| noname2200 said: .. Relating all this back to the Wii U, I'm not convinced that its strength, if any, comes from its early release. Rather, it should logically be the cost of development: if Epic is right, and the PS4/720 "only" double development costs, the entry price will till be too high for a lot of third-parties, and even those that can afford to buy-in will only do so with the safest of titles. While I still believe that a smart and aggressive Nintendo could have carried the prior generation on its own, I've come around to the idea that they don't want to do so, and that no other developer seems capable of carrying a system single-handedly. So third-parties' behavior is going to play a large role in determining whether the Wii U floats or sinks. At the moment, I choose "sink." |
i'm not sure if i quite see that as a strength though either. the market seems to be split to me and the divide seems to be growing. a large segment doesn't care much about quality (imo) of games and are happy buying up ipads/smartphones for games due to the $0-1 point for games. another segment only seems to care about the absolute highest quality AAAA games and gravitating to fewer but higher quality games and shunning any sort of middle-ware game.
there may only be a few developers that can afford the high costs of the ps4/720 but there will be even fewer that can afford the ps3 level costs if that portion of the consumer base isn't there. nintendo is left in the middle without the ability to deliver to the most demanding consumer and without the ability to reach the price point of the other consumer.
i just don't see who is in that middle point not really cheap but not really advanced.
and i choose neutrally buoyant. nintendo was suppose to have made a profit on the gamecube. even if the wiiU only sells 20M (and i think that number far too low) i still think nintendo makes it work. profitable hardware sales. profitable game sales. they'll get by.
