Nintendo president hints at exploring smartphone gaming support

[compl3x]

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.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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:

[Lamp0]

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.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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?

[LaP]

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.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

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.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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. :)

[n_K]

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