RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Games and Tech Wii U

I was gonna post this in the E3 thread, but I figured it deserved its own.

Yahoo: Lackluster E3 for Nintendo raises more Wii U questions

• Wii U, we hardly know you.
  
  Of all the companies showcasing new games and hardware at the E3 video game convention this week, none face as much pressure as Nintendo. The once -mighty Wii may have left an indelible mark on the game industry by broadening the very definition of a gamer, but it's been on a downhill slide for years now. After toiling away in its top-selling shadow, Microsoft and Sony's more mature consoles are now proving their worth in terms of sheer staying power, trouncing the Wii on the charts month after month.
  
  But with the first new home console in six years coming out this holiday, Nintendo has a chance to leapfrog the competition with the Wii U and define what the next generation of gaming will look like. It's a risky position, but one that could pay off big time if the company plays the game well.
  
  So far, it isn't. Instead of giving fans a launch lineup, a deep feature dive, a sophisticated online network reveal and possibly a price and a release date at E3, the company merely asked us to wait longer, to remain patient, and to trust in Mario.
  
  Unfortunately for Nintendo, no one's buying it. Despite high hopes for a big presence at E3, the company's stock dipped 2% after their disappointing media briefing Tuesday. While new Mario and Pikmin games have fans excited, the press has had a field day taking shots at the company's lack of a coherent message. What is the Wii U, exactly, and who is it for?
  
  It's a problem Nintendo hasn't faced in ages. The Wii connected immediately. You wave the remote, you hit a tennis ball. Innovative enough to wow gamers yet digestible enough for those who last played a Mario game in 1985, it bridged a gap and brought countless new players into the fold. They kept it simple with the 3DS, too: it's a handheld system with a glasses-free 3D screen and fancier processing guts. "Forget that pricey Sony nonsense," the company seemed to say, "because we figured it out already." The thing just clicked.
  
  But the Wii U? It's a game console that you play with a tablet controller, though Nintendo's disproportionate emphasis on the tablet has led some outlets, like CNN, to misconstrue the device as being an add-on for the Wii you have gathering dust on your shelf. Others think the tablet is the console itself. Actually trotting out the console — you know, the piece of hardware you'll actually buy and connect to your TV and have sitting in your living room — and doling out some more thorough specs would have helped. Bandying about wonky terms like 'asymmetric gameplay,' where the experience of a player using the tablet differs from those using Wii remotes? Not exactly the catchy simplicity Nintendo is known for.
  
  But how about the games? Nintendo showed off 23 Wii U experiences at E3, including an assortment of titles from third parties like Ubisoft and EA. Many of these fell flat, though. An upcoming Wii U version of 2011 masterpiece Batman: Arkham City isn't exactly a system seller in 2012. Mass Effect 3 is a tremendous game, but by the time it releases for the Wii U it will be a good 8 months old. Even the flagship New Super Mario Bros U -- essentially a sequel to New Super Mario Bros. Wii -- feels a bit underwhelming, especially when compared to past system-defining Mario games like Super Mario 64 and Super Mario World.
  
  Perhaps most damning was the mild reception of Nintendoland, the collection of mini-games Nintendo hopes will do for the Wii U what Wii Sports did for the Wii. The company ended its press conference with an overlong look at the title, awkwardly wrapping it all up with a fake firework display that left the crowd baffled.
  
  It's just the latest gaffe from a company struggling to recapture the glory days of the Wii in its prime. A 3DS price drop only four months into that system's life was considered a desperation move (it has since paid off, at least in terms of goosing sales), prompting company CEO Satoru Iwata to take a whopping 50% pay cut. Earlier this year the company reported its first annual operating loss in 30 years. It's been a tough ride for Nintendo, yet they inexplicably keep making it tougher.
  
  And the challenges are only growing now that the competition smells blood. Microsoft's SmartGlass technology essentially mimics the Wii U's second screen functionality by letting you use your smartphone or tablet to control games or enjoy tangential content. Sony's Cross-Play between the PS3 and the Vita lets you save games to the cloud and take them with you on the go — a step beyond the Wii U's living room limitations. A year after its first reveal, and suddenly the Wii U isn't quite so innovative. Waste enough tech time and eventually you'll be lapped.
  
  Nintendo needed to change that perception with an unmistakable win at E3. The world wanted to get to know the only new system of 2012, but we're left with more questions than answers. By failing to produce, it's left the future in doubt — and that's no way to start the next generation.

I speak less and less as a gamer nowadays since my gaming habits are steadily consolidating and becoming more isolated to certain brands and franchises. But, speaking as a spiteful market observer that lives to annoy Rob, I feel rather vindicated by this.

Not that I wish any ill will towards Nintendo, but i think they deserve some criticism for their past decisions with the Wii. The primary ones being: a) putting more emphasis on motion control than the actual games and b) not making any efforts to create or invest in any new franchises beyond what Nintendo is comfortable with (see also: Mario, Zelda). Their investment in these marketing decisions has effectively limited their ability to develop products according to the conventions of a given generation. They're essentially forced to develop something that will, principally, be bigger and bolder than what came before. The problem being of course, that a fixation on being anti-conventional or innovative doesn't guarantee and, in fact, threatens a steady trend of consumption.

Yes, obviously Nintendo is going have its diehard zombies--er, Robs--er fans that will consume their products no matter what. And I'm sure they've garnered at least a few more this past generation. But that certainly isn't going to equate to the millions that have consumed the Wii. And so Nintendo has to have a repeat of the motion control gimmick whether it be manifested through something new or just more motion controls: enter Wii-U, which is essentially a glorified DS/iPhone hybrid.

But with this new interface model meeting a rather cold reception thus far, it doesn't look like it's going to create a new attraction or even reinvigorate the old (fad) one. And what resonates with me most from this article is how it refers to this Nintendo stagnation being highlighted by the staying power of the PS3 and the 360. Slow and steady wins the race as it were. But more than that, the competitors of Nintendo have maintained a conventional approach, the departure of which is what's going to prove very problematic for Nintendo.

With the success of the Wii, Nintendo has locked itself on a course that's tremendously risky and, ultimately, self-destructive. Having made such a big fuss about motion control and trying to move away from the usual gaming conventions--and subsequently making a shit-ton of money off that tune--Nintendo has disallowed itself from ever returning to a traditional control interface regardless of consumer reaction. And as a result of their self-imposed limitations, we end up with products like the Wii-U.

Is the Wii-U functional? Probably. Fun? Very possible. But it's not even remotely intuitive as a gaming device in the context of a larger console--or even as an evolution of a console. And one can almost guarantee that it will have even less staying power than the Wii in the face of the conventional gaming interface that Sony and Microsoft have stuck with. And compounding this is, so far, a lack of any compelling games that attempt to validate it as a practical gaming device.

I think people tend to confuse Nintendo's over reliance on their first party franchises with failure to innovate. They're not making the same games over and over - Mario Kart is a very different game from Luigi's Mansion and from Super Mario Galaxy (hell, they aren't even in the same genre). They just happen to use the same characters over and over, in which case I don't think they should be faulted. They're maximizing the use of brands they have established.

I think the other two companies would have done the same thing, except they haven't been around long enough to establish their own brands as much as Nintendo has (I mean, how many times has Kratos appeared in games, anyway? He's got 4 main games, 7 if you count the HD rerelease, and he appeared in several games as hidden characters. He's getting there. On Microsoft's side, they're milking Master Chief. The amount of Kart Games and SSB-style games from other developers kind of makes it look like Nintendo had the right idea and other companies are trying their best to get a piece of the pie)

I'm not saying Nintendo is without fault, though. I just think that the real problem they have is their failure to secure third parties as well as the other two companies did, not their overreliance on first party titles.

It's kind of obvious that third parties are really the driving forces for videogame consoles, and that Nintendo is only able to become the exception because they were able to build a nest out of their own brands. In fact, one of the best things they did as a business was during the NES days, when they got overwhelming third party support due to their ridiculously draconian policies.

As for gloom-and-doom speculations regarding videogame consoles, I think the real hurdle they (all three major console makers, not just nintendo) have to get through is the hollywood-ification of the industry. Games these days are too expensive in order to cover the ridiculous cost of production. It's getting to the point where a game that sold 1.4 million copies at 40-60 bucks a pop is considered a failure (Capcom's SF X Tekken, for example), while on the other hand, there's games over at Apple's app store that is making bank for a dollar per download. The big three could wrestle all they want but their true competitors (casual games/apps on mobile devices and browsers) have been eating away at their business for quite a while now.

Hey guys I thought you'd like to know that in five years the next Nintendo console launches and it's so awesome it makes me want to punch you in the face!


"Wii U Wee! It's the Chosen One!"

A billion points.

I was pretty disappointed by Nintendo's E3 presentation, so to cheer me up I went looking for the old threads from when the Wii was first announced and it's pretty much the same thing: "what the fuck is this", "this will never sell", "the name is ridiculous", "this will be Nintendo's last console" (which they've been saying since the GameCube).

If anything, I think Nintendo focused too little on the motion control: at first they had incredibly fun stuff like Wii Sports or Wario Ware and games that are unthinkable in any other console like Mario Galaxy, but by the end all their best games required you to either turn the remote around and use it like a regular pad or simply hook up the classic controller. There was a lot of potential there but they ran out of ideas pretty fast. One thing I would have liked to see more of is point and click adventure games like Zack & Wiki, since that's a genre that seems perfectly suited for the Wii. I think Zack & Wiki is the only one they did.

So what worries me now is that they seem to downplaying the pad right away in an attempt to cater to "hardcore gamers" who probably won't be interested in the console anyway. Like in Arkham Asylum, now you can choose the weapons from the pad screen... but isn't that something you could do with a regular control anyway? Same thing with ZombiU, it looks like a PS3 game with different controls. Fuck that shit, give me something no other console can do. That's the point.

I was gonna buy the Wii U at launch, but if all they have to offer right now are remakes of space marines games and games like New Super Mario U that they could have done in Wii anyway, then I'll just wait until they show us what they can do with Mario Kart and Smash Bros and stuff like that. The only upside to Nintendo bombing the E3, I think, is that the other guys won't rush to copy them this time and that'll probably help Nintendo in the long run.

Wait until the PS4 comes out with a tablet controller that is different and totally not copied, because it has a glowing ball on top.

generally speaking, it was a poor e3. nintendo's conference was maybe the best of the three, but only slightly so. however, it should have been significantly so, since it was the only conference showcasing new hardware. but, nintendo has never been an e3 powerhouse, so whatta ya gonna do.

regardless, i think the reaction of some articles is... i dunno... insane? like, for example, many articles and outlets point to how much nintendo wii sales have dropped off... never factoring in that it is definitively the greatest selling platform of all time. ...or that 6 year old consoles tend to have downward sliding sale rates. but also, the fabrication of how it gets remembered so brilliantly is off.



that's bull shit. and horse shit. when the wii hit e3 years ago, there was internet and journalistic outrage. from the name (which isn't even a word!) to the wacky controller to the less-than-powerful processor, non HD wii sports, etc. the press and general reaction of the wii was horrible. the same was true of the DS and eventually the 3DS. each had a learning curve, each got pissed on in the first reveal and first few months... and then each made tremendous bounds, becoming the respective sales leaders. so, really, intrawebs. relax a little. it wasn't a great show, but... even if the thing hits stores in november, that's 5 months of hype left to build.



that parenthetical aside should actually say "which made it the fastest selling video game hardware device of all time, even faster than the Wii that this same article is hailing, despite this same outlet blasting during its launch. and i'm a jerk."



what you're missing is the article you're referencing is praising and lauding the wii. sure, yahoo didn't 5-6 years ago, but the angle they're taking is nintendo used to do it right with the wii, and now they're blowing it. the angle you're taking is nintendo didn't do it right with the wii, and now they're blowing it. ...and now you're blowing me.



and, like... this paragraph is insanity.

first off... we're all fanboys. whether its video games or comics or politics or whatever, you're s shill, pro is a shill, mxy is a shill, i'm a shill... we're all on the internet, its our job. let's not pretend anything different. secondly, what is it you're faulting nintendo for? with wii, they expanded the market with a different control interface and their robust collection of IP. with wii u, they're trying a similar strategy and, as you said, using some DS and iphone bits as inspiration. so, there you have three of the most popular pieces of technology of all time. what should they be doing...?



you're not sure if its functional. you're not sure if it's fun. you're positive its not intuitive, nor an evolution. and you've... never tried it.



so, a question. does 2012 pariah ever look back at 2007 pariah's posts, and see that he said basically the same thing all those years ago? and then, as noted in the yahoo article, and even a bit of his own post above, that he was horribly wrong...? ...and yet making the same claim now, because, this time it'll work?

But Wii isn't even a real word...

Who takes an article written by a Yahoo! 'journalist' seriously? They're constantly misinformed and lack the slightest bit of research or editing. They're a fucking laughing stock. Their opinions mean even less than Pariah's.

The fact is that the net gamers all derided the Wii as a fad. It wasn't. The only reason sales are down now is because the market has hit it's saturation point. Everyone who'll buy a Wii, which is pretty much most of the planet, has already bought one. It's time for the next system.

I think we're about to see a shift from discs to strictly downloaded or streaming games on consoles. It's a way to cut costs for the distributors and hopefully pull us away from the conglomeration of gaming studios under an EA-like banner.

I agree in theory with the idea that continuing the same franchise with many different variations ad nauseum can be successful, but what I'm saying is that not moving on to other things--or at least working on new stuff concurrently--is incredibly risky. And relying on big names to balance out the risk loses its effectiveness over time--not to mention that people eventually just become jaded to them.

Personally, I've all but given up on GTA because each iteration is just designed to be a marginal improvement over the game that came before it. I see people approaching Mario platformers/racers/parties with the same attitude. I'm also seeing similar reactions to Zelda as well.

To Sony's credit, they have made efforts over the past two generations to make multiple new franchises that have a chance to grow and succeed, allowing for further assurances of a decent gaming lineup beyond "safe" franchises that people may or may not be getting sick of.

I think Nintendo certainly wouldn't mind following their example. But for some reason they're unwilling to try, which is a major fault on their part.



Oh, they're milking their signature franchises, no question. But I would argue that they're not putting all their ducks in one barrel the way Nintendo is.



Nah. I think Sony disproves that. Their first party lineup is their greatest strength. Even if they had no third parties they'd still get by pretty well. The difference between their first parties and Nintendo's, however is that Nintendo is either unable or unwilling to branch out.



Then why are the other consoles' sales still going without a proportionate amount of loss in relation to the Wii?



PS2.



I don't think the author's meaning ran counter to that.

It was referring to its staying power in relation to the other consoles.

For instance, I would argue that, while the PS2 probably didn't sell as fast or as voluminously as the Wii in its younger years, the Wii probably won't be selling as much or as long as the PS2 has and is (insanely enough).



Except, as the article noted, the sales of the PS3 and the 360 haven't followed that trend.



I believe their referring to the actual consumption of the product and not its reception. I don't think the author would argue that media outlets (at least western ones) weren't unhappy with what they saw.



That's right. I'm "referencing". Meaning I'm using points it has made to make my own points without necessarily quoting it verbatim or quoting its information in such a manner that the author originally intended. That's how citations are usually grabbed.

I realize that the article has lauded the Wii, but that doesn't mean it contradicts my scrutiny of it. What I am going so far as to say is that the problems they see with the Wii U is due in no small part to the Wii and its marketing. I'm expanding on the author's observation if you will.



What I'm saying is that the sale and success of the Wii and the ideas it represents has boxed Nintendo into a corner. While stating as such certainly implies that they've potentially sabotaged their future interests, that doesn't try to interpret the implementation of the Wii as either "right" or "wrong".



You've missed the point. In fact, I think you skipped two full paragraphs on why I feel Nintendo's hamstrung their ability to make games conventionally (assuming they ever feel the need or desire to do so). i.e. By fixating on a bold and innovative gaming interface as the selling point--as opposed to the actual games--they doom themselves to a compulsion to develop future systems that aren't intuitive as gaming consoles.

And, uh, I wouldn't go so far as to say that their IPs have contributed more to their market share than the motion controls all on their own....and I wouldn't go so far as to call them "robust" either.



I'm giving Nintendo the benefit of the doubt. I don't think they'd release something they didn't think is functional.



I don't think it looks fun at all. I'm sure others do though. So I left it open to the possibility that it is.



I don't need to try it to know that it's not intuitive. That's the entire point behind identifying conventions.

And aside from implementing motion controls, there is nothing about the Wii-U that would suggest it's an evolution from the Wii's nun chuck. Imagine for a moment that you're only familiar with the Wii-U and were completely ignorant of the Wii: do you really think you would picture the nun chuck as the Wii-U's predecessor?



No I didn't. I said the Wii is a fad--and I still say that. And I think the disproportionate sales between the Wii and the other two systems demonstrates that.

Contrary to what people would like to believe, a normally short run time is not the principle identifier of a fad. It's the gimmicky selling point. And in the case of the Wii, its gimmick is fading. As such, Wii-U is not likely to have the energy that the Wii did.

it's actually not a good idea to trust major news sites that are not gaming/tech related or at least has department devoted to that sector. There's a chance that the article was written by an old guard type journalist who's not that familiar with the topic, or by an intern.

Just a few days ago there was a CNN post covering the Wii U, stating that it's an add on tablet controller for the Wii.

It's been fixed now (without any notice) after people started correcting them at the comments.

"New" usually sells to the uninformed masses. Those with expertise in any genre will view it with the eye of a specialist. They'll buy and play a PS2 or N64 because of either a hipster-like mentality that they have some form of measurable "integrity" for playing a "purist" system, or they're a nostalgia buff that just might prefer old platforms and game styles. Meanwhile, these particular masters are in the minority of the industries profit margin. Who they sale the glut to...the ones that will make up a lot of their short-term revenue...are the plain-jane's and john-doe's of gaming. The tween/teens who get it for Xmas because that's what their friends are getting. The parents that buy it for them because they want their kid to have the current thing. The 40yr old geeks who buy it to play so they can go online and bitch about it (see my HITMAN thread ) pretending they have nothing to do with it. And the normal gamers that want some insta-fun and don't see a problem shelling out $600 bucks every couple of years on the newest thing.

The reason the Wii sold so much instantly is as I suggest in the previous paragraph. The reason it's plateaued to a point is because it's not "new" or "strangely innovative" anymore. The families that were playing it last year have usually moved on to something else. Same thing happened to Guitar Hero and that whole fad. And while Wii's genuine worth as a gaming platform is not in question...and couldn't really be classified as a "fad" per se...it suffers from the same post-fad-symptoms because of its place in the pop culture of gaming. It's a quirky, new way of presenting a game system...eliminating the complex controls for one thing...but because of it's graphic shortcomings in the field of "serious gaming", will tend to fade away if Nintendo doesn't shore up the idea beyond its original "new"-ness.

Does that make sense? I don't feel like I'm explaining it very clearly. Basically what I'm saying is that I think the Wii is a new category: "the unrelenting non-fad".

however, note, this isn't a nintendo critique. this is a critique on all three platform makers, most every major game studio. ...and also movies and tv. franchises are easier to cash in with, because they have built in audiences. personally, i think nintendo does a good job with innovating and evolving the franchise iterations in most (certainly not all) examples. conveniently enough, you feel the same with sony. i can't wait to see what sony does with this new allstars battle royale concept!!



the avengers lost $100 million dollars between their first and second weekend. by proportion guidelines, that's the most unsuccessful theatrical bombing of all time. sure, it was moving from a record breaking first weekend to a record breaking second weekend, but...

i'm not trying to dismiss the success of the ps3 and 360, but the stance of the article is seemingly percentage based. the wii sold roughly 85% of ps3's last year (360 actually bested the pair) but some how sony's 14 million units sold is an achievement and nintendo's 12 is a shortcoming. if that is an accurate depiction, then shouldn't the other companies be disappointed that their gains are the same as another's disappointments?

just for record's sake, in 2012, the wii has sold about half as many units as the ps3, and maybe 65% of the 360 (which, for another record, has had a disasterous april/may). so, sure, doubling your opponent is great. but, also keep in mind, the wii announced its successor about 14 months ago, to be released 6 months from now. even with a price drop (which there hasn't been) and a rush of first party games (which there hasn't been) it should still be somewhat impressive the wii is holding its own.



but let's say future pariah is right, and the wii's lifespan, years 7-12, are not as solid as the ps2's. ...what would your point be? and would you maintain that same point were years 7-12 of the wii still superior to that of the ps3's?



the article states the wii was wonderful, and nintendo's actual mistake is the wii-u. you claim the wii was nintendo's mistake, and the wii-u is more mistake. my claim is that the wii was a phenom. you were incorrect years ago, and the article is trying to rewrite history to avoid sharing your scarlet letter.



new platforms mean new directions. every iteration of a nintendo console has meant something drastic. from NES to arcade style SNES, to sticking with carts and pissing off sony with N64, to shrinking inward with gamecube, to blue ocean method with the wii. wii-u could follow any of these paths, or something different. it appears to have blue-ocean thinking like wii, but forethought of more traditional gaming to perhaps correct some of the shortcomings of the past era. maybe it'll work, maybe it wont. either way, there's no corner to paint into when you can reinvent yourself every 5 years.




the wii was the largest diversion from "traditional" gaming in a home console since, perhaps, the dawn of gaming. and nintendo did just fine by it. if the wii's disgusting success wasn't a clear enough indicator for you, then maybe you'll note sony and microsoft's attempts at motion gaming during the middle of their console's lifespans, and continuing through to this year's e3. similarly, note all of the developers and third parties outside of this big 3 that have dipped their toes in the diverging waters, across all three platforms. that's not a trend that has slowed. you could easily make the argument that the wii changed the industry - perhaps minorly, perhaps completely.



at the risk of going into promotional mode for a second... i just want to highlight some of the wii-u features. if, for any reason, to avoid your claims of a shell controller for another few years.

the wii featured a "remote" and a nunchuck. the remote was for motion control actions and featured a few buttons; the nunchuck tied in a joystiq and two-hand "normalcy".

the wii-u gamepad is entirely different. it is a two-handed controller, for starters. it features motion control. it features a built in screen that can be used, like with the DS, as a menu or map screen. additionally, you can also swap the game from the big screen tv to the in-controller screen; not as a true portable device (there's a range) but allowing you to relocate, or watch something else, or even just play reclined. the screen also has touch capability, for use in-game, or with apps as a stand-alone device / ipad. there's a built-in microphone. a built-in camera. a built in scanner that will allow you to place physical objects on the gamepad, or specific card codes, and have them scanned into the game or AR purposes. perhaps most important to a "traditional gamer", the gamepad also features a more standard layout - two hands, two joysticks and a standard button scheme (shoulders, triggers, cross and plus).

i'm sure you still hate it, but... i just want to point out that there are VAST differences between the two.

like when the DS came out, which itself introduced dual screens, touch screens, a microphone, a camera and several other notions... these aspects are considered options to developers. there's no mandate that anyone has to utilize all - or any - of these features. while you see a gimmick, some developers might see a bonus.

I can't back this up with facts or anything and I may be off,but I always looked at the reason the PS2 had such longevity was due to the PS3's huge price tag and such a shorted amount on initial release. I know that I seriously contemplated getting a PS2 and I'm guessing that parents whose kids were demanding a game system for Christmas and didn't have a PS2 were like "Hey...it's waaaaay cheaper,easier to find,games are cheaper too and there's a ton to choose from and it'll make little Billy and Mary happy.....also Uncle Leo who lives in our basement."

Hell,I remember too how crazy it was to find a Wii and I just lucked into walking into Wal-Mart with the intent of getting one but settling for a PS2 if they didn't because that tax return money was being spent one way or the other and there was a Wii there. So my point...if it can be called such is that I could very well say that the possibility of a brief but noticeable spike in Wii sales could come around the holidays and last past that a few months if:
A: The Wii U's price tag is hefty
B:The Wii's price drops to say $129 or $99 even.

Just my nickel.

Considering--IMO--Nintendo was the least sucky thing about E3 this year, I'm looking forward to the Wii U.

As for the third party stuff, I think Nintendo's talk of focusing on its first party brands is all just so much Kabuki (is it rassist to say that when talking about a Japanese company?). Fact is--had they not decide to abandon the move to discs when working on the N64--they would have had what is considered "the best RPG of all time", FFVII, on their console. I think that pretty much closed them off from a lot of parties that decided on pushing the envelope with discs (via the PlayStation) as they were less limited than Nintendo's cartridges. Still, as much as it may have limited them, it didn't stop Nintendo from having a decent share of the pie. They even had some good third party titles like GoldenEye and WCW/NWO Revenge.

It may be that hindsight is 20/20, but the Wiimote was shear genius. Was it looked at as an oddity and gimmicky by developers and raging internet fanboys? Sure. But, when the competition starts copying the brand that had "relegated itself to third place and--eventually--the dustbin", it is time to rethink who the industry innovators are.

The Wii was, in general, just the thing Nintendo needed to put it back on the map. People were enthralled by the novelty of the Wiimote. It was priced to sell for everybody (no tiered systems like the PS3). It was backwards compatible (even adding the virtual console so I could play fucking Bonk's Adventure of all games on the fucking Wii). Did they push the envelope in graphics and processing? No. But, they didn't create a lot of anger by introducing the phrase "red ring of death" to the lexicon either.

Bringing it back around, did they make some bad moves way back when? Yeah, but I think they have learned from them and have also found away to really put themselves back on the map. I believe we are at a point where outside developers are no longer going to look at Nintendo players as a niche that can be ignored. And, while moving towards it slowly, I think Nintendo is starting to get to a point where they are more interested in what appeal those developers can bring in that their in-house brands do not.

This is just my mental jacking off to the Wii, though.

Rob loves you dude

Seriously though,I've been a Nintendo guy.I own a PS1 and used to have an X-Box but I always waited til the systems(all of em) were like in year 4 before buying because of pricing.The Wii was the first system I paid full monty for and the only thing I regret about that is why they didn't have that awesome sleek looking black console out then?! I mean seriously,the f-in Gamecube came in black or purple when it came out!!End rant....all good. Now granted my busted Wii is/was of no use to me(I let my ex-girlfriend keep it)but I have friends who have one so I play games when I have time. I might buy a new one but will probably hold off until I see what the Wii U looks like and what kind of price tag is attached to it. I could very well end up getting a PS3 or Xbox 360 instead....I dunno. I'm in a position now to afford something pricier but the Jew in me still likes to wait til price drops a bit....eh.

What are you talking about?



I can. It looks stupid.



Yes. Because the marketing scope provided by a business that makes money through showing a film in a theater for a limited amount of time is perfectly comparable to the scope of a business that sells gaming products that people take home with them to use frequently.



Statistics rely on percentages to get accurate trend analyses. Hard numbers don't tell you shit unless you have a point of reference. I was fairly certain this was common knowledge.



Which brings us back to the PS2, which had a tendency to show up its big brother in the earlier years.



That the PS2 maintains a more stable marketing trend than the Wii due largely to its conventional, less specialized, nature as a gaming console.



Yes.



Yes.



No.

I'm saying that the article leaves out a big reason as to why the Wii-U is getting a cold reception and shaky future predictions. While it's apt in pointing out the Wii's successes, it fails to note that the decision to go with that product and its design principles is largely the reason that the Wii-U is so underwhelming.



What exactly was I incorrect about?



Half of what you refer to as "drastic" decisions are only relevant from a business perspective (see also: Nintendo snubbing Sony, Blue Ocean). The other half tries to label an example of natural progression as innovation.

NES to SNES to N64 to GC, the products all followed the same design principles regardless of graphics, games, or game format. Aside from that ridiculous Virtual Boy product, I'd say the Wii was the only console to really go against gaming conventions by placing the bulk of responsibility, in terms of entertainment, on the console itself rather than the games being played.



That's disingenuous and completely misses the point. The risk involved here is the principle of token innovation and "reinvention". If the design is not tested, then the risk is elevated exponentially.

Blue Ocean is theoretically only successful if the market you're operating in is completely empty or unheard of, and while I agree to a point that the Wii, as well as the Wii-U, was a product completely dissimilar from other gaming devices, it was still marketed as a game console, which meant that a lot of people had to decide between innovation (Wii) and convention (PS3, 360) for their gaming experience. A true Blue Ocean scenario wouldn't involve that kind of a consumer decision. The interface aside, the only reason I acknowledge BO to a point is because the Wii was much cheaper than the other consoles--a consumer luxury the Wii-U will probably not offer.



This only assumes that Nintendo's chosen course pursues a viable standard of 'going bold' with each gen if the principle of "diversion from the traditional" shows consistent, or persistent, success. But there's no way to test for that since--by very definition--such an approach defies the proven model of conventions and viability. The Wii-U, for instance, is entirely unconventional with respect to the Wii. By your logic, a product offers assurance of consumption by virtue of being new and innovative.



But they're not trying to "divert from the traditional". Their add ons to the consoles were entirely peripheral. They were basically trying to attract the Wii crowd without conforming to it. And I'd bet that their next generation consoles will be no different in that respect.



Should I take this to mean that you acknowledge that the Wii-U is not an intuitive evolution of the Wii?



I didn't say there was a mandate to utilize any one or series of these features from gen to gen (but lord knows motion sensing isn't going away). I said that innovation in and of itself has become the "mandate" if you will.

I don't know what the word "marketing scope" means and I don't know why it's relevant to what the two of you are arguing about, but it's not that hard to see the logic behind gob's comparison.

[Ticket sales] for a successful [movie] drops over time because the people who have already [seen] it don't need to [watch] it again.

[Unit sales] for a successful [videogame console] drops over time because the people who have already [bought] it don't need to [buy] it again.

The more successful a console was at the start of its life cycle (which the Wii was, outselling the 360 and PS3 combined), the sharper the drop at the end. There's also the fact that the Wii doesn't YLoD nor RRoD, and there's no major redesign (there's no wii slim. The motion plus was a simple addon) so there's little sales to be had from people who need to replace their console.

Rob was talking about "successes". I was talking about why the Wii's statistics aren't proportionate with the PS3's and the 360's.

If I were to try and hold up Box Office numbers to gaming statistics analagously, I would need to bring up Rob's example of a successful film in relation to at least two other contemporary films. But aside from time constraints (the fact that Box Office successes are determined within a two week to month and half long period), there's a slew of other characteristics that don't translate logically from one market to the other. What's more, the analogy's pretty ridonculous since the cost for admission between the films isn't competitive.



That's not necessarily true though. I'll go so far as to call it a logical fallacy. Especially since the Wii has been commended for transcending typical gaming demographics that decided to stick with the more conventional interfaces. i.e. Wii selling better with families than with teen to twenty-something consumers.

The argument essentially claims that everyone who would buy a gaming console has bought this particular gaming console already. But we know that's not true. And that certainly can't be applied to the other consoles with their sales going at a steady pace.

I'll have to concede. There's way too many words I don't understand and I feel like Pariah just blasted every argument I have and then traveled to the future and blasted the counter arguments that I was about to have. This is way over my head.

That's cool. Pariah doesn't know what the fuck he's writing about either.

Boy, he really does try to impress people, though!

Er....I'm not trying to be dick here.

What do I need to elaborate on?

I really don't have anything. I'll just wait for someone else to come up with a better counter argument and then I'll support that. Otherwise, you win by default.

the n64 might be my favorite of consoles, which i think is an equal mix of it being really the first successful venture into 3D depth, some ridiculously amazing genre-defining games (mario, zelda, goldeneye), and it just so happened to hit when i was in high school / college, which was probably my peak of play-time. but, yeah, it might also single-handedly be the biggest example of product / industry failure. from not using CDs, to pissing off sony, to shooing away third parties, to essentially opening the door to an xbox... disastrous ramifications that they didn't really start to make back until recently.



that.



i love all my children!

listen, you weren't following the logic of math, so i drew an analogy to super hero movies. you don't like that either, i suppose. this is why everyone on the internet values your opinion so highly.

i'll repeat once more then let it go since you wont follow: in a year with an officially announced replacement on the horizon, the wii kept pace with the other two competitors on the market. both domestically and globally. if you can consider this a failure, and a milestone achievement for the other two (and please note, you'll have to credit the 360 as much as the ps3 in this case) then so be it.



the ps2 outsold the ps3 early on, not just because the ps3 was expensive and had no / shit games, but mainly because the ps2 had a huge lineup and was cheap. it was, and remains, a tremendous bargain, all things considered.

that doesn't have much to do with the point you quoted, but i'm happy to discuss it.



and if the wii old sold the ps3 in that span, when both consoles are quasi-retired...? is that a fluke? something you'll ignore and not see?



i think each iteration in the nintendo console has it's own flair, as well as an evolutionary path between them. with wii, you see a motion gaming gimmick. what nintendo purists might see is an entirely new way to engage gaming: to have fun. it may have been the most drastic turn, but certainly not the first. NES to SNES was a relatively smooth jump historically, but at the time, that evolution (from 8 to 16 bit, from 2 buttons to 6, from home-version to arcade replication) was vast. a significantly larger change came with n64; with polygonal depth, joysticks on the controllers, rumble integration, split screen / four player interaction, etc. still tame in comparison with what the wii became, but undeniably large diversions at the time from what was "traditional".

with the gamecube era, i think nintendo realized they hit the end of a path. for the first time ever, there were now three big players in the game, instead of just two. all three were disc based systems, all three had exploratory online components, all three featured a wide variety of third party selections, etc. the result was a stagnant field. with some relatively slight differences, the ps2 (inferior in processing to the others) dominated the field. nintendo could have had a similar burst, or maybe held out hopes for the following generation, but i think they saw this eternal arms race of just identical experiences across a flat field. they likely also expected sony's ps3 to dominate in a similar fashion as the ps2 did. this was going to be a never-ending, same ole race.

from there, the wii. a completely different mindset about having fun. yes, there was "traditional gaming" elements, with a zelda game, a 3d mario game, mario kart, metroid, etc. they got to connect and reclaim some more third parties with the maddens and guitar heroes of the world. but most importantly, it was yet another new experience. not just home gaming, not just arcade gaming, not just 3d gaming... this was active gaming. a deeper level of immersion than previously thought possible.

yes, nintendo wii sports was one of the worst looking games for a "next gen" title - it also featured very little in the way of story or acting or cinematics. but it might be the most fun most gamers have had in years, with more replayability than any game on your shelf. the reason, i feel, it was so successful is because it wasn't a gimmick or a peripheral; literally put, this is what the system was made to do. it was not always my favorite decision, but i had a lot of fun with it, and it paid off handsomely for them.

moving toward the wii-u, i think you can see nintendo trying to expand further upon the concept of immersion. they're continuing with the concept of motion control, both in the tablet gamepad as well as reusing the wii-remotes, but also expanding further with the touch screen, ala nintendo DS.

at the same time, i think they're making an effort back toward more traditional roots. there's an evolutionary hope to correct mistakes, adapt, and reclaim the gamers and developers that left, or gave up on, the wii. so, this time around the "wacky" controller isn't as wacky, possessing a more standard button layout and two-handed approach. they've also greatly upped the system's horsepower, welcomed a world of hard drives, and jumped into 1080 HD display.

its possible they've created the best of all worlds: maintaining the motion control experiences with the wii remotes*, traditional gaming with the 360-like pro controller, and entirely new experiences with the gamepad tablet. note; its also just as possible this is trying too many directions at once. (*incidentally, in doing so, this will bring the motion control wii-motes into 12 years of use; aka about as long as dual shock controllers have been used, today)

honestly, the wii-u gamepad tablet looks amazing to me. it has the capability to bring an entirely new dimension into gaming; from a 5th player interaction to panoramic scanning away from the tv, to a dual screen map interface, to a standard HUD, to acting as the tv itself. yes, i'm excited for HD graphics. and yes, i'm happy that with the added horsepower and "normal" controller options, other gamers can play games like assassin's creed or GTA or all the "mature" style games that often make people have to pick other consoles. but for me, the wii-u gamepad tablet is the experience i absolutely can't wait for. it's a level of immersion into gaming i haven't seen before, and i can't wait to see more of. the friggin demo got me all pumped. you can dismiss it as gimmicky or unintuitive or not-a-wordy or any other internet critique, and you're absolutely entitled to it. me, i just can't wait to play.

Yeah, I loved the N64. It just boggles the mind at times--still--that they stuck with cartridges. As best as I can remember, the system itself was actually superior to the PS and it was the cartridges that put a check on all the system could have done while the PS was able to use the rapidly advancing nature of CDs to cover up a lot of system limitations.

We're around the same age. Many a great days in high school and college were wasted (in a great way) playing GoldenEye and Smash Bros. all day long.

I could headshot with two silenced PP7's anyone, anywhere, in GOLDENEYE. You had all better be thankful you never had to face my after-class-get-stoned-N64-Goldeneye-Daily-Tournament with my dorm. I would OWN you!

Well....the Pro of the mid-90's would own you. Nowadays I'd just drop the controller in tears...

I think this is pretty cool: http://www.wired.com/geekmom/2012/06/nintendo-wii-u-e3/



I'm also hoping you'll be able to play Virtual Console games on the GamePad. The distance it covers is supposed to be pretty good, so then I'd be able to play Street Fighter 2 in the toilet or masturbate to Donkey Kong Country.

Ninty's official statement is that it reduces load times and were more practical than CDs (which is ironic, because a lot of developers had to resort to compression in order to maximize the cartridge's limited space, resulting in loading screens while the game decompresses the data).

A lot of people believe Nintendo chose cartridges as a means of anti piracy measure, since it's a lot harder to reproduce than CD, and because cartridges meant that they'd be the only supplier and will have better control over the licenses. Of course, if those were really their reasons for snubbing the CD format, it blew up in their face because it turned off a lot of third party devs.

The part about anti piracy thing was useless as people were still able to dump the games using the 64DD, and the smaller filesizes of the ROM images meant that they're easier to transfer over the net, which is then made worse by the appearance of a functional emulator even before the system was finished with its life cycle.




You can do that with the game's box cover. I used to do it for Metroid, I just stopped when I found out that Samus is a girl.

When I was a kid, I would ride my bike down to the curb store to buy comic books (off the turn stand) and play the quarter machine games there with my friends. They had "RYGAR, LEGENDARY WARRIOR", "STREET FIGHTER", "SPY-HUNTER", and the four-man "GAUNTLET". Those days were legendary.

I have no idea what you are all talking about. This era of video games has finally revealed the old man within me waiting to come out. I thought I had at least until age 40. DAMN YOU KIDS AND YOUR PIXELATED ARCADE-KILLIN' EXPENSIVE AS HELL ONLINE REQUIRED MULTIPLAYER MMORPG PS3 XBOX WIIIIIIIII!!!!!"

I begged the wife to let me have an N64 because it had the coolest Star Wars game ever(Shadows of the Empire) and GoldenEye and a new Zelda and Mario game.So I got it and it was legen....wait for it.....dary. But if you're feeling old Pro,let me help you feel young....like when the world was new. My first game console was a ColecoVision....brand new.....Christmas '82.

@Pro

You're not really that much older than us if your childhood was spent playing Rygar and Street Fighter in the arcades. I believe the arcade version of Rygar was released in 1986 (it's actually newer than the NES version of Super Mario Bros, which was released in 1985).

Now Llance, on the other hand, is really old. I believe he went to school with the real life Trog.

...and G-Man was their Gym Teacher.

Epic reference.



Oh shit, son! My first was the first edition Atari Console. Two joysticks and a microphone ("where it's at!")

Sorry that was a Beck quote. It didn't have a microphone.

Pong. Asteroids. Defender. Pac-Man. Pitfall.

Yeah, Rygar was a later addition from when I started playing arcade games. But, that was around 11 or 12 years old, I think. I was 9 or 10 when the first Atari home system came out. That's the video games I remember the most.

And yeah, I'm actually only 39 years old. I just FEEL as old as LLance.

It's the thing with videogames, they're not really that ancient. All of the things we can namedrop as old school were only released in the 80s and late 70s. Some of them just seem older than mario and pacman because they were obscure, but the truth is they were really experienced by a generation that's still alive today and munching on pop culture (which is why the videogame industry is big on 80s nostalgia).

The videogames that were made in the early 70s and older were not accessible to most people, since they're either expensive arcade machines or just computer experiments done by students. Quite a far cry from the 90s when suddenly every kid in town had a console, and there were knife fights in back alleys between nintendo and sega fanboys.