Jump to content



Photo
nintendo wii u smartphone sega dreamcast 3ds

  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#46 Andrew

Andrew

    Once More 'Round the Sun

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 20 January 2014 - 23:46

My comparison was more than fair. The Wii U Premium 32GB is £229.99 on Amazon without any games; the Wii U 8GB Basic version actually costs more at £259.99 and isn't available directly from Amazon. If you want to claim that a 99p HDMI cable adds more value to the Wii U then... well, I don't know what to say. As for storage, you can buy a Xbox 360 250GB for less than £200 making that a much better purchase. For some the Wii U controller will make it a more attractive purchase, of course, but for many others it won't - personally I consider it a gimmick and would much prefer a standard controller.

 

You are completely ignoring facts which I've already pointed out. The Wii U Premium does come with a game: NintendoLand. On top of that, many of the new Premium bundles have replaced NintendoLand with NSMB Wii U + Luigi U or Zelda WW HD at the same price.

 

In your first post, you quoted the price of the cheapest 360 and PS3 models:

 

 

The Wii U is currently £229.99 on Amazon, while the Xbox 360 is £129.99 and the PS3 is £165.

 

 

My point is, you cannot argue the basic versions of one and then blemish facts by using the most expensive Premium version of the competitor. Either like for like, or don't compare at all.

 

As for the Basic bundle, although denied by Nintendo, it has pretty much been removed from market. Meaning any stock that does exist on the internet will have outdated prices/listings if they have stock. The RRP of the Premium has fallen to the point where it replaces the Basic for most retailers.

 

And yes I am claiming that including an HDMI cable in the box is adding value. Doesn't matter if it costs 99p or £99, at least it is included. If only they'd done the same with the 3DS charger in EU, but that's another topic.

 

 

That doesn't make any difference to the consumer - they just see the price.

 

Of course it matters, because by the end of this year the releases are going to dry up for both. You have an existing library and anything from here on is going to be released on new consoles only. Whether the consumer wants to look at it that way or not is completely up to them. The point is that hardware which is almost 10 years old is going to be cheaper to produce. There is just no getting around that. Retailers can offer larger cuts on both the PS3/360 due to their refund margins and because the costs of the new consoles eat it up.
 

 

That's not true, as the improved GPU performance is held back by a much slower processor. Developers have widely criticised the Wii U. In fact many crossplatform titles perform worse on the Wii U, like Batman: Arkham City and Call Of Duty: Ghosts.

 

It may not be true for some developers when they don't put the effort in. Using Activision / IW / Treyarch is not helping your case. Neither is EA who will port games with an updated front cover and call it new. The specs are on paper more powerful.

 

I'm not saying that the 360 250 GB or PS3 500 GB is bad value. Of course it is, and it's only going to get cheaper over the next 2 years. But if you're going to compare then don't try swindle facts to suit your argument.




#47 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 21 January 2014 - 00:46

You are completely ignoring facts which I've already pointed out. The Wii U Premium does come with a game: NintendoLand.

Fine, but that's irrelevant given that there is no cheaper option that exists without it.

 

On top of that, many of the new Premium bundles have replaced NintendoLand with NSMB Wii U + Luigi U or Zelda WW HD at the same price.

Not on Amazon, while other places, like Asda, charge more for the bundle (£249).

 

In your first post, you quoted the price of the cheapest 360 and PS3 models

 

My point is, you cannot argue the basic versions of one and then blemish facts by using the most expensive Premium version of the competitor. Either like for like, or don't compare at all.

I was comparing like-for-like: I was comparing the cheapest SKU of each available console, the entry level model. The 8GB version of the Wii U isn't available anymore or is more expensive so it is irrelevant to the discussion. So let's pick the 250GB version of the Xbox 360 with 6 games thrown in - that's less than the Wii U and includes way more games and way more storage. Pick whatever arbitrary rules you want but the X360 still works out cheaper, which was the point I was making.

 

As for the Basic bundle, although denied by Nintendo, it has pretty much been removed from market. Meaning any stock that does exist on the internet will have outdated prices/listings if they have stock. The RRP of the Premium has fallen to the point where it replaces the Basic for most retailers.

Exactly, hence why I used it in the comparison.  :huh:

 

And yes I am claiming that including an HDMI cable in the box is adding value. Doesn't matter if it costs 99p or £99, at least it is included.

And my point was that it's irrelevant if it's cheaper to buy a X360 or PS3 and buy a HDMI cable separately. Including a HDMI cable doesn't make up for the price difference.

 

Of course it matters, because by the end of this year the releases are going to dry up for both. You have an existing library and anything from here on is going to be released on new consoles only. Whether the consumer wants to look at it that way or not is completely up to them. The point is that hardware which is almost 10 years old is going to be cheaper to produce. There is just no getting around that.

At this rate the Wii U won't have any better shelf-life of games, nor will it ever have the selection available on the X360 or PS3. Many high profile publishers have already abandoned the platform. And again, it doesn't matter how much it costs Nintendo to manufacture or advertise the Wii U - what matters is the price that consumers have to pay. Clearly consumers have decided the Wii U isn't worth buying.

 

It may not be true for some developers when they don't put the effort in. Using Activision / IW / Treyarch is not helping your case. Neither is EA who will port games with an updated front cover and call it new. The specs are on paper more powerful.

The specs aren't more powerful, as I stated. Developers have stated that the CPU is a major bottleneck and many have openly criticised the platform. And it really doesn't matter how powerful a console is theoretically if games perform no better or worse, whether that's because of hardware bottlenecks or poor quality ports.

 

I'm not saying that the 360 250 GB or PS3 500 GB is bad value. Of course it is, and it's only going to get cheaper over the next 2 years. But if you're going to compare then don't try swindle facts to suit your argument.

I strongly reject the assertion I was trying to "swindle" anyone. I was simply comparing the cheapest SKU of each console, which proves that the Wii U is more expensive than the X360 and PS3; it also has a more limited games catalogue. Both are observable facts. What exactly is it that you find contentious about what I'm saying?  :huh:



#48 0sit0

0sit0

    Live and let live

  • Joined: 24-October 01

Posted 21 January 2014 - 01:04

I wouldn't mind playing Mario on my iPhone or Xbox. Do it Nintento!



#49 Andrew

Andrew

    Once More 'Round the Sun

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:55

Fine, but that's irrelevant given that there is no cheaper option that exists without it.

It's not irrelevant. The console costs more because it includes extras, which is what I've been trying to explain to you.


Not on Amazon, while other places, like Asda, charge more for the bundle (£249).

Yup, the Zelda bundle includes a LE console as well as the game so it will cost a little extra, but there are various options available and have been since the launch. Again, my point is the premium bundle includes a game. Always has done.


I was comparing like-for-like: I was comparing the cheapest SKU of each available console, the entry level model. The 8GB version of the Wii U isn't available anymore or is more expensive so it is irrelevant to the discussion. So let's pick the 250GB version of the Xbox 360 with 6 games thrown in - that's less than the Wii U and includes way more games and way more storage. Pick whatever arbitrary rules you want but the X360 still works out cheaper, which was the point I was making.

If that's how you want to justify it then fine. You're comparing like for like price tags, not contents of the box which is what I'm stating. The Premium Wii U's counter part would be the "premium" version of the 360/PS3. As for the 6 game bundle, that is a retailer specific bundle, not an official bundle so largely irrelevant to the discussion. I've been describing to you a bundle with extras included in the box by Nintendo. That is why the price tag is higher than the 360/PS3 as well as it being newer hardware. It has more storage, a game and charging dock included.


Exactly, hence why I used it in the comparison. :huh:

Well until they officially announce anything the Wii U Basic is still in production. Some retailers have chosen not to restock the console and instead picked the Premium version only. It's still available, but in a limited quantity.


And my point was that it's irrelevant if it's cheaper to buy a X360 or PS3 and buy a HDMI cable separately. Including a HDMI cable doesn't make up for the price difference.

We're clearly not going to see eye to eye on this, but if it's so cheap to include one you'd think both MS and Sony would do so...GG Nintendo for being first to do so :)


At this rate the Wii U won't have any better shelf-life of games, nor will it ever have the selection available on the X360 or PS3. Many high profile publishers have already abandoned the platform. And again, it doesn't matter how much it costs Nintendo to manufacture or advertise the Wii U - what matters is the price that consumers have to pay. Clearly consumers have decided the Wii U isn't worth buying.

Now you're just venturing into trolling territory. There is a lot of games on the horizon for the Wii U from Nintendo and more to be announced. They may not be what you're interested in but that doesn't make them any less important. Yes a lot of third parties have limited support. That's nothing new and has been an issue for them since the N64. A lot of work needs to be done to strengthen their partner support, nobody is denying it. As for price/worth it, I suggest you take a look at the recent Japanese hardware numbers.


The specs aren't more powerful, as I stated. Developers have stated that the CPU is a major bottleneck and many have openly criticised the platform. And it really doesn't matter how powerful a console is theoretically if games perform no better or worse, whether that's because of hardware bottlenecks or poor quality ports.

Again, we're not going to agree it seems. I've already stated developers have said the console is more powerful than 360/PS3. Are all of them going to agree? Probably not. Does it really matter? No. The console is HD and displaying 1080p. That's more than the 360/PS3 AAA games could do.


I strongly reject the assertion I was trying to "swindle" anyone. I was simply comparing the cheapest SKU of each console, which proves that the Wii U is more expensive than the X360 and PS3; it also has a more limited games catalogue. Both are observable facts. What exactly is it that you find contentious about what I'm saying? :huh:

Because you said one thing then back tracked when I pointed out you were uninformed about what you were saying (games included in box etc). I've never argued that the Wii U is cheaper. I said its more expensive than what you're comparing it to because you're strangely comparing products almost 10 years old which don't have like for like contents in the box.

#50 Nashy

Nashy

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 05-September 04
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S5 - SM-G900i

Posted 21 January 2014 - 08:58

Just make a console to compete with those two, and make it worth buying.  The name alone can sell.



#51 OP compl3x

compl3x

    Feels good, dunnit?

  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 21 January 2014 - 09:31

Just make a console to compete with those two, and make it worth buying.  The name alone can sell.

 

 

I think that ship has well and truly sailed. Consoles aren't the kinds of things you can have such a short life-cycle for.



#52 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 21 January 2014 - 11:08

It's not irrelevant. The console costs more because it includes extras, which is what I've been trying to explain to you.

 

Yup, the Zelda bundle includes a LE console as well as the game so it will cost a little extra, but there are various options available and have been since the launch. Again, my point is the premium bundle includes a game. Always has done.

The Wii U 32GB Premium is the cheapest Wii U SKU available, yet it is more expensive than the Xbox 360 250GB SKU with 6 games. It offers less value than the competition. More importantly, the cheapest Xbox 360 SKU allows gamers to buy the console and any game that they want for considerably less than the Wii U.

 

If that's how you want to justify it then fine. You're comparing like for like price tags, not contents of the box which is what I'm stating. The Premium Wii U's counter part would be the "premium" version of the 360/PS3. As for the 6 game bundle, that is a retailer specific bundle, not an official bundle so largely irrelevant to the discussion.

It doesn't matter whether a bundle is official or not as that is the price that consumers are paying. As I pointed out, gamers can create their own bundle and still work out with a cheaper package. You're obsessed with the fact that the cheapest version of the Wii U is the "Premium" one and must therefore be compared against another premium offering when that's simply not how the market works. So let's compare another bundle: the PS3 500GB comes with Gran Turismo 6 and The Last Of Us and it only costs £199, which is much less than the Wii U. It's an official premium bundle, so you can't give me any of that nonsense. The Wii U 32GB Premium offers nowhere near that amount of storage or games as highly acclaimed.

 

Well until they officially announce anything the Wii U Basic is still in production. Some retailers have chosen not to restock the console and instead picked the Premium version only. It's still available, but in a limited quantity.

Semantics. If you can't buy it—and even when you can it's more expensive—then it's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Now you're just venturing into trolling territory. There is a lot of games on the horizon for the Wii U from Nintendo and more to be announced. They may not be what you're interested in but that doesn't make them any less important. Yes a lot of third parties have limited support. That's nothing new and has been an issue for them since the N64. A lot of work needs to be done to strengthen their partner support, nobody is denying it. As for price/worth it, I suggest you take a look at the recent Japanese hardware numbers.

Just because you don't like what I say doesn't make it "trolling territory". Several major publishers have already abandoned the platform (EA, 2K Games, Codemasters, Blizzard), while most others have dramatically scaled back their releases - very few multiplatform titles (PC/X360/PS3) are also coming out for Wii U. Further, it is perfectly reasonable to question Nintendo's commitment to the Wii U when it has announced such a dramatic underperformance, has admitted the Wii U is a failure and is talking about expanding into other markets, like smartphone gaming. Nintendo's first party offerings have been few and far between - even if Nintendo continues to release a few games a year a lot of gamers won't find that enough to sustain their interest, something that hasn't been a problem for the X360 or PS3.

 

Again, we're not going to agree it seems. I've already stated developers have said the console is more powerful than 360/PS3. Are all of them going to agree? Probably not. Does it really matter? No. The console is HD and displaying 1080p. That's more than the 360/PS3 AAA games could do.

That's incredibly disingenuous. Very few Wii U games run at 1080p and those that do aren't graphically demanding, as is true of the current generation consoles (X360/PS3) - typically you're talking about low-detail sidescrollers or basic racers, the type that already run at 1080p on mobile devices. No crossplatform titles are running at 1080p on the Wii U while only 720p on the X360 or PS3. Even the XB1 and PS4 are struggling to hit 1080p and the Wii U obviously isn't even close to as powerful as either of them.

 

As I pointed out, many crossplatform titles actually run worse on the Wii U - there are many reasons for that (unfamiliarity with the platform, limited resources, rushed ports) but the end result is the same, which is that the Wii U frequently underperforms the X360 and PS3. That's why I said the Wii U is effectively at par with the X360 and PS3 - ahead in some areas, behind in others. There's nothing controversial about that.

 

Because you said one thing then back tracked when I pointed out you were uninformed about what you were saying (games included in box etc). I've never argued that the Wii U is cheaper. I said its more expensive than what you're comparing it to because you're strangely comparing products almost 10 years old which don't have like for like contents in the box.

I was never comparing the games in the box, the amount of storage, bundles or the inclusion of HDMI cables - only the price of the consoles. That said, even when you factor in all those things the Wii U still works out more expensive. My original post was very clear:

 

The Wii U was a console that nobody wanted or needed - hardware-wise it is at best on par with the X360 and PS3, while at the same time considerably more expensive and with a very limited catalogue of games.

We've had this long and involved discussion for you to just agree with my original premise, which is that the Wii U is more expensive than the X360 and PS3.  :huh:



#53 Lamp0

Lamp0

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 14-December 08

Posted 21 January 2014 - 12:02

And Nintendo right now is in a good spot. A good spot that will probably never going to happen again.

 

The PS4 and Xbox One aint that powerful and lot of money is wasted on media techs the core gaming crowd (i.e. not neowin) don't care all that much about. Features that are covered in many countries by cable set-top box. Features that will probably be covered by Smart TV soon enough. Even the best looking next gen games fail to impress all that much graphically. Nintendo could wait 3 years and cut the grass under Sony and MS foots with a more powerful console targeting the core gaming crowd with gaming only features to cut the price down (i.e. no kinect, no tv, etc). A partnership with AMD to  push Mantle would be a really good move.

 

Yes it would be a risky move as a failure would kill the company but better die trying that ... die anyway not trying at all.

 

BTW Sega IS dead for all intents and purposes ;)

 

 

Are you nuts?

 

Nintendo are not going to be releasing another home console within the next 3 years. Reseach & development to build a games console costs tons time & money, Microsoft or Sony isn't going to do that twice in one cycle, let alone Nintendo. On top of that I don't think Nintendo have the experience or expertise to create something to compete with PS4 & XBO. Nintendo is in no spot to make a put out a new console, especially not one that would trump or even match PS4 & XBO.

 

Also, what are you talking about, "PS4 and Xbox One aint that powerful",  "Even the best looking next gen games fail to impress all that much graphically"... they are plenty powerful & games look fantastic; they are only going to look better & better as time goes on.



#54 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 21 January 2014 - 12:48

It should be noted that Amazon and Argos have now dropped the price of the Wii U Premium Pack to £179.99, at which price it offers better value. Could this be part of an official response from Nintendo to stimulate interest in the Wii U?



#55 LaP

LaP

    Forget about it

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 10-July 06
  • Location: Quebec City, Canada
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1

Posted 21 January 2014 - 15:06

Are you nuts?
 
Nintendo are not going to be releasing another home console within the next 3 years. Reseach & development to build a games console costs tons time & money, Microsoft or Sony isn't going to do that twice in one cycle, let alone Nintendo. On top of that I don't think Nintendo have the experience or expertise to create something to compete with PS4 & XBO. Nintendo is in no spot to make a put out a new console, especially not one that would trump or even match PS4 & XBO.
 
Also, what are you talking about, "PS4 and Xbox One aint that powerful",  "Even the best looking next gen games fail to impress all that much graphically"... they are plenty powerful & games look fantastic; they are only going to look better & better as time goes on.


Nintendo has all the expertise and experience needed to make the hardware. I'm sorry but it's not because the cpu and gpu are more powerful today than it is more difficult to build a console than 15 years ago. It's the same thing as it used to be. A cpu, a gpu, a sound card, a mother board, some ram, a disc drive and add some internal storage memory. The parts are just more powerful. The GameCube was an extremely well designed console. It was way smaller than the XBox. It was way more silent than the Xbox. It was 100$ less expensive and the best looking games like RE4 and Metroid Prime were looking pretty much as good as the XBox. And the controller was not all that bad i liked it better than the duke controller.

The problem of Nintendo is the software and marketing. The OS, online service and its relationship with 3rd party publisher like EA. But Nintendo could hire people with such expertise. Imo it's more a lack of vision than anything else. There's many people in USA with the expertise to build an online infrastructure and sell bull**** to poor people if you give them the money. You just have to hire them. Valve is a good proof of that, the online infrastructure part i mean ;).

You are right that you can't build a console in 3 years. But Nintendo should have already been working on that for at the very least 5 years just in case MS or Sony failed. I think the Wii was a wise move by Nintendo. But it should have been a transition phase only while restructurating to become more competitive on the software side. Nintendo should be ready. There's no excuse not to be. It is the time to strike as i don't think MS will ever be in a weaker position that it is right now. Yes the One sells in NA but it is expensive and not as powerful as the XBox was in comparison to the competition. MS bet a lot on TV and Nintendo should try to exploit that with a more powerful gaming dedicated console sold at the same price 2 or 3 years from now.

There's a complete lack of vision at Nintendo and it starts with Iwata. Nintendo will probably survive like Apple did. It is too big to fail quickly. The death will be a lot slower than Sega. But Nintendo will need to find its Steve JObs one day or another if it wants to survive.

#56 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 21 January 2014 - 16:03

Nintendo has all the expertise and experience needed to make the hardware. I'm sorry but it's not because the cpu and gpu are more powerful today than it is more difficult to build a console than 15 years ago. It's the same thing as it used to be. A cpu, a gpu, a sound card, a mother board, some ram, a disc drive and add some internal storage memory. The parts are just more powerful. The GameCube was an extremely well designed console. It was way smaller than the XBox. It was way more silent than the Xbox. It was 100$ less expensive and the best looking games like RE4 and Metroid Prime were looking pretty much as good as the XBox. And the controller was not all that bad i liked it better than the duke controller.

A new console isn't the answer. Even if it were more powerful than the XB1 or PS4—which isn't just about hardware but about developer support—there would still be the problem of marketing, developer relations, digital distribution / online services and consumer scepticism. Nintendo hasn't pushed graphical innovation or mature games in decades, so it would take a long time to turn that image around. Microsoft has Halo, Gears Of War and Forza to rely on; Sony has Killzone, Gran Turismo and Uncharted; Nintendo's exclusives are nearly all aimed at children / nostalgic adults, like Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Pikmin, Donkey Kong, etc. Those games have never been about realistic graphics or advanced engines.

 

You are right that you can't build a console in 3 years. But Nintendo should have already been working on that for at the very least 5 years just in case MS or Sony failed. I think the Wii was a wise move by Nintendo. But it should have been a transition phase only while restructurating to become more competitive on the software side. Nintendo should be ready. There's no excuse not to be.

Consoles are designed with long term business models in mind, with most of the money made in the twilight years. To abandon the Wii U only to replace it with another console would be incredibly expensive and a hugely risky proposition. It would make more sense to drop the tablet controller, slash the price and rebrand it (i.e. drop the Wii name that caused so much confusion). That would be much more financially prudent and is similar to what Nintendo did with the transition from the 3DS -> 2DS.

 

Nintendo needs to appeal to third-party developers and offer incredibly attractive rates / support, especially for mature titles. It needs exclusive titles that show off the power of the console. It needs a robust online service and digital distribution (which is difficult given that even the Premium model has incredibly limited storage). That's not something that requires a new console but it does require a new focus / business model. There's no point launching a new console without addressing the issues that have caused the Wii U to be shunned by gamers.

 

PS - It wouldn't be ridiculous for Nintendo to get behind Steam and launch their own Steam Machine. Considering that Steam already has an install base of over 75 million that's a very quick way to make a dent against Microsoft and Sony.



#57 Andrew

Andrew

    Once More 'Round the Sun

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 21 January 2014 - 18:22

Snip

 

We're going around in circles here so you'll forgive me for not reiterating the same thing reworded for a 3rd time.

 

Agree to disagree.



#58 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 21 January 2014 - 18:50

We're going around in circles here so you'll forgive me for not reiterating the same thing reworded for a 3rd time.

 

Agree to disagree.

Ditto. :)



#59 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 19-March 06
  • Location: here.
  • OS: FreeDOS
  • Phone: Nokia 3315

Posted 23 January 2014 - 17:38

Nintendoland isn't really a 'game' as such, that'd be like critisising the kinect because it comes with kinect sports...