By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - The Wii U will be sold at a loss

Mazty on 25 October 2012
Anari said:
Mazty said:
Anari said:
Mazty said:
Anari said:
Mazty said:

Not according to Reggie. Again, I'm going to go with what Reggie has to say on this subject. 
You think you know better then Reggie. I doubt you do. That is all. 


LOL dude. Reggie calls games like Zelda and Metroid core games in that very link you posted. He didn't say Nintendo doesn't make core games. He said Nintendo doesn't make the kind of core games that third parties do. 

The other guy was right to bail out on you. You're just taking him around in circles.

"We want fantastic content for that more active player who loves Metroid or Zelda [..] and we also recognize that we don't create that type of content ourselves.We're not good at it and it's not a key focus area."

Nintendo are not good at core games, nor did they focus on them. Reggie has literally said that. Two titles is next to nothing. The Wii was not aimed at core gamers and has cost them customer retention. If you won't accept that, you are arguing with Reggie, not me. 

 

Does Nintendo make games like COD, Battlefield, Bioshock? No. MS and Sony do, but Nintendo don't and those types of games are popular with core gamers that they want to attract with WiiU.

Just because Reggie only mentioned two titles doesn't mean that's the only core franchises they have. WTF...

Play4Fun listed some games for you that you seemed to ignore and he also got another quote of Reggie's:

"So we’ll continue to have all the family-friendly fare like Nintendo Land and New Super Mario Brothers U… but in addition, we’re going to have more active gamer content, which was something that was missing other than from Nintendo’s first party titles."

Notice what he says ? That Nintendo provided core first party titles for Wii. It's 3rd party core titles that they were lacking and are now looking to get with WIi U. It wasn't all just Wiifits, Wiimusic, Wiisports, NSMBWII or whatever that Nintendo released on Wii, there was also SMG, DKCR, Smash Bros, Sin and Punishment, Punch Out, Zelda TP & SS, Metroid, last Story, XenoBlade. It's pretty stupid to try to argue that those games are casual games. Use your common sense.

 Before you drag me into an argument and make me waste my time too, I'm going to ask you, what is the definition of a core game? 

Reggie already said that the core games Nintendo does is Zelda and Metroid. If Nintendo had many core franchises Reggie wouldn't have said they were no good at making core games....It's that simple. Unless you are telling me he got it wrong; is that the case? 

What I deem as a core game is irrelevant because I never made the claim that Nintendo are no good at core games. 

Remember i'm not saying the Nintendo are bad at making core games, I'm quoting Reggie.

 

O.M.F.G.!!!

 Just because Reggie mentioned only Zelda and Metroid doesn't mean that's the only ones they have. Was he suppose to start listing games in  an interview? Common sense, dude.

And Reggie did not say Nintendo are bad at making core games. He said Nintendo aren't good at making the kind of games 3rd parties do and he used Bioshock as an example.

Have you not noticed that Nintendo doesn't have any franchise like Sony's KillZone/UC or MS' Halo/GeOW? 

How many times does this have to be repeated to you?

Why can't you ever admit when you are wrong on something? No one will think less of you for it. Instead you keep repeating the same thing and apply all kinds of twists of logic to keep arguing. I just went to the E6760 thread and you are doing the exact same thing there.

Reggie said:

"We also recognize that we [Nintendo] don't create that type of content [core games] ourselves. We're not good at it and it's not a key focus area."

Are you saying Reggie was wrong and that Nintendo infact are good at making core content? You are arguing with the Reg, not me. 



Around the Network
noname2200 on 25 October 2012
VGKing said:

Don't try being a smartbutt. :D

Yes, Wii sales are impressive, but 3rd party support isn't.

So what do you conclude from these two statements?



Soundwave on 25 October 2012
Mazty said:
Anari said:
Mazty said:
Anari said:
Mazty said:
Anari said:
Mazty said:

Not according to Reggie. Again, I'm going to go with what Reggie has to say on this subject. 
You think you know better then Reggie. I doubt you do. That is all. 


LOL dude. Reggie calls games like Zelda and Metroid core games in that very link you posted. He didn't say Nintendo doesn't make core games. He said Nintendo doesn't make the kind of core games that third parties do. 

The other guy was right to bail out on you. You're just taking him around in circles.

"We want fantastic content for that more active player who loves Metroid or Zelda [..] and we also recognize that we don't create that type of content ourselves.We're not good at it and it's not a key focus area."

Nintendo are not good at core games, nor did they focus on them. Reggie has literally said that. Two titles is next to nothing. The Wii was not aimed at core gamers and has cost them customer retention. If you won't accept that, you are arguing with Reggie, not me. 

 

Does Nintendo make games like COD, Battlefield, Bioshock? No. MS and Sony do, but Nintendo don't and those types of games are popular with core gamers that they want to attract with WiiU.

Just because Reggie only mentioned two titles doesn't mean that's the only core franchises they have. WTF...

Play4Fun listed some games for you that you seemed to ignore and he also got another quote of Reggie's:

"So we’ll continue to have all the family-friendly fare like Nintendo Land and New Super Mario Brothers U… but in addition, we’re going to have more active gamer content, which was something that was missing other than from Nintendo’s first party titles."

Notice what he says ? That Nintendo provided core first party titles for Wii. It's 3rd party core titles that they were lacking and are now looking to get with WIi U. It wasn't all just Wiifits, Wiimusic, Wiisports, NSMBWII or whatever that Nintendo released on Wii, there was also SMG, DKCR, Smash Bros, Sin and Punishment, Punch Out, Zelda TP & SS, Metroid, last Story, XenoBlade. It's pretty stupid to try to argue that those games are casual games. Use your common sense.

 Before you drag me into an argument and make me waste my time too, I'm going to ask you, what is the definition of a core game? 

Reggie already said that the core games Nintendo does is Zelda and Metroid. If Nintendo had many core franchises Reggie wouldn't have said they were no good at making core games....It's that simple. Unless you are telling me he got it wrong; is that the case? 

What I deem as a core game is irrelevant because I never made the claim that Nintendo are no good at core games. 

Remember i'm not saying the Nintendo are bad at making core games, I'm quoting Reggie.

 

O.M.F.G.!!!

 Just because Reggie mentioned only Zelda and Metroid doesn't mean that's the only ones they have. Was he suppose to start listing games in  an interview? Common sense, dude.

And Reggie did not say Nintendo are bad at making core games. He said Nintendo aren't good at making the kind of games 3rd parties do and he used Bioshock as an example.

Have you not noticed that Nintendo doesn't have any franchise like Sony's KillZone/UC or MS' Halo/GeOW? 

How many times does this have to be repeated to you?

Why can't you ever admit when you are wrong on something? No one will think less of you for it. Instead you keep repeating the same thing and apply all kinds of twists of logic to keep arguing. I just went to the E6760 thread and you are doing the exact same thing there.

Reggie said:

"We also recognize that we [Nintendo] don't create that type of content [core games] ourselves. We're not good at it and it's not a key focus area."

Are you saying Reggie was wrong and that Nintendo infact are good at making core content? You are arguing with the Reg, not me. 


Honestly though with this philosophy Nintendo's never going to be anything but the third place option for core/hardcore IP.

Microsoft and Sony simply focus on this way more, Nintendo's attitude is "we'll sign a third party deal or two", which usually ends up blowing up in their face (ie: RE4 on PS2) because third parties have to take care of their own interests first and foremost.



jayson1 on 25 October 2012

Wii U has it's fans and will sell and nintendo made huge profits of the Wii so they can afford to sell at a loss. Sony is in the same boat they took the loss on ps3 with introducing blu ray. The ps4 will be profitable no matter what price point depending on what comes with the system. The system itself should not be that costly this time around for sony. If sony can manage to get the ps4 console selling out of the gate consistantly they will be in good shape.



phenom08 on 25 October 2012
VGKing said:
phenom08 said:
VGKing said:
MDMAlliance said:
Looking at the Wii U and what people are predicting what Sony and Microsoft will do with their next gen consoles, I am curious as what would be in store for us the generation after Wii U. It is quite evident by console history that power is not everything. By the time it is the next generation for consoles, maybe we will see ourselves out of a recession? Think we might see more systems like the Ouya popping up? Will iOS gaming (app gaming and whatever) really replace the handheld dedicated gaming consoles?
The Wii U, regardless of all this positive/negative news, is a system I am still interested in and am planning on getting.


Power is becoming increasingly important these days. Look at what happened to the Wii.

Consoles needs A LOT more power so they can really distance themselves from those free iOS games. It's the only way $60 retail boxed games can continue to lead the industry. I dread a day where free games like Angry Birds or Temple Run dominate the gaming industry.

Yep the lack of power got it 97 million units in sales. Should have been weaker.

Don't try being a smartbutt. :D

Yes, Wii sales are impressive, but 3rd party support isn't. Look at the biggest franchises of this generation. Most of them aren't on the Wii. The ones that are(like Call of Duty) are extremely dumbed-down.

Now, things seem to be better for Wii U, it all depends on how these games sell. Everyone knows that Nintendo 1st party games cannabalize everything else. It is a family oriented console and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.

The biggest franchises of this generation are on the Wii. There called Mario, Wii series, and Call of Duty.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 25 October 2012
phenom08 said:
VGKing said:
phenom08 said:
VGKing said:
MDMAlliance said:
Looking at the Wii U and what people are predicting what Sony and Microsoft will do with their next gen consoles, I am curious as what would be in store for us the generation after Wii U. It is quite evident by console history that power is not everything. By the time it is the next generation for consoles, maybe we will see ourselves out of a recession? Think we might see more systems like the Ouya popping up? Will iOS gaming (app gaming and whatever) really replace the handheld dedicated gaming consoles?
The Wii U, regardless of all this positive/negative news, is a system I am still interested in and am planning on getting.


Power is becoming increasingly important these days. Look at what happened to the Wii.

Consoles needs A LOT more power so they can really distance themselves from those free iOS games. It's the only way $60 retail boxed games can continue to lead the industry. I dread a day where free games like Angry Birds or Temple Run dominate the gaming industry.

Yep the lack of power got it 97 million units in sales. Should have been weaker.

Don't try being a smartbutt. :D

Yes, Wii sales are impressive, but 3rd party support isn't. Look at the biggest franchises of this generation. Most of them aren't on the Wii. The ones that are(like Call of Duty) are extremely dumbed-down.

Now, things seem to be better for Wii U, it all depends on how these games sell. Everyone knows that Nintendo 1st party games cannabalize everything else. It is a family oriented console and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.

The biggest franchises of this generation are on the Wii. There called Mario, Wii series, and Call of Duty.


Some what misleading logic there. The main CoD userbase (where the game sells 20+ million a year) is not on the Wii at all.

Nor is the primary audience for games like Assassin's Creed, Bio Shock, Madden NFL, Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Revolver, etc. etc. and the other big selling third party franchises.

The top selling Wii third party franchises are Just Dance, fitness games, and Lego titles.



phenom08 on 25 October 2012
Soundwave said:


Some what misleading logic there. The main CoD userbase (where the game sells 20+ million a year) is not on the Wii at all.

Nor is the primary audience for games like Assassin's Creed, Bio Shock, Madden NFL, Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Revolver, etc. etc. and the other big selling third party franchises.

The top selling Wii third party franchises are Just Dance, fitness games, and Lego titles.

Your point? He said the biggest franchises aren't on the Wii. That's incorrect because the biggest franchises are Mario, Wii series, and CoD. GTA is next if we add the games you listed. After that is Just Dance. Which is on the Wii.



Soundwave on 25 October 2012
phenom08 said:
Soundwave said:
 


Some what misleading logic there. The main CoD userbase (where the game sells 20+ million a year) is not on the Wii at all.

Nor is the primary audience for games like Assassin's Creed, Bio Shock, Madden NFL, Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Revolver, etc. etc. and the other big selling third party franchises.

The top selling Wii third party franchises are Just Dance, fitness games, and Lego titles.

Your point? He said the biggest franchises aren't on the Wii. That's incorrect because the biggest franchises are Mario, Wii series, and CoD. GTA is next if we add the games you listed. After that is Just Dance. Which is on the Wii.

I think his point was that the "big" third party core/hardcore IP are largely irrelevant if they are on Wii or not on the system period.

Which everyone knows is fairly obvious unless you are in massive denial. You're just arguing over semantics.



Viper1 on 26 October 2012
Mazty said:
Viper1 said:
Mazty said:

Reggie already said that the core games Nintendo does is Zelda and Metroid.

That straw you are grasping at already broke the camels back a few posts ago.  

You can stop now.

*facepalm*

I'm not making this claim - I'm just repeating what Reggie said. You are all arguing with the head of Nintendo. Do you all think you know better then him?

You are making this claim.   You are insinuating that Reggie spoke only of 2 franchises as though he meant they are the only 2 franchises they develop that appeal to core gamers.

THAT is youir claim.   



The rEVOLution is not being televised

DanneSandin on 28 October 2012
pezus said:
DanneSandin said:
pezus said:
DanneSandin said:

i don't think sony can and will take a huge loss on ps4. they cant afford a 100 dollar hit on every system imo. one year and a $399 price tag ain't gonna be enough for the ps4 to be a significantly jump over wiiu...

$399 is $100 more than $299, subtract the difference in production price between WiiU's controller and a Dualshock 4 and the difference grows more. Add in hardware cost to the PS4 and the controller business is almost balanced out. Nintendo are probably making a very small loss on this, so we'll assume $50 per $299 machine. Sony will likely be losing more from the start. That makes 1 year at least in hardware advancements plus $110 plus the difference in losses. Even if they sold the PS4 at no loss, the difference would still be over $100 and a year at least in development. 

Why would that not be enough for a significant jump? Consider that they are selling the PS3 at $250 or so and profiting while they're at it. Next year they'll be selling it at $199. A $200 jump from PS3 in pure power will (and it should) be very noticeable, even from the start. Wii U has shown very small jumps over PS3 games (some look equal, some look worse, some look slightly better, exclusives are not graphical beasts either). So, assuming a $200 jump from PS3 to PS4, why wouldn't the jump be significant?

First and foremost, you can't make any argument using US dollars.

What, yes I can, I was arguing against your points and you used dollars. Why are you changing between US and Japan all of a sudden? Selling the PS4 at $399 would be $100 more expensive than Wii U in USA. Japan has nothing to do with that.

Of course, all of this is just speculation. The PS4 could cost more than $399 for all we know, although I'm expecting around a $399 price.

Yes, I have to admit I was quite inconsistent. I used dollars in my first statement because it's easier, but if we are to compare 2 Japanese consoles we have to start to think and speak with the Yen in mind.

I think we'd be better off if we compared the differences between the Japanese price tag and the US price tag; how much cheaper will the consoles be in the States compared to the price tags in Japan?



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.