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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - the Wii U is not getting replaced this year, guys

PerturbedKitty said:

the wii u still being $300 and stuff allows some time to drop the price and stuff it before it's finally discontinued and stuff. the system  is getting cheaper and cheaper to manufacture and stuff, and they can keep the sales higher by cutting the price this year and stuff. then next year, they can continue to maintain the sales and stuff by cutting the price again and stuff. so just by looking at the price and stuff, we can see that they are able to maintain the sales and stuff well into 2017 and stuff. i honestly wouldnt be surprised if 2016 is their peak year and all that stuff. 

You say stuff a lot, is that what becoming a PlayStation fan has done to you?





[] [] [] {} [] 

Around the Network
Soundwave said:
MikeRox said:

 


I'm a bit confused.

Mega Drive launched way before the SNES.

 

Dreamcast launched a year before the PS2, but then PS2 launched a year before both Xbox and GameCube, so that gen was staggered over 3 years. What made the PS2 the right time for that gen?

 

Xbox 360 launched a year before the Wii and PS3.

 

I dont think "mid gen" has ever really been a thing. Releases have always been separate. How long is a gen? The PS1 and Saturn were hitting shelves this year at this stage in the SNES's life (compared with when Wii U hit the market). The 3DO and such were already on the market.

 

Yeah good points. 

 

Mega Drive/Genesis (40 million sold), Playstation One (100 million), Playstation 2 (150 million sold), Nintendo DS (150 million sold) are "mid-gen" cycles by these definitions. 

Genesis came out in '89, just three years after the Sega Master System. 

Playstation launched at this point in the SNES life cycle (1994 in Japan, 1995 in North America). 

PS2 launched a year ahead of its competitors. 

XBox 360 launched a year ahead of the Wii and PS3. 

DS replaced the GBA after only 3 1/2 years. 

the 360, PS1 and PS2 are not mid gen. by any definition. thats just insane. NDS and PSP, MAYBE. thats a big maybe. those systems were definitely early, but you have to take into consideration that they were both trying to get a jump start on one another. i bet if they werent worried about competition, they would have released in 2005 alongside the 360.

the only thing that is close to a midgen system is the dreamcast, but i wouldnt necessarily say that it is. but it is the closest . 





Soundwave said:
MikeRox said:

 


I'm a bit confused.

Mega Drive launched way before the SNES.

 

Dreamcast launched a year before the PS2, but then PS2 launched a year before both Xbox and GameCube, so that gen was staggered over 3 years. What made the PS2 the right time for that gen?

 

Xbox 360 launched a year before the Wii and PS3.

 

I dont think "mid gen" has ever really been a thing. Releases have always been separate. How long is a gen? The PS1 and Saturn were hitting shelves this year at this stage in the SNES's life (compared with when Wii U hit the market). The 3DO and such were already on the market.

 

Yeah good points. 

 

Mega Drive/Genesis (40 million sold), Playstation One (100 million), Playstation 2 (150 million sold), Nintendo DS (150 million sold) are "mid-gen" cycles by these definitions. 

Genesis came out in '89, just three years after the Sega Master System. 

Playstation launched at this point in the SNES life cycle (1994 in Japan, 1995 in North America). 

PS2 launched a year ahead of its competitors. 

XBox 360 launched a year ahead of the Wii and PS3. 

DS replaced the GBA after only 3 1/2 years. 

they're not good points. launching a year ahead of the competition is not "mid-gen" WTF 





PerturbedKitty said:
Soundwave said:

 

Yeah good points. 

 

Mega Drive/Genesis (40 million sold), Playstation One (100 million), Playstation 2 (150 million sold), Nintendo DS (150 million sold) are "mid-gen" cycles by these definitions. 

Genesis came out in '89, just three years after the Sega Master System. 

Playstation launched at this point in the SNES life cycle (1994 in Japan, 1995 in North America). 

PS2 launched a year ahead of its competitors. 

XBox 360 launched a year ahead of the Wii and PS3. 

DS replaced the GBA after only 3 1/2 years. 

they're not good points. launching a year ahead of the competition is not "mid-gen" WTF 



In that case, Dreamcast isn't a "mid-gen" console either then. 

The only examples of mid-gen system releases would the DS and Sega Genesis, and both were hugely successful and they represent the best selling Nintendo and Sega systems respectively. 

Really though all this stupid, there's no singular "formula" for a successful console. You execute properly or you don't. 

Even the Dreamcast, had Sega not be on wonky financial footing may have very well outsold the GameCube or XBox at least, if Sega simply had the money to stay in the race.



Soundwave said:
PerturbedKitty said:
Soundwave said:

 

Yeah good points. 

 

Mega Drive/Genesis (40 million sold), Playstation One (100 million), Playstation 2 (150 million sold), Nintendo DS (150 million sold) are "mid-gen" cycles by these definitions. 

Genesis came out in '89, just three years after the Sega Master System. 

Playstation launched at this point in the SNES life cycle (1994 in Japan, 1995 in North America). 

PS2 launched a year ahead of its competitors. 

XBox 360 launched a year ahead of the Wii and PS3. 

DS replaced the GBA after only 3 1/2 years. 

they're not good points. launching a year ahead of the competition is not "mid-gen" WTF 



In that case, Dreamcast isn't a "mid-gen" console either then. 

The only examples of mid-gen system releases would the DS and Sega Genesis, and both were hugely successful and they represent the best selling Nintendo and Sega systems respectively. 

Really though all this stupid, there's no singular "formula" for a successful console. You execute properly or you don't. 

Even the Dreamcast, had Sega not be on wonky financial footing may have very well outsold the GameCube or XBox at least, if Sega simply had the money to stay in the race.

i believe they would have stayed in the race had they just made it not so piracy friendly. 

dreamcast isnt mid gen. and as i stated, the psp and ds both got an earlier start on the seventh gen because they were trying to one up eachother. 





Around the Network
Thunderbird77 said:
Miyamotoo said:
Thunderbird77 said:

They could do that if they were stupid, bundling a GC controller with a GC game just for the people buying it to play on wii, when it was cheap to make a port. motion plus is a small acessory, far cheaper than a controller and thus easier to bundle.

Again, reasons they don't have to port Zelda U to wii u's successor (we don't know if it is NX) is because anyone can just buy the game and play it on Wii U's successor. No extra controller, just put the game on the system and play it. Enough of this talk.



Like I wrote at first, TP porting on Wii and very likely possible Zelda U porting on NX doesn't have anything with controls, its all about strong launch title and much better sales for game.

Again, we don't know if NX will have BC at all, and if will have BC we don't know if it will need Wii U controller in order to play it. Point is If you make Zelda U NX game too and launch it with NX, use it to promote NX and reverse use NX to promote game, you will definitely have much stronger sales of game than if it's Wii U exclusive. No to mentione being NX launch title very help launch. Its common business sense, basically you have only positive staffs making Zelda U port like NX launch title, you dont have any negative staffs.

It was because of controls. Porting a game doesn't change it's base. Zelda U is a Wii U game. If nintendo wants the game to push wii u's successor hardware, they can just market the game a lot + making sure people know it's compatible with both systems. In the end, while it is possible, nintendo has no reason to port it.



No it wasn't because of controls, it was beacuse sales of game and great launch game for Wii. Zelda U curently is a Wii U game but if they ported to NX for launch it will also NX game same like TP is also Wii game.

Why they would promote game from previous system that failed hard and that is dying and that is basically at end of life, when they have completely new platform that needs to be promoted hard, they will port that game and made it launch title for that new system (basicly maide it NX game) and promote it like totally new game for totally new platform. What do you think, what variant of those two will sell much more copies of game and what variant will have much stronger impact on NX launch!? Answer is pretty obvious, Its common business sense.

Again, we don't know if NX will have BC at all, and if will have BC we don't know if it will need Wii U controller in order to play it, but you are pretty certain about that. Even NX has BC (I will say chances are around 50% for BC) in some way I am pretty sure Nintendo will port Zelda U and make it NX launch title.



Miyamotoo said:
Th

eaper than a cont

ng on Wii and very likely possible Zelda U porting on NX doesn't have anything with controls, its all about strong launch title and much better sales for game.

Again, we don't know if NX will have BC at all, and if will have BC we don't know if it will need Wii U controller in order to play it. Point is If you make Zelda U NX game too and launch it with NX, use it to promote NX and reverse use NX to promote game, you will definitely have much stronger sales of game than if it's Wii U exclusive. No to mentione being NX launch title very help launch. Its common business sense, basically you have only positive staffs making Zelda U port like NX launch title, you dont have any negative staffs.

It was because of controls. Porting a game doesn't change it's base. Zelda U is a Wii U game. If nintendo wants the game to push wii u's successor hardware, they can just market the game a lot + making sure people know it's compatible with both systems. In the end, while it is possible, nintendo has no reason to port it.



No it was not beacuse of controls, it was beacuse sales of game and great launch game for Wii. Zelda U curently is a Wii U game but if they ported to NX for launch it will also NX game same like TP is also Wii game.

Why they would promote game from previous system that failed hard and that is dying and that is basically at end of life, when they have completely new platform that needs to be promoted hard, they will port that game and made it launch title for that new system (basicly maide it NX game) and promote it like totally new game for totally new platform. What do you think, what variant of those two will sell much more copies of game and what variant will have much stronger impact on NX launch!? Answer is pretty obvious, Its common business sense.

Again, we don't know if NX will have BC at all, and if will have BC we don't know if it will need Wii U controller in order to play it, but you are pretty certain about that. Even NX has BC (I will say chances are around 50% for BC) in some way I am pretty sure Nintendo will port Zelda U and make it NX launch title.

lol. classic VGChartz





PerturbedKitty said:
Miyamotoo said:
Th

eaper than a cont

ng on Wii and very likely possible Zelda U porting on NX doesn't have anything with controls, its all about strong launch title and much better sales for game.

Again, we don't know if NX will have BC at all, and if will have BC we don't know if it will need Wii U controller in order to play it. Point is If you make Zelda U NX game too and launch it with NX, use it to promote NX and reverse use NX to promote game, you will definitely have much stronger sales of game than if it's Wii U exclusive. No to mentione being NX launch title very help launch. Its common business sense, basically you have only positive staffs making Zelda U port like NX launch title, you dont have any negative staffs.

It was because of controls. Porting a game doesn't change it's base. Zelda U is a Wii U game. If nintendo wants the game to push wii u's successor hardware, they can just market the game a lot + making sure people know it's compatible with both systems. In the end, while it is possible, nintendo has no reason to port it.



No it was not beacuse of controls, it was beacuse sales of game and great launch game for Wii. Zelda U curently is a Wii U game but if they ported to NX for launch it will also NX game same like TP is also Wii game.

Why they would promote game from previous system that failed hard and that is dying and that is basically at end of life, when they have completely new platform that needs to be promoted hard, they will port that game and made it launch title for that new system (basicly maide it NX game) and promote it like totally new game for totally new platform. What do you think, what variant of those two will sell much more copies of game and what variant will have much stronger impact on NX launch!? Answer is pretty obvious, Its common business sense.

Again, we don't know if NX will have BC at all, and if will have BC we don't know if it will need Wii U controller in order to play it, but you are pretty certain about that. Even NX has BC (I will say chances are around 50% for BC) in some way I am pretty sure Nintendo will port Zelda U and make it NX launch title.

lol. classic VGChartz



You are probably aware that english isn't main language for lots a people and that those people making mistakes when they writing on english!?





Miyamotoo said:
PerturbedKitty said:

lol. classic VGChartz



You are probably aware that english isn't main language for lots a people and that those people making mistakes when they writing on english!?



lol what? my comment had nothing to do with english. it had to do with the argument at hand. the way the argument played out is what makes VGC and a lot of its users endearing to me. it was more of a compliment than anything.





PerturbedKitty said:
Miyamotoo said:

You are probably aware that english isn't main language for lots a people and that those people making mistakes when they writing on english!?



lol what? my comment had nothing to do with english. it had to do with the argument at hand. the way the argument played out is what makes VGC and a lot of its users endearing to me. it was more of a compliment than anything.



I misunderstood your post, sry.