1. I never said that online is anti-consumer. I was clearly talking about online multiplayer behind a paywall which you agree is bad. As for the last thing you said here, you shouldn't exclude non-consumers from the equation. They said "no" to all consoles, and free online multiplayer is certainly not the reason why they didn't buy a Wii U.

No, it wasn't all that clear what you were talking about. This generation is almost keeping up with last gen in sales numbers, and that's without the casuals this time around, which indicates that gamers don't mind paying for online. The non-costumers you are talking about ARE the casuals, and they all went to smartphones and F2P. And let's not forget that it WASN'T Nintendo that led the online push in consoles, no matter if certain things is good or bad about it. They might have dabbled in it in the 90's, but nothing really manifested from it. It was the Xbox that made sure that online was a feature in today's consoles.

2. You are seeing the light.

Are you refering to my second part of that paragraph, or the whole thing? Because I'm quite clear about gamers don't want Nintendo consoles, and that's because they want blood and gore. And Nintendo isn't offering that.

3. Yes, it's very valuable. You can credit it for a clean streak of winning handheld generations, to the point that competitors get obliterated and exit the market altogether. Well, I suppose competitors are also hurting themselves by presenting their home consoles as superior to Nintendo's, so their own handhelds are perceived as inferior as a consequence (their image campaign is biting them in the butt, so to say). The Wii U has a tough time capitalizing on a family-friendly image because it is expensive. You shouldn't refer to the hardcore as core because there is a clear distinction here: While both groups buy a lot of games, only the former hold an inherent bias against Nintendo. While they spend the most money, they aren't the most profitable segment. Tally up the profits that have been made from hardcore gaming over the past decade and there won't be much; it's largely subsidized by other projects. As for the final point, Nintendo has pulled it off twice on two attempts. With the SNES, N64, GC and Wii U, they weren't trying to expand gaming because they were too focused on console wars.

Interesting theory; please expand on how the competitor's biting themselves in the ass? While a family friendly image might hve helped them in the handheld space (or is it simply their IP's and Pokémon that's been a major contribute?), it have almost only lways hurt them in their home console adventures. The PSP was a very successful handheld console, welling 80m units, all the while competing with the all mighty DS. That's pretty great. And it goes to show you don't NEED a family friendly image in the portable space to be successful. Maybe it's just Nintendo's IP's and quality that's helped that in that market. And I think you're going to argue that the GC didn't have that family friendly image, and that's why noone bought it? Even though it only cost $99? Did RE4 ruin the GC with the parents? Even though they had Mario Sunshine and Zelda WW? Please, families didn't even buy Nintendo when it was dirt cheap and had some of the most family friendly Mario's and Zelda's there ever was. What's the difference between hardcore and core gamers then? Yes, NES and Wii revolutionized gaming and controls, and they are Nintendo's most successful home consoles and expanded the market. But only the NES had a lasting impact on the industry and had VERY good 3rd party support. And as you can see, that's 2 out of 6 consoles. That only goes to show just how hard it is to do what you think they should do EVERY generation. N64 COULD have been something similar, but they fucked 3rd parties over. THAT'S the reason why Sony got so successful and could eneter the gaming market. And like that, we're backing to 3rd parties and Nintendo's relationship with them.

Also, Nintendo already has a good idea for how they will entice people who game on smart devices to spend money on Nintendo hardware; that's the whole point of them making smartphone games, they will increase the awareness for their IPs and dedicated hardware; it's the marketing of the future, although most people have mistaken the announcement for an attempt to subsidize an ailing core business. But the reality is that the TV is in the process of losing its dominance in people's lives, so traditional commercials aren't going to reach the same amount of people anymore (not just because of smart devices, but also streaming services that make people skip ads altogether). Nintendo is going to make games as a means of marketing because games have a much higher probability of being downloaded than a generic Nintendo news app.

I whole heartedly agree with this. There's only one problem: how are they going to get people to actually BUY their consoles? And just another piece of hardware people will have to buy, with their hard earned money. The demographic that plays smartphone games isn't interested in buying a new HW; they're quite satisfied with waht they've got. Or are you saying that Nintendo hopes that the kids playing their games will be so impressed that they'll nag their parents to get the NX? Because, I can see a situation where these kids play their Nintendo games on smartphones and then goes to PlayStation for all their other gaming needs. Isn't that kinda how portable gaming have worked since... well, since the PS1?

4. Nothing else that can be said here. You are completely unwilling to accept that there is a chance that Nintendo would have gone after the necessary technology. For some reason you want the Wii to be a result of pure luck.

Yes, nothing more can be said about this. If I'm unwilling to accept that NIntendo would go after this tech themselves, then you're equelly unwilling to accept that perhaps they wouldn't have. I see the Wii as a mix between luck and a keen business sense: Nintendo got lucky that Sony and MS hadn't bought the tech already and were lucky they were offered this chance, but it was THEY that saw the potential, THEY made the smart move to invest in it and to use it. But let's also remember that the company that came to Nintendo with the tech had previously been to Sony and MS, so they were looking to SELL the tech. Had they not gone to Nintendo with it, it's quite possible Nintendo wouldn't have acquired the tech at all because it might have been sold to someone else.

5. The way it works is that third parties give Nintendo token support at launch, then the games deservedly flop, then support is scaled back because it is somehow a fault of the audience that they have good taste. Beyond that, the hardcore will never consider a Nintendo console before third parties have proven that they are willing to give proper support, and third parties will never give proper support before the hardcore have proven that they are willing to buy a Nintendo console. Now you might say that Nintendo should pay for ports, but that kills profitability. Therefore the hardcore aren't worth the trouble to be pursued, nevermind that Nintendo would have to put online multiplayer behind a paywall because that's the only way Sony and Microsoft can profit from the hardcore. Why in the world would you want Nintendo to turn into something like this? I'd like an explanation for this, tell me why you want Nintendo to suck.

So you say that Rayman Legends deserved to flop? Because it kinda sounds like it. Sure, it wasn't a LAUNCH title, but it was a well reviewed 3^rd party game with a lot of effort put behind it. ZombiU was also quite well received, came at launch and flopped. Why should 3^rd parties try to get the hardcore onboard when Nintendo doesn't give a damn? It seems like all I do is repeat myself; Nintendo needs to entice the hardcore audience with games of their own, get them to buy the system for the 1^st party mature games. That same audience will then buy 3^rd party games on the system, and 3^rd party devs will see that there indeed is amarket for their games on Nintendo's system. Nintendo doesn't need to buy ports or exclusives if the audience is there for Nintendo's 1^st party games (the mature ones in this case). Why do you think Nintendo would have to put up a pay wall? I do not follow your reasoning. Because they wouldn't make money out of the hardcore gamers in any other way? If Nintendo made their own mature games and got 3^rd parties onboard (and the gamers) one of the selling points of the system could be NO PAY WALL. If Nintendo had the same games as the other two consoles, plus their own efforts AND free to play online, which console would gamers choose? I'm the one that want Nintendo's consoles to rock your socks off, and you're the one wishing Nintendo became freakishly niche and died altogether. Why?

6. The rate of multiconsole ownership has increased every generation, thanks to gamers getting old enough to have jobs and earn their own money. However, that doesn't mean that people are interested in paying for two or three very similar consoles. So in case of the GC, most PS2 owners weren't old enough to have jobs, plus the GC was a lot like the PS2. On the other hand, people buying 360s and PS3s didn't hurt the Wii; you can also say the same the other way around. But the important aspect of this truth is that the Nintendo console sells and consequently Nintendo software and accessories also sell at high levels, and that's where the biggest profits in gaming come from.

So what you're saying is that the PS2 actually had such good support it catered to ALL kind of gamers? Because that's kinda what you're saying. Why bother buy another console if you got the PS2? It had mature games, it had family friendly platformers, sports games, car games, you name it. JRPGs, shooters, adventure games and everything else. Maybe that's why it also dominated the industry for 5 years. And it's THAT kind of width I want Nintendo to strive for, like the wodth they had during NES and SNES era when they had everything, and is seen as the Golden Age for gaming. Gamings Golden Age was during the same period of time when Nintendo had EVERYTHING. The last sentence is why I don't think Nintendo should go 3^rd party out of a business perspective; they make too damn much money from HW and accessories.

What game is that? And looks like a terrible pic comparison. try videos.

To be honest though XCX and Zelda hold up OK (blurry image quality of the Zelda pic notwithstanding).

It's also why I don't think Nintendo will go too crazy hardware wise with their next console. If the next portable can handle Wii U graphics while the console "brother" device to that is 2x-3x the handheld ... man Nintendo is going to have some very nice looking games even if they don't match the PS4 on raw horsepower.

Maybe I'm crazy but I think Final Fantasy XV looks better than Uncharted 4. 

Driveclub vs Need for Speed Most Wanted.

I don't know how to embed videos here, but the pics show more than just a resolution difference.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree that XCX and Zelda still hold up well. And I'm happy with the level of graphics Wii U offers; games like Trine 2 Director's Cut and Captain Toad Treasure Tracker look absolutely gorgeous.
I'm just pointing out that from a purely technical perspective, porting a full fledged PS4 game to Wii U wouldn't be a simple process.

RolStoppable said:

1. I said "gamers are expected to pay a premium for consoles, games and online", so the only logical conclusion from this context is that I was talking about a paid subscription service. As for the casuals, the huge error in your view of the world is that you only see two groups: hardcore and casual; and everything that isn't hardcore is then casual by default. This discussion is going to be a waste of time if you don't reconsider your stance, because aside from hardcore and casual, there would also be people who've never owned a console. So the black and white thinking does not work because there are at the very least three groups out there.

Ok, then I misinterpreted what you were saying. But going back even further than that statement, what you were initially complaining about was the fact that publishers patched their games after release, NOT that costumers had to pay for online. I then pointed out that online also have enabled a lot of good things in gaming. Have I have said that there are only two group of gamers? I don't think so. I might only mention casuals and hardcores, but I fully recognise that there are a whole spectrum of people inbetween. I have used casuals and hardcores are two opposite poles and generalized. I myself doesn't fit any of the two describtions.

2. I was refering to your realisation that most gamers (in your context, the hardcore) are quite dumb.

3. Competitors are hurting themselves by presenting their home console as the proper way of gaming, with everything else being inferior; unfortunately, that happens to include their own handhelds then. Regarding the PSP and Sony's decisions (Vita will be their last handheld), the PSP can be written off as a fluke; additionally, its software market was anything but healthy, so its high hardware sales are misleading. GC will be addressed further down. As for the difference between hardcore and core gamers, I left my own text in the quote above and bolded the important sentence; a distinction between hardcore and core also means that there are at least four groups out there (extension of point 1). Regarding Nintendo's attempts to expand gaming, they are 2/2; I already said why the other four consoles don't qualify as attempts (also a part of my own text that is left in the quote above).

Well, MS doesn't have a portable device, so I don't see how that would hurt them... If the PSP had an unhealthy attach rate, then the 3DS must be sick! http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-Ratio/Global/ PSP AND PSV both have an higher attach rate than 3DS... That's numbers 21, 22 and 23 on the list. And the original GameBoy is at number 20... That means the PSP is a more successful console than 3DS in EVERY sense of the word. It sold more units, it sold more games and had a higher attach rate. AND it didn't loose Sony a lot of money. The only distinction you make between hardcore and gore gamers are that only the hardcores are biased against Nintendo. There's gotta be more to it than that.

4. If you make a broad claim like smartphone gamers are never going to buy dedicated hardware, you better back it up with respectable survey data; I don't think there is any data that suggests what you claimed, so the statement was most likely driven by your disdain for casual gamers.

No, I said that they aren't interested in additional hardware because smartphone's satisfies the gaming need they have. I'm not suggesting that they would NEVER buy a console, I even said that they would be more likely to pick up the PS4 instead. Which you failed to address. Why would they choose Nintendo over PlayStation? And I disdain your describtion of my attitude towards the "casuals", firstly because its not true, and secondly because you have to basis to make this statement. You have extrapolated things from my arguments and painted your own picture with it.

5. So the company was trying to sell their technology to Sony and Microsoft, but got turned down. That means if they hadn't approached Nintendo, there was a 0% chance that they would have found a buyer other than Nintendo approaching them. But feel free to come up with a company that was looking to get into the video game business at that time.

How can you be sure that NO ONE would have been interested? That's a ludacrous statement if I ever saw one. Who said that it had to be used as a gaming tech? It wasn't even a sure thing that this tech would be used at all by Nintendo; the board (or something like that) were arguing amongst themselves whether or not this was a good idea. Now, IF this company wouldn't have approached Nintendo with the Wiimote tech, do you think Nintendo themselves would have gone after it when they couldn't even agree on using it when they were handed the tech? Said pretty far fetched to me.

6. If Rayman Legends flopped on Wii U, then it flopped everywhere; I don't think that works in favor of your argument. ZombiU had a mixed reception and the only reason why it wasn't profitable is because it had botched development (game was redone halfway through, previously named Killer-something from Outer Space); that's solely on Ubisoft. Now for the most important thing, the underlying issue why you have so much trouble to understand my reasoning:

Yes, I think it's fair to say that Rayman flopped altogether... But there are many other games that hasn't done well on Nintendo's systems: Red Steel 1 and 2, No more Heroes 1 and 2, ZombiU might have had a difficult development cycle, but it still didn't move all that many units, and the most recent title is Bayonetta 2. All of these titles (except Zombiu and maybe Red Steel 1) were ALL well received 3^rd party games, and didn't sell well on Nintendo platforms. So don't blame 3^rd parties for making shitty games, because that's not (entirely) true

Revenue minus expenses equates profit or loss.

If Microsoft has, say, 20m Xbox Live Gold subscribers at $50 per year, then that's $1 billion of revenue. If they post a yearly profit from gaming of $500m, but you removed the aforementioned billion, then they would post a loss of $500m. What this means is that Microsoft depends on the paywall for online multiplayer to profit from video games despite all the third party royalty fees they collect. The same holds true for Sony; while they had no problems during the PS1 and PS2 eras, development costs of games have drastically multiplied since then while sales numbers of software have not. That's why third parties have introduced DLC, special editions and preorder bonuses while console manufacturers have made a paywall mandatory. If your product's popularity doesn't increase at the same rate as production costs, then you have to charge more from each individual customer. So gamers pay $400 for the console, $50 yearly for online multiplayer and $70-100 per game because it would feel incomplete without special editions and DLC. That's the path I reject and the one you embrace; however, I am quite sure you haven't really thought about the consequences of your demands, that's why you have been so opposed to my arguments.

Yes, maybe you're right about this one. I might have to think long and hard about this. If I demand a powerful console from Nintendo, they might have to sell it at a lose for a year, and then games might not be able to cover that lose. A paid membership might be a good answer to that... However... Nintendo could cover that with their mobile games – if it's successful. That way they would soon make money from their core gaming business again, AND they might be able to become console leaders. A console with the same power, the same games AND exclusives AND free online would surely sell better than the competition.

7. Now for the GC: What I am saying is that the PS2 did a better job than the GC (and Xbox) at catering to people who were interested in a PS2-like product. After all, it had a headstart of 18 months, so the competition was always lagging far behind in total software releases, plus the PS2's advantage in installed base made it receive countless exclusives. While the GC had more multiplatform games than any other Nintendo console, none of it mattered because it didn't differentiate the GC from the PS2. So in order to convince people to buy a GC over a PS2, it came down to exclusives, first and foremost first party games. It definitely didn't help that Nintendo made Super Mario Sunshine and The Wind Waker the way they are, because both sequels weren't exactly what people wanted. However, even if they had been what people wanted, GC hardware sales would have still remained in failure territory.

But the big picture here is that multiplatform games were never crucial to Nintendo. When you think about the important third party games on Nintendo consoles, they happened to be exclusive. It's the same on handhelds. So if it always comes down to exclusive software that sells Nintendo hardware, it's in Nintendo's best interest to play to this strength instead of obeying industry standards that compromise Nintendo's strengths. When Nintendo tries to appease the industry, their hardware doesn't sell because it feels boring; the result is that third parties stop supporting it. When Nintendo does their own thing, they are potentially going to lose out on multiplatform games; however, since the hardware sells, third parties will make games for it. That's why, as paradox as it may sound, Nintendo is better off by not listening to third parties; it's better for Nintendo and third parties.

They didn't listen to the 3^rd parties with the N64, and look what that got them. From being number one they were now religated to second place. Then third place. And they didn't listen to what 3^rd parties wanted with the Wii U.

So, comparing an exclusive to a cross gen multiplatform (developed for ps360). Far from a fair comparison.

Exclusives it is then.

Both look great. I'd add bayonetta 2 in that mix.

I agree, both look very nice. Sunset Overdrive is clearly more technically sophisticated, but  Splatoon compensates with a simple, colourful style. Still, porting Sunset to Wii U would be quite an ordeal I suspect.

As for Bayo 2, the more the merrier. ;)