Wii U Meant for Consumers with Higher Disposable Income, Says Nintendo

[LordTheNightKnight]

"im really not gonna throw a bitch fit if anything happens to anyone of those big three"

Who said we would throw a bitch fit? We can still be unhappy about this. You're making a strawman of our feeling to pretend we have skewed priorities, without looking at the full context.

"just out of curiosity, what difference does it make to you really?? Unless you have stocks in the company that would be different, but maybe you like the games THAT much."

That's still a fallacy. It basically says it doesn't make sense to care unless you are getting something out of it. That seems to be myopic about selfishness (as in thinking that's the normal way of thinking).

"The tech is better, the online will be better, it will actually be getting good games(1) and not just dance this and exercise that(2). and it will still use the motion tech you all so love(3). Its just a WII but they are adding more to it(4). What would have been an improvement (5)."

1. Your opinion of what's good isn't going to sell the system. What sells the system is the mainstream's opinion of good, and they think the Wii ALREADY DOES have good games. It just should have had more, but that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPECS. It had everything to do with lack of willingness to make more of them.

2. You thinking that was all that mattered on the Wii is part of the big problem. Looking at the library in general would be an improvement, not just on you, but on all the people who look down on the Wii for such BS reasons.

3. It's not the tech alone. They could have flooded the Wii already with great motion games, but they didn't, when they already had some games to use as a template, but refused. The Wii U is not focused on motion gaming, so why should bringing the motion controls as a legacy placate us, when it's clear they don't want to really use it? Or do you think we're so shallow that we only care about the specs and the parts? Considering how you are gushing about the tech in this and several posts, I call that you projecting your preferences onto us. We aren't that shallow.

4. No, the Wii also had full GC compatibility (save for the internet and Gameboy adapters). And taking that out of the latest Wii doesn't make that right. Furthermore, the Wii was about NOT putting the focus on flashy tech, and everytime Nintendo tried to make it about that, the mainstream rejected it. Since the Wii U is that direction that the mainstream does not like, then it cannot be just a better Wii. It's a Gamecube in Wii clothing (even has shades of the failed Gameboy connection on that system). And don't go "well I like the Gamecube", because I'm referring to the Mainstream, who made that system sell as it did, and they made the Wii sell as it did.

5. Not abandoning the Wii development. Better yet, waiting another year or so, just to build up the Wii audience again instead of stupidly thinking they could just coast the Wii audience along until then. They should have kept the the Gamecube ports (which would apply to more than just GC games), and even allowed them to have extra controllers that wouldn't work before when they were just legacy ports. They should have not made a Mario game looking as stupid as trying to use Miis instead of making original characters (or finally getting the skirt physics done to play as Peach*). They should have NOT made a tablet controller as part of the main system. That should have been a high-end accessory until the tech was more affordable and reliable (not just cheap if you look at one tablet made in one country).

* That is something that annoys me about a lot of developers this generation. They give what seems like legit excuses for something, but instead of doing it right the next time, it later becomes clear they didn't want to do that thing in the first place, and were too chicken*bleep* to admit it (because game companies DO owe their customers things).