Nintendo to post unexpected loss as Wii successor falters

[cmdrdredd]

Originally Posted by sao123

nintendo should know by now, that Zelda is a must have for a luanch title if any of their consoles are to sell.

The only reason to buy a console on launch day is for exclusive titles.

Unless you can launch a console and have a game that is obviously better than the version released on the competition's console. That hasn't really happened either. No must have games that are leaps and bounds better on the new system. Games that we have played before that in some cases look and run worse but can use the 2nd screen just don't cut it.

[Sulaco]

Originally Posted by sao123

nintendo should know by now, that Zelda is a must have for a luanch title if any of their consoles are to sell.

The only reason to buy a console on launch day is for exclusive titles.

Uhhhh, you do realize that the Wii is the ONLY Nintendo console (not counting handhelds, but most of them didn't either) to ever LAUNCH with a Zelda game, correct?

The NES, SNES, Nintendo 64, and Gamecube did not have a Zelda title until sometime later in their life.

[purbeast0]

Originally Posted by Sulaco

Uhhhh, you do realize that the Wii is the ONLY Nintendo console (not counting handhelds, but most of them didn't either) to ever LAUNCH with a Zelda game, correct?

The NES, SNES, Nintendo 64, and Gamecube did not have a Zelda title until sometime later in their life.

wii and gc did not have a staple franchise game at launch, and neither did wii u. im not counting nsmb2 either cause it's nothing new to the franchise. the last "must have" launch game was mario 64.

gc had luigi's mansion and some other crap, and wii had absolutely nothing other than waggle shit. wii u followed suit with nothing spectacular.

[juiio]

Originally Posted by purbeast0

wii and gc did not have a staple franchise game at launch, and neither did wii u. im not counting nsmb2 either cause it's nothing new to the franchise. the last "must have" launch game was mario 64.

gc had luigi's mansion and some other crap, and wii had absolutely nothing other than waggle shit. wii u followed suit with nothing spectacular.

Zelda: Twilight Princess was a Wii launch launch game.

[purbeast0]

Originally Posted by juiio

Zelda: Twilight Princess was a Wii launch launch game.

don't kid yourself, that's a gamecube game.

[Sulaco]

Originally Posted by purbeast0

wii and gc did not have a staple franchise game at launch, and neither did wii u. im not counting nsmb2 either cause it's nothing new to the franchise. the last "must have" launch game was mario 64.

gc had luigi's mansion and some other crap, and wii had absolutely nothing other than waggle shit. wii u followed suit with nothing spectacular.

I'm not disputing that. Dude said Nintendo should know it must have a Zelda game ready at launch. I'm just pointing out Nintendo has never, in fact, had a Zelda title at launch, aside from the aforementioned GC port of Twilight Princess.

[dagamer34]

Originally Posted by purbeast0

wii and gc did not have a staple franchise game at launch, and neither did wii u. im not counting nsmb2 either cause it's nothing new to the franchise. the last "must have" launch game was mario 64.

gc had luigi's mansion and some other crap, and wii had absolutely nothing other than waggle shit. wii u followed suit with nothing spectacular.

Super Smash Bros. Melee was enough of a launch title for the GameCube (2 week delay) that I'd say it was a "must have" title and is the system's best selling game at 7 million units. And Wii Sports as "waggle shit" made Nintendo a boatload of money. It is pretty obvious that building another macho console would not have been as successful as the Wii was.

[dagamer34]

Originally Posted by purbeast0

don't kid yourself, that's a gamecube game.

I don't think I've ever seen the GameCube version of that game in the wild.

[Sulaco]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

I don't think I've ever seen the GameCube version of that game in the wild.

I own one.

[cmdrdredd]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

I don't think I've ever seen the GameCube version of that game in the wild.

I played it on the gamecube to avoid the motion controls in the game. Don't you remember that the GameCube and Wii versions were opposites? In the gamecube one link was properly made left handed. In the Wii version he was right handed to match the way you hold the nunchuck controller. Also the dungeons were opposite. The correct path was left on one and right on the other.

[mmntech]

Originally Posted by purbeast0

i also blame it on the fact that nintendo couldn't bank on a gimmicky console to help them this time. i'd say the wii's gimmick is better than the wii u's gimmick.

everyone saw how bad the wii actually was after it was out for a couple years. tie that in with the high launch price (compared to wii) and no game included, it means that the casual gamers who paid $250 for a wii-sports package isn't going to be spending $350 this time around.

The Wii appealed widely to non-gamers as it got them off the couch. That was really it's one and only strong point, and the list of its best selling games reflects this. Hardcore Wii fans are definitely rare though. Once the initial novelty wares off, a lot of them end up collecting dust.

The Wii U and its tablet on the other hand kind of feel stale to me. If you're going to game on a tablet, why not just game on a tablet. It sort of loses that edge the Wii had by being too traditional. To me the Wii U is closer related to the DS. That's not to say it's a bad system or poorly executed. From what I've seen, it does look pretty decent. I just don't think it has the same mass appeal. When the Wii launched, it was over a year before I saw one just sitting on a shelf. Can't say the same for its successor, which says a lot. Another thing hurting the Wii U is it being too similar to the Xbox 360 and PS3 in graphics and gameplay, both of which are on their decline.

The other problem is games. The Wii U only has one what I would call AAA title listed as coming out this year: Pikmin 2. So far it's the only upcoming Wii U game generating buzz on IGN. This seems to be a reoccurring trend for new hardware. Studios are very slow to get on board. I think this is mainly because they've gotten comfortable developing for current systems, which have finally become profitable. Nobody can be bothered putting in the effort making games for new, unproven systems. The hardware isn't selling because there are no games, and there are no games because the hardware isn't selling. It's a vicious cycle.

On that note, this is why I think Sony and Microsoft have chosen to use PC based hardware for the Orbis and Durango. It's already an established platform and porting games over should in theory be straight forward.

[Illusio]

Not surprised. I own the Wii U and haven't played it in a month. There just aren't any games out for it right now. I have mario and nintendoland, and that's it.

Most other games out now are shovelware or ports from other systems I've already played (batman, COD).

I think once they get some better games out, adoption rates should pick up. They just better not wait too long.

[Tweak155]

Does the Wii-U rely on motion for every game like Wii?

[zerocool84]

Originally Posted by Tweak155

Does the Wii-U rely on motion for every game like Wii?

No it doesn't which is good.

[Nintendesert]

The biggest problem that Nintendo made so far with this console is naming it WiiU. Their target audience is a bunch of morons and nobody knows that this is a new console and not a little pad device for their Wii. They should have gotten a new name like all their other consoles or just called it Wii2. Nintendo has had to waste a lot of marketing and time trying to just explain that simple fact to people where a simple name change would have been more powerful and let them focus on educating people about the features instead.

[Tweak155]

Originally Posted by zerocool84

No it doesn't which is good.

I agree. Makes it more tempting. Do you think Zelda will require it? I'm not sure how motion would even work with that big ass controller.

[StrangerGuy]

Sorry Nintendo, this isn't the 2006 anymore, where decent video cards were expensive, no smartphones/tablets, video sites were POS and so on.

That said, I bet the 720/PS4 "glorified PCs" won't do so hot either.

[cmdrdredd]

Originally Posted by StrangerGuy

Sorry Nintendo, this isn't the 2006 anymore, where decent video cards were expensive, no smartphones/tablets, video sites were POS and so on.

That said, I bet the 720/PS4 "glorified PCs" won't do so hot either.

I bet the PS4 is the only console with the right target. The next xbox from what I gather is going to be more of a do everything box with motion and voice controls from the kinect. IMO that's not the way to go.

I just have a feeling that Sony is going to try to reinvigorate gaming, not media. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong but my gut tells me that Microsoft has no proper direction for the next console and will try too hard with smart glass and integrating Windows 8/RT.

The WiiU, from looking at the last reveals of a new 3D mario, new smash bros, and new zelda will of course have great titles using longtime franchises. It should start to do incredibly well based on that. However, that's just not enough for some people. Time will tell.

[Sophitia]

Nintendo really botched the release. There was no hype. No killer app. The price was higher as people in general are getting poorer and between the absence of advertised features at launch/6gb day one downloads/three different market places/online network from hell etc they just didn't have it together. It's specs are also terrible. At least the Wii was like a super charged gamecube or Xbox. The wii U isn't even quite as powerful as a 360. While it may not necessarily have to be as powerful as a PS4 or 720, i should have at LEAST have had a small edge on 7 year old hardware.

[videoclone]

Originally Posted by Sophitia

should have at LEAST have had a small edge on 7 year old hardware.

It does.. the GPU is 3x faster then PS3 and Xbox 360 but overall the machine is slow for a modern console ( R700 40nm 2008 Tech )

The next Xbox is rumored to have a GPU 20x faster then the current xbox and the PS4 is rumored to have a GPU 32x Faster then the current PS3 Both are to be on 28nm and AMD so that points to (GCN) 2012 tech

[Phynaz]

Originally Posted by Anarchist420

Good maybe they'll quit making consoles.

Because less competition is a good thing, right?

[cmdrdredd]

Originally Posted by Phynaz

Because less competition is a good thing, right?

No because they are a better software company than hardware maker outside the handheld market.

[Doppel]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/03/...es-look-dismal

2013 Wii U Sales Look Dismal
US sales figures for Wii U show the console really struggling over January and February.

Says no major release for this console in four months, that means no major release since it's been out. That can't be normal.

It looks more and more like Nintendo has erred massively with this thing.

There is just absolutely no buzz about it at all and it's going to be eclipsed soon by the ps4/720 in interest.

[StrangerGuy]

Originally Posted by Doppel

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/03/...es-look-dismal

Says no major release for this console in four months, that means no major release since it's been out. That can't be normal.

It looks more and more like Nintendo has erred massively with this thing.

There is just absolutely no buzz about it at all and it's going to be eclipsed soon by the ps4/720 in interest.

At the very least people know the PS4 is a straight up more powerful console than the predecessor. I don't even know what console the Wii U is supposed to be.

And when will Nintendo drop that handheld pipe dream? Nobody wants them anymore, even kids these days doesn't. Better to be afloat with a game only lifeboat with phones/tablets than having everything sinking with the handheld ship.

[mmntech]

Some of my casual gamer friends are interested in it but can't seem to understand exactly what makes the Wii U better than the Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3. The general consensus is the tablet is an interesting gimmick but not worth buying a new system over. That's a very bad thing for Nintendo.

Naming it the Wii U was probably the first mistake. The name doesn't make a lot of sense, nor does it resonate with consumers. Second, Nintendo hasn't exactly advertised the system. The "Wii would like to play" commercials were pretty memorable and I think stirred up a lot of buzz for that system. Marketing for the Wii U has been pretty lane to nonexistent. Working off an existing successful brand doesn't always equal success down the road.

The other issue is the system itself. It's officially classified as an eighth generation system but that has been disputed. It's not quite powerful enough to be able to differentiate itself from the 360 and PS3. Especially since Nintendo abandoned the motion control system for a more traditional gamepad. They're not exactly reinventing the wheel with the tablet either as new competitor Apple has well established how touch gaming should be done.

Price is another issue given the above. It costs $350 in a world where you can buy a 360 or PS3 for $200 and $300 respectively. It also doesn't come with a pack-in game like the Wii did.

In short, the Wii U's problem is it can't differentiate itself from the competition like the Wii did.