Nintendo's Fils-Aime: Microsoft, Sony need to react to us


Recommended Posts

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57554148-235/nintendos-fils-aime-microsoft-sony-need-to-react-to-us/

Okay, so I know that they sold 400,000 Wii U in the first week of US sales (total 1.2m sold), but really?? Microsoft and Sony need to react to Nintendo? I was under the impression that Nintendo was just trying to catchup with MS and Sony, GFX wise (HD console in 2012!)...

I guess in a way, they did react. It's because of the Wii that we now have Kinect and Sony Move.

Should MS and Sony plan on using a tablet gamepad for their next console?

I guess Sony could do a "dummy" version of the PS Vita, without a CPU/GPU and call that their new gamepad for the PS4. Because, lets be honest, the Move is not that successful...

Will Kinect 2.0 be enough for Microsoft?

I can't stand the smugness of this ****. Every time I see him I wanna punch him square in the face.

Both manufacturers are going to leave them for dust once the next generation hits, the WiiU is barely more powerful than current generation. Xbox has Smartglass and Sony could possibly use the Vita in a similar fashion.

I don't think that they are going to be so naive this time around. They made a huge mistake by passing on motion gaming only to introduce their half baked versions mid life cycle.

'next gen' is going to be a very interesting battle.

How well is the Wii U being received? All I read was negative press about the launch day 5GB firmware image... haven't heard any glowing reviews as yet!

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/11/wii-u-review-the-future-is-in-good-hands/

Excellent review. But after reading it it seems that the Wii-U and Nintendo in general are a generation behind.

They have the power to make something really good and innovative, but the Wii-U won't sell anywhere near what the PS4 and Xbox3 will.

the firmware was actually 1gb it just decompresses to 5gb when installing. The menus are laggy and tv wii isn't enabled yet, over than that is seems to be well received. I'm hoping Unreal 4 engine supports the wii u, they said it could but haven't decided to support it. Once engines and developers maximise the potential of the wii u the graphics will outclass the 360/ps3.

http://news.cnet.com...to-react-to-us/

Okay, so I know that they sold 400,000 Wii U in the first week of US sales (total 1.2m sold), but really?? Microsoft and Sony need to react to Nintendo? I was under the impression that Nintendo was just trying to catchup with MS and Sony, GFX wise (HD console in 2012!)...

I guess in a way, they did react. It's because of the Wii that we now have Kinect and Sony Move.

Should MS and Sony plan on using a tablet gamepad for their next console?

I guess Sony could do a "dummy" version of the PS Vita, without a CPU/GPU and call that their new gamepad for the PS4. Because, lets be honest, the Move is not that successful...

Will Kinect 2.0 be enough for Microsoft?

If current rumors are true Microsoft will be either including a tablet with the next xbox OR coming out with an xbox gaming tablet. So they are reacting to them already.

http://news.cnet.com...to-react-to-us/

Okay, so I know that they sold 400,000 Wii U in the first week of US sales (total 1.2m sold), but really?? Microsoft and Sony need to react to Nintendo? I was under the impression that Nintendo was just trying to catchup with MS and Sony, GFX wise (HD console in 2012!)...

I guess in a way, they did react. It's because of the Wii that we now have Kinect and Sony Move.

Should MS and Sony plan on using a tablet gamepad for their next console?

I guess Sony could do a "dummy" version of the PS Vita, without a CPU/GPU and call that their new gamepad for the PS4. Because, lets be honest, the Move is not that successful...

Will Kinect 2.0 be enough for Microsoft?

It's only 400k right before Christmas. Christmas can sell anything including Vita. Lets see what the numbers are in April 2013. Nintendo needs to react to all the consoles locking up. They need to focus on that before they focus on their competition.

If the next Xbox and PlayStation are "greatly improved" in comparison to the Wii U, then I feel bad for checkbooks. In the case of Microsoft, the consumer will bleed money. Opposite holds true for Sony.

Seriously people, you aren't going to get an amazing leap like last generation. We are not going to get dual-GPU, eight core CPUs, and 16GB of RAM in the next Sony/MS console; the tech is just too expensive. Nintendo, despite the hardware in the Wii U (it's not lackluster as far as early diagnostics have shown, but let's say it is), is losing money on each console sold. They recoup it on the sale of one game, but that goes to show that new technology is expensive!

Nintendo innovated, that's what they do now. I give them credit; they know that simply upgrading hardware is not going to print money like many people think it will. MiiVerse, for example, is a great experience in games it's integrated into (Nintendoland, for example). The second screen helps innovate gameplay, regardless of if it is a gimmick or not. SmartGlass is not going to be in every game; the GamePad is going to be. The Vita is not going to be in every game; the GamePad will be. See the difference? The Sony and Microsoft alternatives are not integrated into the experience.

http://www.gizmodo.c...-in-good-hands/

Excellent review. But after reading it it seems that the Wii-U and Nintendo in general are a generation behind.

They have the power to make something really good and innovative, but the Wii-U won't sell anywhere near what the PS4 and Xbox3 will.

I'm no Nintendo fanboy at all, but have you looked at this gen's sales?

Nintendo will continue to have a successful business model appealing to casual gamers, those on a budget and children, while Microsoft and Sony will continue to push graphical advancements and core-gaming. They are going after very different segments of the market.

Still, it's bizarre that Nintendo would come out and make such a claim when even casual observers of the market can see that's simply not the case. With the Wii, Nintendo had a surprise hit on their hands because of compelling emergent gameplay but that was almost entirely due to Wii Sports and Wii Fit - very few other games sold in any quantities and the attach-rate was considerably lower than that of Sony and Microsoft. With the Wii U it's clear that Nintendo is desperately trying to recreate the success of the Wii but it's just not as compelling an offering - tablet gameplay has already been done before (much better as well) and it's always going to be an uphill struggle promoting asymmetric gameplay due to the fact it requires multiple players.

I'd be very surprised if Nintendo had anywhere near as much success as they did with the Wii. It looks more like a 3DS-style failure.

The Mario launch title alone, is just total fail! We want a Mario game that will WOW us like Mario Galaxy did for the Wii and Mario 64 did for the Nintendo 64....and the Mario launch title for the wii u? What is this crap!?

The Mario launch title alone, is just total fail! We want a Mario game that will WOW us like Mario Galaxy did for the Wii and Mario 64 did for the Nintendo 64....and the Mario launch title for the wii u? What is this crap!?

actually I think you'll find that there are more people who want classical mario gameplay than the stupid 3D crap they started with with the wannabe 3D consoles and kept going with.

Yeah, just as hawkMan points out, I have to respectfully disagree with you warwagon. I think the new Super Mario U is just fine exactly as it is.

Letting my wife watch whatever TV she wants, and having the option to play the game on the GamePad, well from my perspective, it does not get much better.

Now I fully admit I just do not have time to dedicate towards playing video games like I once did, however I really think I would feel the same exact way that I do even if I was playing games 8 hours a day.

So now that I have just 1 day had over a week of hands on time with the WiiU, I do pretty much understand what he is saying with this comment.

I do also think it needs to be stated that people are reading way to much into the comment as well.

Obviously the PS4 and NextBox are going to be graphically superior to the WiiU, everyone knows this.

However with the addition of the WiiU, Nintendo has added an additional layer to console gaming when it is used properly.

So all he is saying is now Sony & Microsoft need to do the same.

Now what he fails to mention is naturally MS has Kinect, which I think it is a pretty safe bet to say is going to be deeply integrated into the next XBox experience, so MS they have it.

I highly doubt Sony is going to consider Move to be their additional experience, but I also think that perhaps they may not come up with anything else along these lines, and just keep it more traditional. Wether this winds up hurting them or not remains to be seen, but I do think there are those people who will still want just the pure untampered gaming experience of just a controller. At least for the foreseeable future. I really think a whole lot depends on if MS makes Kinect something next level or not.

So yeah, at the end of the day he was pretty much talking out of his ass, but this is what the heads of companies do, make their company seem to be the one that is running things.

I have to respectfully disagree with you warwagon. I think the new Super Mario U is just fine exactly as it is.

Letting my wife watch whatever TV she wants, and having the option to play the game on the GamePad, well from my perspective, it does not get much better.

Now I fully admit I just do not have time to dedicate towards playing video games like I once did, however I really think I would feel the same exact way that I do even if I was playing games 8 hours a day.

ya it looks good, but it looks just a little better than the wii version. it doesn't look next gen. I wouldn't buy a wii U just to play it.

The new 2D Mario game looks ok but I don't see any of the charm that Mario 3 and Super Mario World had when they came out. It was good on the Wii but then came New Super Mario Bros. for the DS and New Super Mario Bros.2 and they kind of look the same. I don't want Paper Mario to be the only 2D Mario game where they try different things. They can still have the 2D Mario formula but bring something new. I will get a Wii U later on and I hope I am wrong about this game.

ya it looks good, but it looks just a little better than the wii version. it doesn't look next gen. I wouldn't buy a wii U just to play it.

I hadn't actually checked out any gameplay footage before today, and you're right - it doesn't even look like X360/PS3 gen. Very disappointing. And Wii Fit U looks barely any different from Wii Fit - not what you'd expect for a generation leap. Unfortunately developers are complaining that the CPU in the Wii U is considerably slower than that of the current gen consoles, so it looks like another under-specced console from Nintendo that will struggle to remain relevant. It seems to be on par with the X360/PS3, which are chronically dated in comparison to the PC.

The tablet-controller was a desperate gamble to recreate the success of the Wii and I really don't think it will pay off. For starters, Nintendo is having to sell the console at a loss which is something it didn't do with the Wii. Unless Nintendo can dramatically increase the software attach rate it will be sidelined by the main publishers.

Black ops comparisons basically say the games either look identical or slightly worse on the wii, BUT the wii suffers from frame drops and lower frame rate during the whole game than the tether older consoles.

As for the tablet, I share the opinion of several reviewers. When it's doing things you can do just as well or better by hitting a button on the controller or using the sticks, then it's turning into a gimmick. This basically describes all of ZombieU. A game that would have been just as good if not better with a regular controller and would have worked exactly the same. Except you wouldn't have split immersion across two screens for no purpose whatsoever.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!