The problem is that the Wii U is directly competing with PS3 and 360. Why buy a Wii U when you can get the other two significantly cheaper with many more games that are also cheaper? It doesn't make sense. The only selling point is the Tablet Controller and that doesn't seem to attract people all that much. About PS4 and Xbox 3, that's another story. They will be more expensive, but also offer a lot more features. They are not competing with their own predecessors.
Again, I will say this. The only people who look at consoles that way are either frugal consumers that make that comparison with every purchase, or hardcore video game enthusiasts who visit sites like this, who don't represent the vast majority of consumers. Most people buying games aren't going to stop and look at numbers comparing the Wii U to the PS360. It's a new system with a new way to play, and once it gets more attractive games, it'll sell. Anyone asking themselves why they would buy a Wii U when you can get two other consoles currently on the market will likely do the same thing with their successors.
If they just used WLAN, you could use it anywhere you have a signal of your local network. I just don't get why they tie it to the console. Sure, it might not be a problem for some users, but a bigger issues for some others. I live in on the 4th floor, for example. No way in hell I could ever use that thing in the garden when it's summer. I can, however, use my mobile phone to expand my WLAN (not exactly, using 4G via Internet) and use Remote Play with the Vita. I would just expect a console that is build around that feature to compete with a feature that isn't even a selling point from another console.
But that would require you to actually have a WLAN; imagine your controller not working because you don't have wi-fi at home. Not only that, but wi-fi is far less secure and stable than bluetooth. Would you want your controller cutting in and out if you have a bad connection or if the weather ain't fair?
Maybe you meant a WLAN through IR, but that would defeat the point of the mobility you're asking for. As soon as you put a wall through an IR connection, game over. Why you feel the need to play a Wii U from four floors down in a garden instead of playing your Vita (the one meant for such things, you know) is beyond my understanding, but I'm not the one scrambling for reasons to hate a console.
And regarding the last two sentences in that graf, the Vita is the console itself, so of course you can use your phone as a hotspot to connect to it. The Gamepad only streams content from the Wii U and has no functionality outside of the console itself. Why are you comparing a self containted console to the controller of another console?
It might not matter to some people, but it does matter to me as well as many others. If I buy a new console, I have a bit of expectation from it. And that'smore than the old PS3/360 graphics. Graphics don't guarantee success, but neither does some funny Gamepad. It's about games. And Wii U will not get most 3rd party titles as it will just not be possible to port over. Not just because of power, but also because they are the only ones with a PPC console. In the end, it is always better to be able to actually compete tech-wise. Sure, the strongest consoles don't win, but the Wii U is just another case. In every other gen, the slowest consoles still were on the same level as the other consoles of the same gen. That is not the case with Wii U.
Everyone has a bit of an expectation when they buy a new console, and that's to have access to a steady stream of fun content. Yes, everyone would like for their console to be a few notches above the rest, but like I said earlier, games are what drive consoles for most people. It would be nice if the 3DS could do more than Wii-like graphics, but I'd take one over a Vita every day of the week and twice on Sundays because that's where the games are. I never said the Gamepad would guarantee success; only a steady flow of games people want to play and proper marketing will. Also, I couldn't help but notice that you said the "slowest" consoles were still on the same level as the other consoles of the same gen. Perhaps I misunderstand, but what about the Wii-360-PS3? The gap in that ratio will be much greater than the Wii U-Durango-PS4.
Most casuals don't care for real buttons all that much. Besides, there already technologies that can transform touchscreens, building real buttons. It is expected to be released on acutal devices in about two years. But casuals are more than happy with Angry Birds or racing games they control by tilting the device. They simply do not want Street Fighter. The core, however, has so many more reasons to buy another console than Wii U. And on top of that, there is just so much more buss for Apple than for Wii U. So it will continue to struggle, like it or not.
Now I'm confused. First you were the pulse of the "hardcore" gamer, now you're the expert on casuals? So you're saying the Wii U appeals to no one because it doesn't have multitouch that casuals would want, and it has too much touch for serious gamers? If that's what you're saying then just... wow.
By the way, who holds off on buying a console based on technology for smartphones that's at least two years away from hitting the market? Seems like a moot issue for now.
I only played it at the local store, as I sure don'T buy a console I don't even want. It was hooked up to a beautiful TV, playing NSMBU. The image on the TV was crystal clear with rich colours and really good contrast. But then I looked down on the gamepad and saw a terrible picture. Colours were washed out, it lacked brightness and I could easily count the pixels, although t was half a meter away. In direct comparison with a good TV, it really doesn't look too good. But maybe that's just me. The OLED-Screen of the Vita is surely better in so many ways if you ask me.
Exactly as I thought: you played a demo unit for a few minutes and walked away thinking you're the go-to guy on the whole damn thing now. Playing one game that doesn't even begin to make the console sweat doesn't suddenly make you an expert on the correct price range, controller range or graphical capability. And a store demo unit isn't the best place to draw a final conclusion about any console, let alone the Wii U. There was probably a light right on top of you that put a glare on the screen, and you couldn't freely hold the controller in your hand to feel how light and comfortable it really is, or to adjust your viewing angle. Or go into the display settings and adjust the brightness. I've put dozens of hours into NBA 2K13 and and NFS Most Wanted U on the controller screen with nary a problem, but your mileage may vary. Why you expect the same quality on a 6.2 inch screen mostly meant to supplement gameplay as you would on an actual HDTV that is probably 30+ inches is once again beyond my understanding. Let me guess, because your Vita looks just as good on such a TV, right?
I played it and I don't like it, simple as that. It could change with some new games, but some new Mario won't do the trick. Give me something completely new I can't get anywhere else. Until then, I'll stick to other platforms. Sure, I could just say nothing if I have nothing good to say, but as far as I know, a forum is for discussion and sharing your mind. It would be kinda boring if everybody just agreed with everything.
Yeah, I know you don't like it. You were never going to like it. You were never going to give it a fair shot. You played it once and determined that because the controller of a console can't do everything a self-contained handheld console can, it's a piece of crap. One other thing we can agree on: it would be extremely boring if everybody agree on everything. I have no problem with you being partial toward a company or console; I've never hid the fact that I'm a proud Nintendo enthusiast. That doesn't give you a free pass to spread misinformation about a console you spent a very brief time with and didn't even get to test most of it's features.
|
