Dreamcast could do way more new things than what the Wii U can do. It's all been done in a major console or handheld before.
Piracy won't be a huge problem. It was big with Dreamcast and PlayStation but that was because it was reeaally easy. You could quite easily hack the Wii but it was too technical for people. The impact on the sales was tiny. So will be this time.
| RolStoppable said: Omission of GameCube, words repeated in the very same sentence, Nintendo consoles historically underpowered and the list goes on... What's the point of linking an article that is utter trash when it's really only the idea that could be worth talking about? The only reason I can think of is that this article is used as a type of defensive measure, because the original poster wasn't daring enough to propose the idea as something he was coming up on his own. As for the idea itself, aside from a couple similarities, there are a lot more differences between the Dreamcast and the Wii U. If the Wii U had to be compared to any previous console, the GameCube is the most logical choice: Unimaginative Nintendo console, solid launch followed by a severe drop-off, Nintendo support, company not going third party after disappointing sales performance. It's much more likely that we'll look back at the Wii U as another GameCube: A console that was first and foremost designed with third parties in mind, but failed to gain traction because it turned out that third parties don't care and potential customers are turned off by the design of the console. |
Agreed, though the Gamecube didn't have a head start, and it was more powerfull than a PS2. The interesting thing for me is could be the first actually become a dissadvantage, and that's what makes the Dreamcast comparison interesting. The Wii-U seems to already have lost most off the public's interest and is starting to get overshadowed by the impending launches of the PS4 and Next Xbox, the same happenned with Dreamcast and PS2.
| curl-6 said: No, no, and no. |
I don't agree, i see Wii more as a side step and a very succesfull one at that. Wii really was more a slightly faster, better designed Gamecube with motion controlls. With Wii-U their stepping back to a regular gamepad as the main controller with added touchscreen. If it hade been the successor of the Wii it should have hade the next step in motion controls.
| Nem said: No, its not a dreamcast. Piracy nowadays means that you need to cut yourself out of online play, digital only releases and DLC. This wasnt a problem in the Dreamcast era. |
Well i stand corrected, that is indeed a good point.
-Sigh-
moving on
Games can and should tell stories and share ideas through their mechanics. This is the intrinsic element of the medium and this is how experiences should be crafted in video games. No company does this as well as Nintendo and their echoes from the past.
Aurum Ring 
Delano7 
Ocarinahero032
Just started to read that article.
The first paragraph is completely wrong.
The Sega Dreamcast launched in 1998 in Japan, so was not rushed for 9-9-99 in the US. And the PS2 only launched 6 months after this in Japan so he's comparing a US release to a Japanese release. The Dreamcast had over 12 months on the PS2 in the US and Europe.
As for Nintendo always having under powered consoles. Wii is the first system that didn't keep up, and financially that was a solid move. Nintendo couldn't afford to pump out a high end PC sold at a massive loss. Prior to the big boys from other markets getting involved in Gaming, Nintendo were generally up there on a power front. The N64 contrary to popular belief wasn't under powered compared with the PS1, it just had a different architecture. Same for the GameCube. Technically it was capable of superior visuals to the PS2 and I'd argue even the Xbox. It just worked differently (was designed for streaming content rather than loading it all in one go, hence ultra fast ram, but not masses of it). Sadly for Nintendo because GC wasn't the main player, games weren't developed with this architecture in mind leading to the noticible frame rate issues etc in many multi platform games.
That "article" is so full of guff, I have to question if he was actually gaming in 1999. or if he's just studied IGN and GameSpot.
RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.
AnthonyW86 said:
I don't agree, i see Wii more as a side step and a very succesfull one at that. Wii really was more a slightly faster, better designed Gamecube with motion controlls. With Wii-U their stepping back to a regular gamepad as the main controller with added touchscreen. If it hade been the successor of the Wii it should have hade the next step in motion controls. |
But it's still continuing on from a 1st place console rather than an 3rd place console. (The Saturn)
| Dodece said: There are a number of similarities in the broad strokes. Sega didn't have anything close to a good relationship with large third party publishers by the time they released their console, and the launch itself only really exacerbated that disconnect. The same does hold true for Nintendo. After all third party games did abysmally on the Wii, and they had done so on the two preceding platforms. I think Nintendo offering a awful design choice. Pretty much mirrors the bad soft launch that Sega put forward. So as far as publisher/developer support both platforms are almost identical. Hell Electronic Arts snubbed the Dreamcast, and it looks to be doing the same with the Wii U. As far as the designs are concerned. I think it balances out to be about the same thing as well. Actually when you think about it for a bit you realize that Sega at least tried to push the envelope, but overshot the mark. Nintendo on the other hand was pretty lazy, and altogether uninspired with their hardware. Can we be honest Nintendo just modestly improved the engine, and dumped a touch screen into their controller, and it wasn't even a good touch screen at that. Anyway it adds up to the same thing. They both made platforms that didn't serve the needs of the third party developers. I want to toss something else into this debate both companies have shown a willingness to abandon platforms in the past. There has been a lot of talk in this thread about the 32x, and the Saturn in this thread. What there hasn't been near enough talk about is the devices that Nintendo itself has abandoned. Nintendo having its name on the box is no guarantee of support if they don't like the sales. It is kind of humorous how so many on these forums decide to ignore the Virtual Boy. Yes it was a Nintendo console, and yes Nintendo abandoned it right out of the gate. When you get right down to it Nintendo has a worse habit then Sega in this regard. The company has a veritable laundry list of failed devices that Nintendo gave up on right at the starting line. Rob the Robot, Four Score, The Super Scope, The 64DD, the Power Pad, the Power Glove. Nintendo feels no compunction about dropping their support for devices. As far as software is concerned it is also pretty close. Both Sega and Nintendo are rest on their laurels types. They both had a couple fantastically successful franchises, and they preceded to milk the ever loving shit out of them. Rather then treating them with the respect they deserved. Thankfully for Nintendo their Mascot was able to make the transition to 3D gaming with no problem, but the fat man is still getting tired and worn. Just about every one of his counterpart Mascots since his inception has succumbed to the public apathy about playing the same game over and over. This you can't explain to Nintendo fans at all. It just doesn't seem to sink in, but the more Nintendo recycles the same old games over and over again. The greater the disinterest becomes. Public interest cannot be maintained if the product that is being sold doesn't reinvent itself. By the time the Dreamcast rolled around gamers were pretty disinterested in playing the same old thing all over again. This is happening with Nintendo. A handful of games that have been retread half a dozen or so times aren't going to stoke the fires of interest. I am not saying there are parallels in all things, but most certainly in the broader trends. I think it is a coin toss as to whether Nintendo will actually keep going with the Wii U after this year. I have the feeling that they are already hard at work on a real replacement for their current console. |
That's a good point and a bad one at the same time imo. In that it's strange as I remember all those consoles now you mention them but don't remember them without being reminded.
On the other hand those consoles or accessories in certain cases weren't quite as epic fails as the 32x for example because the the support was dropped almost immediately so nearly nobody had even purchased them in the first place. The N64DD for example wasn't even released in Europe and don't think it was in the states either by memory (could be wrong), certainly only a couple of games for it. The Super Scope isn't really a fair thing to bring up as the same could be said for any light gun device, none have ever been supproted to any extent except possibly the Namco (think it's namco) guncon on the PS1/2.
The 32x had a fair few games released for it and did have a reasonable-ish install base before being dropped in favour or the Saturn in a rather abrupt and nasty way, the Saturn was also dropped after gaining a reasonable install base as was the Dreamcast, so, point is millions of people lost out because of this as opposed to the dropped Nintendo stuff, which when failing was dropped immideately and the failing happened straight after launch so people perceive it with less anamosity.
curl-6 said:
But it's still continuing on from a 1st place console rather than an 3rd place console. (The Saturn) |
It does but what advantages does that give the Wii-U? It gave Nintendo a very strong financial position. But the system isn't centered around motion controls like the Wii was. The biggest advantage a system get's from a very succesfull predecessor is brand recognition and strong interest from developers. Developers don't seem to be very keen on developing for it and most of their main franchises didn't do well on the Wii. And as for the Wii brand itself alot of peoples Wii has been collecting dust for some time now, that doesn't motivate to buying the next system of that line.
Wii's motion controls where an instant hit, the Wii-U tablet controller hasn't done the same and with integrating new ideas it's a question of hit or mis.
| MikeRox said: Just started to read that article. The first paragraph is completely wrong. The Sega Dreamcast launched in 1998 in Japan, so was not rushed for 9-9-99 in the US. And the PS2 only launched 6 months after this in Japan so he's comparing a US release to a Japanese release. The Dreamcast had over 12 months on the PS2 in the US and Europe. As for Nintendo always having under powered consoles. Wii is the first system that didn't keep up, and financially that was a solid move. Nintendo couldn't afford to pump out a high end PC sold at a massive loss. Prior to the big boys from other markets getting involved in Gaming, Nintendo were generally up there on a power front. The N64 contrary to popular belief wasn't under powered compared with the PS1, it just had a different architecture. Same for the GameCube. Technically it was capable of superior visuals to the PS2 and I'd argue even the Xbox. It just worked differently (was designed for streaming content rather than loading it all in one go, hence ultra fast ram, but not masses of it). Sadly for Nintendo because GC wasn't the main player, games weren't developed with this architecture in mind leading to the noticible frame rate issues etc in many multi platform games. That "article" is so full of guff, I have to question if he was actually gaming in 1999. or if he's just studied IGN and GameSpot. |
Multiplatform Gamecube games were far superior to their PS2 counterparts.
AnthonyW86 said:
It does but what advantages does that give the Wii-U? It gave Nintendo a very strong financial position. But the system isn't centered around motion controls like the Wii was. The biggest advantage a system get's from a very succesfull predecessor is brand recognition and strong interest from developers. Developers don't seem to be very keen on developing for it and most of their main franchises didn't do well on the Wii. And as for the Wii brand itself alot of peoples Wii has been collecting dust for some time now, that doesn't motivate to buying the next system of that line. Wii's motion controls where an instant hit, the Wii-U tablet controller hasn't done the same and with integrating new ideas it's a question of hit or mis. |
Nintendo is vastly more popular now than Sega was at the birth of the Dreamcast.
Sega was a company on a half-decade-long decline, following a console that failed to crack 10 million worldwide.
Today, we live in a world where New Super Mario Bros Wii and Mario Kart Wii continue to make the global top forty 4-5 years after their release, and after their console has been succeeded.
Nintendo aren't even remotely close to being in the same situation as late 90s Sega.
If Wii u doesn't star gaining momentum before ps4 and next box come out, than yes it's a possibility
Wii u = dream cast u
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
