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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

RedDeadFred:
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.

First of all, you are just one person. One person that has no clue how well Skylanders sells, it seems. And how 'bout Need For Speed? I don't go for it, but I know a ton of people do. It was the best selling exclusive Sony had, and now they let Nintendo have it. You saying "I have no interest in those games" is meaningless. These are still top selling games that Nintendo has an iron grip on. No it is deffinately more than just the games.

TheLycanKing144:
It lacks the games at the moment, and it probably will remain that way due to many of the big publishers (such as EA nd UbiSoft) stating that they no longer be making games for the Wii U platform because it's not really "next gen" (which honestly, it isn't).

And when have EA and UbiSoft ever lied to us? Yeah, that seems legit.

The reason EA isn't making games for the Wii U is Nintendo isn't putting up with their crap. EA demanded that Nintendo use Origin as part of it's online. Nintendo made the only logical response: no!

Second, let's look at console specs:
Xbox 360
Drive: DVD-DL; CPU: 3.2 GHz; GPU: 500 MHz; Memory: 500+ MB
PS3
Drive: Blu-Ray; CPU: 3.2 GHz; GPU: 550 MHz; Memory: 256 MB
WiiU
Drive: Optical Disc; CPU: Tricore*; GPU: 550 MHz; Memory: 2 GB

*Estemated to have 1.24 GHz each.

So it has a significantly superior central processor and memory that makes the PS3 look like a joke. And that's just surface numbers. There are a few specs on the GPU that make it run more efficently. And FYI, those WiiU games have 25 GB of space...in one layer. In laymans terms: they made an equivalent to the blu-ray.

Forlong:

The reason EA isn't making games for the Wii U is Nintendo isn't putting up with their crap. EA demanded that Nintendo use Origin as part of it's online. Nintendo made the only logical response: no!

SOurce for this please

Desert Punk:

Forlong:

The reason EA isn't making games for the Wii U is Nintendo isn't putting up with their crap. EA demanded that Nintendo use Origin as part of it's online. Nintendo made the only logical response: no!

SOurce for this please

God, making me work for a post.... :P

Two sources that tie together.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/01/crytek-chief-puts-on-his-warface-interview/2/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/xnt5r/whatever_happened_to_the_groundbreaking/

Could they be true? Possible.
A lie? Maybe.

There have been many rumors that are also half truths, and the origin thing does really sound like something EA would do....sadly.

Forlong:

RedDeadFred:
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.

First of all, you are just one person. One person that has no clue how well Skylanders sells, it seems. And how 'bout Need For Speed? I don't go for it, but I know a ton of people do. It was the best selling exclusive Sony had, and now they let Nintendo have it. You saying "I have no interest in those games" is meaningless. These are still top selling games that Nintendo has an iron grip on. No it is deffinately more than just the games.

I've honestly never even heard of Skylanders so I'll give you that but you bringing up NFS just reinforces my point of them not having enough "system sellers." Why would someone buy a new console for a game that's already on another console that they own?

And while I am just one person, I am one potential customer. I am one person who decided that the games were not good enough for me to buy the console. Discrediting my opinion because I am just one person doesn't make any sense given that what we are talking about is why people aren't buying the console. I am literally giving my reason for why I have not bought the console. So while I'm sure there's more to it than just the games, for me, that's easily the biggest reason.

RedDeadFred:

Forlong:

RedDeadFred:
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.

First of all, you are just one person. One person that has no clue how well Skylanders sells, it seems. And how 'bout Need For Speed? I don't go for it, but I know a ton of people do. It was the best selling exclusive Sony had, and now they let Nintendo have it. You saying "I have no interest in those games" is meaningless. These are still top selling games that Nintendo has an iron grip on. No it is deffinately more than just the games.

I've honestly never even heard of Skylanders so I'll give you that but you bringing up NFS just reinforces my point of them not having enough "system sellers." Why would someone buy a new console for a game that's already on another console that they own?

And while I am just one person, I am one potential customer. I am one person who decided that the games were not good enough for me to buy the console. Discrediting my opinion because I am just one person doesn't make any sense given that what we are talking about is why people aren't buying the console. I am literally giving my reason for why I have not bought the console. So while I'm sure there's more to it than just the games, for me, that's easily the biggest reason.

I agree with you on this point. I also own some of those games on other systems so I won't re buy them. I won't even buy MH3U atm because of the amount of time I've already sunk into the original on my Wii. It's not enough to make me rush out and buy a WiiU. I'll look at the system again when the new X game comes out along with FE VS Persona. So far those are the only two games I'm currently interested in on the WiiU. So I'll keep watching it from afar.

There is a practical limit to aesthetic pleasure. You can only make something so different, revolutionary, or "artistic" before you reach a point where the novelty simply doesn't justify the price.

Adding the tablet did not fundamentally change the experience. From a practical aspect, you can only look at one screen at a time. Unless you enjoy turning your head sideways and crossing your eyes, you don't really gain anything from having the tablet. In comparison to the almost "magical" properties of motion control, having a touch screen is like a step backwards.

From a hardware aspect, the battery life in the tablet is weak. The graphical and processing hardware is better than the original Wii, but much of it goes to running the tablet and TV screen simultaneously. You do not have enough of a visual difference to get the average consumer to become impressed, let alone to even notice there is ANY difference at all. More or less, they simply see a Wii console with a tablet attached.

The software on the system is clunky and slow. Features promised at launch are either not there or have been implemented poorly. There are no MUST HAVE games for the system. It costs $300 plus dollars.

There is nothing about the system that makes it worth a damn. A lot of games on PS3 and Xbox 360 still look better than anything on the Wii U. The Wii already offers the majority of the Wii U experience at a bargain price. It's a total flop. Essentially it's like they designed the Wii U with last generation's consoles in mind. If it had come out when the PS3 and Xbox 360 had, it would have likely performed closer to the original Wii at launch. Unfortunately it's entirely a case of "been there, done that".

The name sounds like rubbish.
Like a child pretending to be a fire engine while running about.
Wee-ooo, wee-ooo, wee-ooo...not much different from the previous console at all. The one people waggled around with a few months and then chucked in the closet.

The software isn't all there. There certainly seems to be some things that will hook a few people in, but they're pretty much all in development without any clear launch dates. Like the Playstation 3 proved, if there isn't a nice array of familiar first party titles along with exclusives, the sales aren't going to be too high for the first while.

Tablet controller. Either a hit or a miss, and I guarantee a good deal of people are still skeptical over the whole "looking at television/looking at controller" deal. Just doesn't seem that good of a gimmick, and is an extreme version of something the DS already does pretty well (having two screens to have to pay attention to for different reasons). Battery power also isn't particularly great.

The innovation doesn't seem to really be there. The Wii provided something unlike the Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 and was able to sell a massive amount because of that. Now it seems like they back peddled to resemble more classic systems with a relatively minor alteration. Or rather, it would seem to be a half-assed take on innovation that leaves two crowds of people (traditional and casual) yearning for more.

This is without going into hardware/software specifics, as the mainstream crowd either doesn't really give a shit or it's subjective. This is my take on why it isn't selling too good at the moment, and some of the reasons why I myself don't have one of my own.

Same reason the 3DS is having problems.

No big main stream appeal
No huge blockbuster games

Nothing about it screams "LOOK AT ME!" quite like the Wii did. I mean ultimately the Wii became gimmicky and lacked any hardcore appeal (a fault on both the game devs and the console) but it did give non-gamers something to pass the time with. The Wii U, not so much. It's an appeal to the Hardcore more then anything. Less gimmick and more new way to play games. BUT the hardcore gaming community won't really flock to the console until they see that the way Wii U does something actually does rock the boat. In order to do that you need a good game. Wii U has plenty of mediocre games and ports but nothing that sets it apart. Once we get that good game the Wii U will see it's sales jump quite quickly.

Forlong, you're aware a majority of those games people already own on other systems, right? So if you take those out the list shrinks to about...4 or so games. Nintendo isn't a person, it's a group of people, thus it is incapable of being wise - and honestly some of its business decisions have been pretty bad; the 3DS wasn't exactly well-received and as many of the responses in this thread have shown the Wii (for several reasons) and all the motion garbage it popularized has left a bad taste in many people's mouths. And the WiiU really isn't a next-generation console, I'm sorry, but when half of your titles are games from the previous generation it's pretty hard to justify yourself.

This is purely opinion though but I feel that Nintendo is overrated and is confusing gimmicks with innovation, so take everything I say on this subject with a grain of salt. I purchased a Wii and lost interest in it several months in - I handed it off, free of charge, to my aunt who wanted to use it for Netflix.

RedDeadFred:
I've honestly never even heard of Skylanders so I'll give you that but you bringing up NFS just reinforces my point of them not having enough "system sellers." Why would someone buy a new console for a game that's already on another console that they own?

And while I am just one person, I am one potential customer. I am one person who decided that the games were not good enough for me to buy the console. Discrediting my opinion because I am just one person doesn't make any sense given that what we are talking about is why people aren't buying the console. I am literally giving my reason for why I have not bought the console. So while I'm sure there's more to it than just the games, for me, that's easily the biggest reason.

You are one person who discredited games based on knowing nothing about them or the fact that they are just racing games. Need For Speed was once a PS exclusive and Sony's heaviest hitter. NFS was Sony's best selling franchise. NFS games sell in the millions, and you're saying that Nintendo getting an exclusive in that series isn't a selling point? Nonsense!

Comrade Richard:
Forlong, you're aware a majority of those games people already own on other systems, right? So if you take those out the list shrinks to about...4 or so games. Nintendo isn't a person, it's a group of people, thus it is incapable of being wise - and honestly some of its business decisions have been pretty bad; the 3DS wasn't exactly well-received and as many of the responses in this thread have shown the Wii (for several reasons) and all the motion garbage it popularized has left a bad taste in many people's mouths. And the WiiU really isn't a next-generation console, I'm sorry, but when half of your titles are games from the previous generation it's pretty hard to justify yourself.

Let's test that theory, shall we.
Black Ops II--released on all platforms on the same day.
Epic Mickey 2--released on all platforms on the same day.
Mario--exclusive, obviously.
Nintendo Land--another exclusive.
Scribblenauts--released prior on the 3DS.
Skylanders--released prior on all platforms.
ZombiU--exclusive.
Ninja Gaiden 3--released prior on all platforms.
Tekken--released prior on all platforms.
007--released prior on all platforms.
Monster Hunter--exclusive.
Need for Speed--exclusive.
Walking Dead--released on the same day on all platforms.

5 out of 13 filled your criteria. Yet most were not and I also listed five exclusives. Your statement is nonsense. Now they certainly aren't exclusives that appeal to you or me, but they still are exclusives that sell well.

Stop giving that tripe that the WiiU isn't next gen. The specs makes the PS3 look like a complete joke. The PS3 for crying out loud! Knock it off and get an actual grip on reality.

Forlong:

RedDeadFred:
I've honestly never even heard of Skylanders so I'll give you that but you bringing up NFS just reinforces my point of them not having enough "system sellers." Why would someone buy a new console for a game that's already on another console that they own?

And while I am just one person, I am one potential customer. I am one person who decided that the games were not good enough for me to buy the console. Discrediting my opinion because I am just one person doesn't make any sense given that what we are talking about is why people aren't buying the console. I am literally giving my reason for why I have not bought the console. So while I'm sure there's more to it than just the games, for me, that's easily the biggest reason.

You are one person who discredited games based on knowing nothing about them or the fact that they are just racing games. Need For Speed was once a PS exclusive and Sony's heaviest hitter. NFS was Sony's best selling franchise. NFS games sell in the millions, and you're saying that Nintendo getting an exclusive in that series isn't a selling point? Nonsense!

Comrade Richard:
Forlong, you're aware a majority of those games people already own on other systems, right? So if you take those out the list shrinks to about...4 or so games. Nintendo isn't a person, it's a group of people, thus it is incapable of being wise - and honestly some of its business decisions have been pretty bad; the 3DS wasn't exactly well-received and as many of the responses in this thread have shown the Wii (for several reasons) and all the motion garbage it popularized has left a bad taste in many people's mouths. And the WiiU really isn't a next-generation console, I'm sorry, but when half of your titles are games from the previous generation it's pretty hard to justify yourself.

Let's test that theory, shall we.
Black Ops II--released on all platforms on the same day.
Epic Mickey 2--released on all platforms on the same day.
Mario--exclusive, obviously.
Nintendo Land--another exclusive.
Scribblenauts--released prior on the 3DS.
Skylanders--released prior on all platforms.
ZombiU--exclusive.
Ninja Gaiden 3--released prior on all platforms.
Tekken--released prior on all platforms.
007--released prior on all platforms.
Monster Hunter--exclusive.
Need for Speed--exclusive.
Walking Dead--released on the same day on all platforms.

5 out of 13 filled your criteria. Yet most were not and I also listed five exclusives. Your statement is nonsense. Now they certainly aren't exclusives that appeal to you or me, but they still are exclusives that sell well.

Stop giving that tripe that the WiiU isn't next gen. The specs makes the PS3 look like a complete joke. The PS3 for crying out loud! Knock it off and get an actual grip on reality.

The point he's making is that it's not enough for people to go out and buy a new system Furlong. a lot of people buy Nintendo systems for their exclusives. I'm not going to buy a WiiU so I can play games I can already play on my other systems. It's more like 7 out of 13 filled his criteria. I don't think the WiiU is going to have such a problem when its systems exclusives really start dropping. Zelda, Kirby, Pikmin, Bayonetta but as of right now the games that have out is just not enough to make a lot of people jump to a new platform.

RedDeadFred:
I've honestly never even heard of Skylanders so I'll give you that.

Forlong is absolutely right about Skylanders being a big seller.

It's just that it is marketed more as a toy for kids, amongst whom it is pretty popular. It's target demographics are quite a bit younger that the average Escapist user, so you're not likely to hear a lot of news or see much discussion about it around here. Nor on most of the gaming media, since few of them actually cater to younger audiences. Chances are you've actually seen ads for Skylanders before, but didn't pay them any mind because you're simply not their target.

But it really is a major hit. Maybe not quite to the degree of say, Pokemon, but still a very important franchise for Activision.

Forlong:
You are one person who discredited games based on knowing nothing about them or the fact that they are just racing games. Need For Speed was once a PS exclusive and Sony's heaviest hitter. NFS was Sony's best selling franchise. NFS games sell in the millions, and you're saying that Nintendo getting an exclusive in that series isn't a selling point? Nonsense!

Need For Speed has never been PS exclusive.

The first game was first released on the 3DO. It was later ported over to PC, PS1 and Saturn. The series had versions for both PC and PS1 until Hot Pursuit 2, after which it turned multi-platform. Granted, up to that point and barring the first game, the PS1 was the only console that had NFS, so in a sense you are right if that is what you meant.

Forlong:

RedDeadFred:
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.

First of all, you are just one person. One person that has no clue how well Skylanders sells, it seems. And how 'bout Need For Speed? I don't go for it, but I know a ton of people do. It was the best selling exclusive Sony had, and now they let Nintendo have it. You saying "I have no interest in those games" is meaningless. These are still top selling games that Nintendo has an iron grip on. No it is deffinately more than just the games.

TheLycanKing144:
It lacks the games at the moment, and it probably will remain that way due to many of the big publishers (such as EA nd UbiSoft) stating that they no longer be making games for the Wii U platform because it's not really "next gen" (which honestly, it isn't).

And when have EA and UbiSoft ever lied to us? Yeah, that seems legit.

The reason EA isn't making games for the Wii U is Nintendo isn't putting up with their crap. EA demanded that Nintendo use Origin as part of it's online. Nintendo made the only logical response: no!

Second, let's look at console specs:
Xbox 360
Drive: DVD-DL; CPU: 3.2 GHz; GPU: 500 MHz; Memory: 500+ MB
PS3
Drive: Blu-Ray; CPU: 3.2 GHz; GPU: 550 MHz; Memory: 256 MB
WiiU
Drive: Optical Disc; CPU: Tricore*; GPU: 550 MHz; Memory: 2 GB

*Estemated to have 1.24 GHz each.

So it has a significantly superior central processor and memory that makes the PS3 look like a joke. And that's just surface numbers. There are a few specs on the GPU that make it run more efficently. And FYI, those WiiU games have 25 GB of space...in one layer. In laymans terms: they made an equivalent to the blu-ray.

Calm down a bit bro....you seem a bit upset at what I posted.

Do you have a link that shows it was due to Origin? And I'm sorry but I don't buy the notion that the Wii-U is truly "next gen" or even more powerful than the other current gen systems. If it is there isn't anything that has proven it, look at Killzone ShadowsFall or that "Deep Down" game they showed for the PS4? Now look at the Wii-U? I don't see how anyone could honestly say the Wii-U is "next gen" after seeing that.

The PS4 is what real next gen is going to be about, the 720 will probably be about the same I'm sure. The Wii-U? Not even in the same room.

I suspect the short version is that a significant portion of the sales of the Wii were to people who were looking to buy a Wii. And when Nintendo turned around and tried to sell them the Wii-U, they said "but we already have a Wii."

Slightly longer version: many of the people who wanted a Wii wanted a video game system that was friendly, fun, and welcoming, and didn't care so much if it wasn't the powerhouse of the market. By definition, those people already have a game system that is friendly, fun, and welcoming, and don't see the need for another friendly fun and welcoming system that's somewhat more powerful. They're not going to flock in droves to the PS4 or XBox 720, either. And some of them might eventually consider the Wii-U when there stop being new options they want to play on the Wii. But some just want to play something like Dance Dance Revolution and stream movies from Netflix, and for right now, the plain ol' Wii is just fine for that.

There are other issues, of course- the economy is still shaky, big N didn't do the best job explaining what set the Wii-U apart, there's still less than fifty games out for the thing and the biggest ones are ports of games that are already out- but the above one is the big one.

I dont know what expectations people had or how they made them but I see the WiiU as having one fatal flaw. There are barely any games for the thing I want to play. Even the down the road ones only have a single game I want to play but I cant justify buying a console fora single game.

Until it gets a good games list I really dont see sales picking up

Who really expected the Wii U to sell well? Honestly?

Its supposedly next-gen console with little above current-gen specs, and noting going for it aside from a touch screen that not many developers are prepared to embrace (hence few games). The Wii U's problem is that it came out WAYYYYYYYYY too late, and most people aren't prepared to spend ~300 on it with the PS4 and next-Xbox just around the corner.

First of all: The only thing Donald Trump is good at is to make people believe that he is good at business. In that regard, Nintendo has been operating on a similar level. They have made a whole lot of people believe that the Wii is fun, still most consumers didn't really go past the initial hardware purchase. I'll assume that most potential customers are quite contempt to already own a console they never really use. Why buy another one?

At this point I don't see myself investing in the Wii U, it's selection of first party games is rather limited to Nintendo Land and another "new" Mario game. Rayman may have done it but it's now multi-console which may not be so bad. I'm going out on a limb to identify myself as a Sonic fan, so unless the Wii U has some nice exclusive games, say similar to Sonic Colors, might be the only thing that would make me consider it. But even then, that's not saying much and it'll need a lot more exclusive and radically fun titles. My Wii has been collecting dust for ages, I'm even going to admit that I wasn't super crazy for Xenoblade as everyone else is, or Skyward Sword.

I have hopes for the PS4, but I might not buy one out of the gate either. Even from it's limited selection of games previewed at the conference, it has more titles I'd be mildly interested in over anything the Wii U has already released, or lack there of.

TheLycanKing144:

Calm down a bit bro....you seem a bit upset at what I posted.

Do you have a link that shows it was due to Origin? And I'm sorry but I don't buy the notion that the Wii-U is truly "next gen" or even more powerful than the other current gen systems. If it is there isn't anything that has proven it, look at Killzone ShadowsFall or that "Deep Down" game they showed for the PS4? Now look at the Wii-U? I don't see how anyone could honestly say the Wii-U is "next gen" after seeing that.

The PS4 is what real next gen is going to be about, the 720 will probably be about the same I'm sure. The Wii-U? Not even in the same room.

Generations have never been defined by power. It's a term used to describe time. What generation a console is depends on when it comes out, not how much processing power it has. The N64 and PS1 were both fifth gen, despite the former having over twice the power of the latter. The Xbox and PS2 were both sixth gen, despite the former having three times the power of the latter.

There is nothing new in this. There have always been large differences in power between consoles of the same generation, that's just how it goes. It never affected how people used the term before, and it shouldn't do so now. Nintendo's new console came out at the start of the eighth generation, therefore it is an eighth generation console, and next-gen by default.

And as for those PS4 demos... you know that Sony has had a history of vastly overstating their own visual quality, right? They claimed that the PS3 was vastly more powerful than it actually was, and showed off tech demos that weren't representative of the visual quality of games, or turned out to be out-and-out pre-rendered.

Mmm... bullshotting in motion. Tasty tasty.

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

TheLycanKing144:

Calm down a bit bro....you seem a bit upset at what I posted.

Do you have a link that shows it was due to Origin? And I'm sorry but I don't buy the notion that the Wii-U is truly "next gen" or even more powerful than the other current gen systems. If it is there isn't anything that has proven it, look at Killzone ShadowsFall or that "Deep Down" game they showed for the PS4? Now look at the Wii-U? I don't see how anyone could honestly say the Wii-U is "next gen" after seeing that.

The PS4 is what real next gen is going to be about, the 720 will probably be about the same I'm sure. The Wii-U? Not even in the same room.

Generations have never been defined by power. It's a term used to describe time. What generation a console is depends on when it comes out, not how much processing power it has. The N64 and PS1 were both fifth gen, despite the former having over twice the power of the latter. The Xbox and PS2 were both sixth gen, despite the former having three times the power of the latter.

There is nothing new in this. There have always been large differences in power between consoles of the same generation, that's just how it goes. It never affected how people used the term before, and it shouldn't do so now. Nintendo's new console came out at the start of the eighth generation, therefore it is an eighth generation console, and next-gen by default.

And as for those PS4 demos... you know that Sony has had a history of vastly overstating their own visual quality, right? They claimed that the PS3 was vastly more powerful than it actually was, and showed off tech demos that weren't representative of the visual quality of games, or turned out to be out-and-out pre-rendered.

Mmm... bullshotting in motion. Tasty tasty.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Let's at least wait until E3 and IF there are playable demoes, then you can declare the PS4 superior or inferior to the WiiU. Mmm-kay?

Zachary Amaranth:

Scrustle:

The reason the Wii was such a massive success is because it gained popularity among non-gamers. But as has already been mentioned, most of them don't even know that the Wii U exists, or what it is.

I disagree.

The problem is that non-gamers are a bad audience for a game console. They latched onto something shiny and new, bought no games for it, had fun with the pack-ins, and moved on. While the Wii is the undisputed leader of this generation, it remains it only because it took off so fast early on. They don't need a new console to not play.

I think Nintendo is even hip to this issue, which is why they have opted to try and court back the core gamer. It turns out that non-gamers are a bad long-term investment.

This, this, and this. Most people I know that have a Wii barely used it and the games they have are the ones that the console came in(wii sports) or just dance.

Right, so if my opinion doesn't also include a positive opinion of Nintendo I should politely shut my pie hole. Well I can see where this is going; the OP seems to want opinions that reaffirm his views that Nintendo is good and it's the fault of everyone else (gamers, poor timing, etc), so I think I'm going to pull out, I'm sorry I've offended you. :/ For the record I don't have interest in the next generation of consoles nor do I trust the companies behind them, period.

Anoni Mus:

All games I tried work on PC. Keyboard + mouse for shooters and a 360 controller for other games, I played AC Revelations and III on PC, same with Dark Souls even if it was considered a terrible port.

I'm happy for you, I guess. It also seems you're in the minority given the entitled PC whining on here.

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

The PS3 blew through whatever warchest the PS1 and PS2 had saved up for Sony.

And we all know that the gaming division is the only arm of Sony.

Look, we've been here before. I'm not saying "they'll never die," just offering the perspective that this isn't even close to a given.

Zachary Amaranth:

Anoni Mus:

All games I tried work on PC. Keyboard + mouse for shooters and a 360 controller for other games, I played AC Revelations and III on PC, same with Dark Souls even if it was considered a terrible port.

I'm happy for you, I guess. It also seems you're in the minority given the entitled PC whining on here.

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

The PS3 blew through whatever warchest the PS1 and PS2 had saved up for Sony.

And we all know that the gaming division is the only arm of Sony.

Look, we've been here before. I'm not saying "they'll never die," just offering the perspective that this isn't even close to a given.

You are aware that Sony's other divisions are sinking money, aren't you? Their TV division (a market they once ruled) lost billions trying to get 3D onto the market, and looks likely to lose billions more on 4K. They haven't got a music player worth a damn anymore, and their phones are getting eclipsed by the likes of Samsung and Apple.

Gaming used to be one of Sony's most profitable divisions, and even that is losing them money. You can't just expect other divisions to take up the slack, not when you're losing money across the board. Their TV department alone is in dire straits. That alone would be a worry for any company. That their phone department and game department are also in trouble should be a huge issue.

Is it a given they'll die? Of course not. But Sony right now is in an infinitely weaker place than they were 7 years ago. They've lost money and marketshare, racked up losses, had their credit downgraded, had to sell off their American HQ to cook the books, and are worth a fraction of what they once were. You can only slide so far before you eventually fall off. If Sony don't do something to turn things round soon, they will fall off.

Forlong:
First of all, you are just one person. One person that has no clue how well Skylanders sells, it seems. And how 'bout Need For Speed? I don't go for it, but I know a ton of people do. It was the best selling exclusive Sony had, and now they let Nintendo have it. You saying "I have no interest in those games" is meaningless. These are still top selling games that Nintendo has an iron grip on. No it is deffinately more than just the games.

You too. You and those people you may or may not know that like those games.
I'm not trying to offend you, because I think you're right, but neither one of you is going anywhere with this kind of argumentation.
You cannot measure how good a game is by how many like it, since there are still people who don't. This is ignoring their opinions on the basis that they don't agree with you.
And sales never were a good indicator for quality. The market is not as free as it should be and people often don't buy products because they reasearched, but because it has a popular name on it. (See Samsung Galaxy, iPhone...best example: Microsoft Windows).

Forlong:
And when have EA and UbiSoft ever lied to us? Yeah, that seems legit.

The reason EA isn't making games for the Wii U is Nintendo isn't putting up with their crap. EA demanded that Nintendo use Origin as part of it's online. Nintendo made the only logical response: no!

Second, let's look at console specs:
Xbox 360
Drive: DVD-DL; CPU: 3.2 GHz; GPU: 500 MHz; Memory: 500+ MB
PS3
Drive: Blu-Ray; CPU: 3.2 GHz; GPU: 550 MHz; Memory: 256 MB
WiiU
Drive: Optical Disc; CPU: Tricore*; GPU: 550 MHz; Memory: 2 GB

*Estemated to have 1.24 GHz each.

So it has a significantly superior central processor and memory that makes the PS3 look like a joke. And that's just surface numbers. There are a few specs on the GPU that make it run more efficently. And FYI, those WiiU games have 25 GB of space...in one layer. In laymans terms: they made an equivalent to the blu-ray.

You don't know much about hardware, do you?

That being said, I kind of agree to both parties on this one.
On the one hand, the WiiU is stronger than the 360 and PS3, which set's it apart from those. But will it even be closely comparable to the PS4 or Nextbox? I don't know, because the Wii, while stronger than the consoles of the generation before it, was a joke compared to the PS3 and 360.
So I tend to say it was a generation of its own (hardware-wise), somewhere in between PS2 and PS3.
IF, and only IF, the WiiU will have the same problem with being stuck between two generations as the Wii, then I can sort of understand the publishers, since game X for PS3/Nextbox/PC just won't run on the WiiU and they'll have to make an extra version for it. Those games surely won't be released in the beginning, but when games move forward and utilize more of the hardware potential, this point would be reached sooner or later.

I think it's just lazyness though, since...well, you know, it's not like EA makes the money that they could port it anyway.

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

TheLycanKing144:

Calm down a bit bro....you seem a bit upset at what I posted.

Do you have a link that shows it was due to Origin? And I'm sorry but I don't buy the notion that the Wii-U is truly "next gen" or even more powerful than the other current gen systems. If it is there isn't anything that has proven it, look at Killzone ShadowsFall or that "Deep Down" game they showed for the PS4? Now look at the Wii-U? I don't see how anyone could honestly say the Wii-U is "next gen" after seeing that.

The PS4 is what real next gen is going to be about, the 720 will probably be about the same I'm sure. The Wii-U? Not even in the same room.

Generations have never been defined by power. It's a term used to describe time. What generation a console is depends on when it comes out, not how much processing power it has. The N64 and PS1 were both fifth gen, despite the former having over twice the power of the latter. The Xbox and PS2 were both sixth gen, despite the former having three times the power of the latter.

There is nothing new in this. There have always been large differences in power between consoles of the same generation, that's just how it goes. It never affected how people used the term before, and it shouldn't do so now. Nintendo's new console came out at the start of the eighth generation, therefore it is an eighth generation console, and next-gen by default.

And as for those PS4 demos... you know that Sony has had a history of vastly overstating their own visual quality, right? They claimed that the PS3 was vastly more powerful than it actually was, and showed off tech demos that weren't representative of the visual quality of games, or turned out to be out-and-out pre-rendered.

Mmm... bullshotting in motion. Tasty tasty.

Depending on how you define "next gen", some people just use it as the next console that is released, others define it by power or some form of advancement. The latter definition makes the most sense, if they released the next generation of cars with all these new features that have never been seen before, it would be considered an advancement in the auto industry. Conversely, if another company released a new car but with mostly old tech and it's only "new" feature was that it had a CD player in it, then it can't really be considered "next gen" can it? Nor should it because it would be a mediocre car that is making no real progress for the industry.

That is how the Wii-U is. The PS4 and the 720 are the real next gen systems and will push the industry forward, the Wii-U will always be stuck in the past.

Abandon4093:

How the hell does any of that bear any relevance to what I said?

You made statements about its cost and the "loss" it will incur. This is already kind of silly, when you consider the cost differential between the bleeding edge (fof the time) hardware of the PS3 and the PS4's "optimised low-end PC" setup. It's worse when you consider the standard business practices, and even worse when you compare it to the unknown 360 successor specs (which you did bring up).

It's like I addressed exactly what you said. Maybe not what yuo meant, but I can't be asked to read minds.

You made a poor and poorly structured argument. There's no real evidence that this is going to be like the PS3 on any level.

Except, maybe disappointing, but not for the reasons you're talking.

Zachary Amaranth:

Abandon4093:

How the hell does any of that bear any relevance to what I said?

You made statements about its cost and the "loss" it will incur. This is already kind of silly, when you consider the cost differential between the bleeding edge (fof the time) hardware of the PS3 and the PS4's "optimised low-end PC" setup. It's worse when you consider the standard business practices, and even worse when you compare it to the unknown 360 successor specs (which you did bring up).

What I actually said was that I think it would be similar to the PS3 sales which did run at a loss for a good few years.

And the PS3 wasn't bleeding edge either. It was just the most powerful console with a lot of dead end hardware experiments. Which the PS4 is slated to be. Sure, we don't know the nextbox's specs. But the general mood is that the PS4 will be more powerful.

Maybe Sony will learn from the PS3 and sell it at a competitive price, but they're still going to be running on a loss if they do that just because of how much each unit is going to cost in the first few years of production.

You made a poor and poorly structured argument. There's no real evidence that this is going to be like the PS3 on any level.

Not really. I said I thought it would be similar to the PS3. You're right, there's no 'real evidence' to say that's what's going to happen. Just like there's no real evidence to say that it won't.

You can however say that both consoles had high production costs that they're not likely going to be able to make an initial profit on.

And you're the only person turning this into an argument.

It'll start selling well once a proper Mario or Zelda title gets released for it. Why Nintendo doesn't try to have a Mario or Zelda title ready at launch given how important those franchises are for selling their systems I'll never know.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked