - doesn't make a game bad. Especially if said choice makes sure that the game plays a lot smoother and is a lot more fun then if you had used higher res textures. It's not rocket science, you know.

Don't remember FF12 running badly. Seemed to run pretty damn smooth to me.

Honestly, I think you're just trolling. You quote my post, I reply, I provide a counter argument, you reply and you do not even attempt to refute or agree with anything I said. You just go: "LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen game having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen." I mean, I'm just guessing here, but if the number in you username reflects your birth year, you're 29 or 30 years old. If that's the case, I was really hoping more than a one line reply starting with "LOL".

I just don't care to try and change your mind, I was just giving you my opinion. I honestly don't think a Wii game should look worse than a PS2 game.

1) Read my comment again, check your specs again. I said the Wii fits in more with the 6th gen than the 7th gen. My argument still stands. And, I admit, because of the brevity of your answer, I automatically assumed you didn't know what you were talking about. My bad.

2) I'm not talking about lag or anything, I'm talking about the constant loading times and the way the broken ADB-system breaks when you face multiple enemies and try to use magic that targets multiple enemies. I had already mentioned this in my first comment.

3) Hey, you can give all the opinions you want, I won't stop you. But if you give your opinion while quoting one of my posts, well, I just assume you expect me to react if I do not share the same view. (By the way, speaking of opinions, I don't think Xenoblade looks worse than FF XII. What it lacks in high detail texturing, it makes up with huge, beautiful landscapes where everything is reachable. There is more than one way for a game to look good.)

You keep wanting to use the Wii specs to support your argument of why XC is so damned ugly. Well, the Wii was certainly capable of looking better than the PS2 but XC doesn't look better than FF12 IMO. According to you, FF12 even has higher res textures.

So let me repeat, I am not talking about the Wii being weak, I am talking specifically about XC being damn ugly when it didn't have to be.

As far as Wii fitting in more in the 6th gen. Who the hell really cares, it's a 7th gen console and that's all there is to it. WiiU is an 8th gen console even if it doesn't measure up to it's competition. If a WiiU game came out that looked worse than a Wii game, that would also be pathetic.

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

rob_simple:

K84:
I just hope the WiiU does'nt become Nintendo's "Dreamcast".

I would actually be quite happy for it to go that way, at the moment. Pretty much the only thing Nintendo's last three consoles have been good for is their first party titles, which were few and far between, so I think it would be better for everyone if they went the way of Sega and started releasing their IP on Sony and Microsoft's consoles.

Never going to happen.

Firstly, Sega's move to third-party publisher wasn't down to just the Dreamcast. They'd had over a decade of making consoles that simply didn't sell- the 32X, the Saturn, the Game Gear, then the Dreamcast. In fact, you could make an argument that the Genesis was the only Sega console to really do spectacularly well. All their other console releases had nowhere near the same amount of success. That's what eventually drove them third party.

Secondly, Nintendo themselves have said that the day they stop making hardware is the day they move out of the gaming business altogether.

Thirdly, Nintendo would make much less money as a third-party publisher. They wouldn't get royalty cuts from other developers, and they'd have to pay royalty cuts on even their most successful franchises (Mario, Zelda, etc) to Microsoft and Sony. Right now, they can release a game, and make all the money back from it. Why would they willingly want to start sharing their profits with their competitors. Especially considering that at this point, Nintendo is the only one of the big 3 who's been regularly posting profits. The other two have been operating on a loss basis for years.

Cool story bro, I'm just saying what I'd like to happen, not that I think it ever would. I have no interest in Nintendo's new consoles because they always seem to be pushing new gimmicks or other stuff I'm not interested in but I still like their games, so they'd personally get a lot more of my custom if they were selling titles on consoles I actually want to play.

Also worth pointing out that the N64 and Gamecube didn't exactly set the world on fire, either; in fact I'm sure I read somewhere that the head boy at Nintendo said if the Wii had failed it would have finished them. Or maybe it was the DS, I forget.

It probably was the DS, actually, since if it wasn't for their dominance in the handheld market, Nintendo would probably have ceased to exist a long time ago.

TizzytheTormentor:
Because games...

Seriously, there are very few games out for it at the moment, it would have had Rayman Legends (may have shifted some units) But that was pushed back to September for a multi-platform release. Even now, I won't be getting one until down the line because there aren't enough games to warrant a purchase from me (once Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem comes out, you can bet a Wii-U will be in my house all ready for it)

Rayman Legends was gonna sell units to people on this very site. Jeffers should be around here somewhere he was wanting it.

Honestly the software library and poor marketing to core gamers, it's amazing how many people don't understand that it has a full normal control set as well as the screen and that the pro controller exists. Otherwise it just needs more games, I only have 3 for mine and want Lego City Undercover, but I can't buy it til I need a job, and after that I may get Resident Evil Revelations in May and then whener Pikmin comes out and nothing til autumn.

I'm not going to speak for the rest of the gaming stratosphere, but I'll explain why this is the first Nintendo console I haven't bought within the first month of it being released, nor do I have any intentions of buying it in the foreseeable future.

Years ago, I was a hardcore Nintendo fanboy, the extreme severe type. I refused to give in to Sega, Atari, Sony, and Microsoft- in my mind, they were all posers... or whatever I would say back in the 90s and early 00s. Nintendo would float on through.

But as things sailed on, I watched the "imitators" and I watched them grow in artistry, graphics, and mechanics. I kept looking to my proverbial ship's captain and for a time, they would console me and give me a fun Mario game here, an epic Zelda there. Undoubtedly fun games, even to this day,but all the same, stagnation begun to become more and more prevalent. The Mario games were fun, but nothing as awe-inspiring as Mario 64. Twilight Princess was great, but it didn't move the same way Majora's Mask did. More and more, especially when the Wii came into power, it felt like the old venerable captain Nintendo had lost the way. The new games that I couldn't get on other consoles became more and more hailbacks to previous adventures or rehashes of the same stories.

The "awe" was gone.

And then, ol' Captain Nintendo fell in love with the WiiFit, WiiMusic, and their ilk of game. The captain had seemed to have gone mad and for a time, it seemed that was all was left was the occasional Mario game. They'd trot out Link once in a while, too. Samus is a wreck of her former self. And no one has heard from StarFox or F-Zero in a crazy long time, sans for the occasional SSB game.

When Nintendo spent their 2008 E3 conference trying to convince me Nintendo Sports Resort and Wii Music would be as amazing and fun, I finally broke down. That week, I went to the store, bought a 360, a copy of Bioshock, and a copy of GTAIV.

And now, ol' Captain Nintendo is coming back, looking all fat and happy. But despite its appeal to myself and other gamers alike, I don't buy it as much anymore. The launch titles were mostly ports of games I had played before. And the games it used to bait me for years - Mario, Zelda, Metroid, StarFox, F-Zero... all essentially nonexistent, with the exception of a rehash of a re-imagining of a Mario side-scrolling game. There is also NintendoLand, but much like the SSB game, it is essentially an exercise in forced nostalgia.

Maybe when and if Nintendo can find the way to awe me back when games were new and exciting, then I'll hop back on board. But as for now, it just feels like an old and tired ploy from a friend I can't bring myself to trust with my money anymore.

Crono1973:

When devs start making next gen games, the WiiU will likely be left out in the cold again.

Maybe. Maybe not. The difference between the Wii and the PS360 was far, far greater than the difference (from what we know so far) between the Wii U and the Nextbox/PS4.

Will the Wii U support all the next-gen engines? We don't entirely know yet. Crytek have said that the Wii U can run Cryengine 3 no problem. Epic have said it can run Unreal 3, and it should be able to run Unreal 4 considering Epic's focus atm is getting their engines to run on as much hardware as possible (including smartphones). It should be able to run Frostbite 2 given that the Ps3 and 360 can already run them.

If it can run those engines, then multiplatform games should be significantly easier to make. Sure, it won't be able to run them with as many high end bells and whistles, but the difference shouldn't be any worse than a PC running games on medium settings, and a PC running games on ultra-high settings.

The PS2 managed to share a huge number of multiplat titles with the Xbox, despite having less than half the power.

Also, if Nintendo starts shifting units this year, then when the PS4 and Nextbox launch, the Wii U will already have an audience too big to ignore. They're already 3 million up on the competition. If the upcoming titles like Pikmin 3 and Wonderful 101 turn out to be fantastic, and if they start aggressively hyping the new games like Mario, SMTxFE and Smash Bros, there's no reason they couldn't go up against the PS4 launch with something like 8-10 million Wii U's sold this year. That would be a huge advantage, and third parties wouldn't be able to ignore the system then.

Crono1973:

*Just gonna cut some quotes away here*

You keep wanting to use the Wii specs to support your argument of why XC is so damned ugly. Well, the Wii was certainly capable of looking better than the PS2 but XC doesn't look better than FF12 IMO. According to you, FF12 even has higher res textures.

So let me repeat, I am not talking about the Wii being weak, I am talking specifically about XC being damn ugly when it didn't have to be.

As far as Wii fitting in more in the 6th gen. Who the hell really cares, it's a 7th gen console and that's all there is to it. WiiU is an 8th gen console even if it doesn't measure up to it's competition. If a WiiU game came out that looked worse than a Wii game, that would also be pathetic.

Again, I disagree with your opinion of Xenoblade being ugly. It has a different style than FF XII, true, that's a fact. You immediately call it ugly, I think otherwise. Second, The Wii might be capable of using texture detail equal or greater than that of the PS2, but if Xenoblade would have done that, it probably wouldn't have been able to generate its huge open areas without loading times. They had to make a choice between high detail texturing or gigantic maps. They chose the latter, I think it was the right choice.

I don't care if the Wii is weak or not, the whole thing started with your reply of: "LOL, you are actually justifying a current gen having lower res textures than a previous gen game on the weakest console of that gen." The only thing I ever wanted to do, was relay my opinion about Xenoblade Chronicles being better than FF XII. Remember? You said: "I played Xenoblade Chronicles and then I went back to play the superior version of the game, Final Fantasy XII." And I replied to that, detailing how I disagreed with that. This discussion should have been about the pros and cons of both games, not constant rambling about texture sizes and how powerful the Wii is/isn't.

Lack of games mostly. But I'd say the other reason is that hardly anyone outside of the 'gaming loop' really knows what the hell it is.

I asked a couple of my friends who own and enjoy playing on 360s but don't keep up with the industry what they thought of the Wii U. Neither actually knew anything about it. They'd only heard the name.
These guys aren't grandma and grandpa, they're people who enjoy gaming (probably defined as 'casual' but still) who weren't really aware of the console.

Maybe it's different elsewhere, but there's been almost no publicity for the Wii U where I live.

x-Tomfoolery-x:
I stand corrected. Thanks. Guess it just felt like a lot of shovelware.
Coldstone Creamery anyone?

image

Hey! That game is actually a tragically underrated masterpiece! 10/10 worth every penny!
(Jokes, of course. I must invent sarcasta-text.)

1. Player investment- One side effect of this console lifecycle is that it went so long that consumers are REALLY invested in their current consoles. Simply put having to NOT be able to play all your existing games as an average consumer doesn't make much sense. Remember that the average consumer isn't a hobbyist like most of us here posting on the escapist. They are just people who would either follow a trend or get a few selection of games and that's it cause they put their financial resources to other uses.

2. Rejection by developers- The major weakness of any console or even the PC is that if you can't get developers to develop games for your console then you are screwed no matter how good the console is. The amount of risk of developing a game for the wii or the wii U is too gigantic compared to going for a safer audience because...

3. Console perception- This is what really hurt the Wii and will hurt the Wii U. Are they good consoles? Yes, actually they are great consoles and with great games. But here is the issue, even person who would say they are a hobbyist would not be able to really tell you what are the go to games for either console(Of course due to point number one we have more fanboys than hobbyists this generation). So people just make the standard internet jokes and it is one thing I've noticed now with all these internet jokes.

The jokes slowly become absolute truths to the people.

Say what you want about Former President George W. Bush but he was right about saying even a lie over and over gain and it will become the truth.

So it just gets a bad reputation.

4. Technology- This is a minor issue as to why the console isn't doing well but one thing to note about the Wii U it is the first HDMI console from Nintendo. One thing even a lot of hobbyists overlooked is how radical it was for Sony and Microsoft to push the latest technology on their consoles that your average consume didn't and overall still doesn't have in their home. An HD television or component television.

Small history lesson here but did you know that up until the sixth generation of consoles(dreamcast, gamecube, PS2, Xbox) that your only options were an RF adapter or composite? In other words the video game industry originally saved a lot of resources because they weren't there to push the latest technology but utilize existing technology. So the oddballs in the seventh generation was actually Microsoft and Sony, not nintendo. Due to their massive size as a company and the incentive for Sony to push technology in their console to go with their electronics branch they could take that enormous risk and essentially force the consumer base into an HDMI world. That is a radical change that since these companies are still trying to push graphics/realism over style gave them something to market over nintendo. While it didn't exactly work in terms of sales for the seventh generation, this time? It might actually work.

So yeah, this is why the wii U isn't selling well.

Darquenaut:

SNIP

I know opinions and stuff, but really? You think the Galaxy games were just a rehash of Mario 64? Or 3D Land? Or that the Metroid Prime trilogy was a rehash of Super Metroid? Or that Skyward Sword was a rehash of Ocarina? Kirby's Epic Yarn? Animal Crossing?

I never understand this double-logic. Nintendo makes games that constantly reinvent themselves in the best way possible (Prime, Galaxy, Skyward Sword, etc), and people complain that they focus too much on rehashing older games. They stop focusing on some of their older franchises to focus on new things like Wii Fit or Wii Play (which, despite what 'core' gamers may grumble about, were huge successes for Nintendo), and people then complain that Nintendo doesn't do enough with their old-school series.

Either you want Nintendo to keep making Star Fox, F-Zero, Zelda and Mario games, or you don't. Why people feel the need to complain about something like Mario Galaxy 2 simply because it's part of a thirty year old franchise, despite the fact it's also the highest reviewed game of all time... there's just no pleasing people.

What boggles me even more is that something like The Last Of Us to me just looks like Uncharted with zombies, but apparently I'm wrong and it's "omg originality!"

rob_simple:

Cool story bro, I'm just saying what I'd like to happen, not that I think it ever would. I have no interest in Nintendo's new consoles because they always seem to be pushing new gimmicks or other stuff I'm not interested in but I still like their games, so they'd personally get a lot more of my custom if they were selling titles on consoles I actually want to play.

What's gimmicky about the Wii U? The fact it's got a touchscreen? Well gee, that sure is some new out-there technology. It's not like the DS and pretty much every phone out there have spent the last decade making touchscreens standard or anything... And it's certainly not as if the Wii U controller also has a full set of perfectly normal buttons as well.

Also worth pointing out that the N64 and Gamecube didn't exactly set the world on fire, either; in fact I'm sure I read somewhere that the head boy at Nintendo said if the Wii had failed it would have finished them. Or maybe it was the DS, I forget.

Nope. Nintendo made a profit off both. Even the Gamecube. Also, while the Gamecube didn't sell as well as the other consoles, the Gameboy Advance sold a shitload of units and kept Nintendo swimming in the money. Likewise, Nintendo had the Gameboy and Gameboy Colour at the same time as the N64, and those things were a license to print money.

It probably was the DS, actually, since if it wasn't for their dominance in the handheld market, Nintendo would probably have ceased to exist a long time ago.

Nintendo's handhelds have often eclipsed their console brethren, but as far as I can tell, they've always made a profit from their consoles.

Forlong:
So many similar responses, I'll just focus on genaric statements. No offense meant.

1: NO GA-A-A-A-A-A-A-AMES!!!
Call of Duty: Black Ops II
Epic Mickey 2
New Super Mario Bros. U
Nintendo Land
Scribblenauts Unlimited
Skylanders: Giants
ZombiU
Ninja Gaiden 3
Tekken Tag Tournament 2
007 Legends
Monster Hunter 3
Need for Speed
Walking Dead

There are plenty of games that would justify millions of consoles being sold. Just not as many people are jumping on it. The tripe ports could be a factor, but I think you're missing something.

Really? Because out of all of those games that you listed, almost all of the ones that I have any interest in were out on other consoles first. Plus, some of those first party titles you listed are just plain bad. I know I can't be alone in my opinion of that being a pretty weak list.

The only game out of all of those that I want but don't already have is Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate but I'd honestly rather settle for the normal Monster Hunter 3 on my Wii than go out and buy a new system for one game.

Once the new Legend of Zelda comes out, I might buy this console but for now, there's just not enough there for me.

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

If it can run those engines, then multiplatform games should be significantly easier to make. Sure, it won't be able to run them with as many high end bells and whistles, but the difference shouldn't be any worse than a PC running games on medium settings, and a PC running games on ultra-high settings.

However, the difference will still be noticable, and I very much doubt that the Wii U will have a significant price advantage.

The reason the Wii U isn't doing well at the moment is because it doesn't do anything noticably better than a console you can get for half the price that has a massive back catalogue of games most of which you can get cheap in the very active second hand market.

When the Wii came out it didn't matter that the hardware was gash compared to the competition, because it was doing something they weren't. The Wii U isn't doing anything particularly unique, and even when it starts to build a good exclusive library that will only attract a certain market segment (vastly more people care about the big multiplatform releases than exclusives, which is why Nintendo was so vocal about this console being not shit at running the same games the others are running), the umpty billion CoD, FIFA, Madden, whatevers players will see virtually indistinguishable performance to the box they already have and not be tempted.

Darquenaut:
-snip-

You make Nintendo sound like a drunken abusive pirate pimp.
And that it's franchises are old prostitutes that get to go above deck on occasion. I somewhat approve.

At any rate if you enjoy Nintendo games, the 3DS is a decent purchase to make.
It has a solid library to choose from, including DS titles.

I had a much longer post, but some of the points were purely redundant, so I've summarized the brick of text into this:

The Wii was a fad and the WiiU is not. The WiiU lacks lasting appeal for core gamers, and lacks immediate appeal for casuals. This may change when Nintendo finally gets some of their core lineup out on the system, but until then, the WiiU is dead in the water.

GloatingSwine:

When the Wii came out it didn't matter that the hardware was gash compared to the competition, because it was doing something they weren't. The Wii U isn't doing anything particularly unique, and even when it starts to build a good exclusive library that will only attract a certain market segment (vastly more people care about the big multiplatform releases than exclusives, which is why Nintendo was so vocal about this console being not shit at running the same games the others are running), the umpty billion CoD, FIFA, Madden, whatevers players will see virtually indistinguishable performance to the box they already have and not be tempted.

While I agree there will probably be some minor graphical differences between the WiiU and the PS4/Nextbox, It won't be as bad as the Wii to PS3/360, I can guarentee that. I'm pretty positive we're reaching the point where Graphics can get much better, and companies will have to start focusing on other fronts (AI, Environments, Etc.) instead.

But your statement that Multiplatforms are more important then Exclusives, I'm gonna have to strongly disagree. Here is a list of Wii Best Selling Video Games: As you can see, all of the games that have reached over 5 Million Copies are Exclusives. Meanwhile, over at the Xbox 360, the top selling game for the Xbox is an Exclusive Title: Kinectimals. Of the 7 Games that have reached over 5 Million copies on the Xbox, only 3 are Multiplatformers (2 Call of Duties and MineCraft). All 3 of the PS3's games that have sold over 5 Million are Sony Exclusives. Also, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 only sold around 10 Million Units. Both Kinectimals and Wii Sports sold way more then that (24 Million and 81 Million respectively), while Gran Turismo 5 is also around the 10 Million Unit mark. Based on this information, I can only gather that, sure Multiplatformers might sell, but Exclusives almost always sell better then Multiplatformers.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked