curl-6 said:
The Wii U is a bridge console between casual and core, that's what it is. I wasn't stupid enough to think we'd see the next Xbox and a Wii HD in 2010, but "expert" Pachter was. Being an "expert" is often more about having some shiny business degree that's usually unrelated to gaming than actual knowledge. Hell, just having a blog or working for a games website is enough to get you viewed as a gaming "expert" in today's world.
Since you enjoy Forbes, though, here's what they have to say about why we SHOULDN'T count out the Wii U: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/03/04/six-reasons-we-shouldnt-count-the-wii-u-out-yet/2/ 1. No, you're missing the point. 2. Not everybody does, and it's more convenient to just switch to the gamepad and share the big couch. 3. That link only says what Nintendo charges for the controller, not what it costs to manufacture. Nothing about the rest of the console seems expensive, in contrast to the PS4's more costly components. 4. Motion controls were a bigger gameplay innovation for home consoles than anything Sony has produced since the dualshock controller in 1997, or that Microsoft has ever produced in the console arena. The gamepad isn't as big, but it's still a more significant shift in gameplay potential than the PS4 thus far suggests, or that the 360 boasted over the first Xbox. Nintendo leads the industry in both innovation and gameplay. 5. They will use the Gamepad for new gameplay mechanics. |
You say bridge, me and the business world say confused.
He makes good points, though some are wrong or flawed. It isn't powerful. That's a simple fact and seeing that I know a thing or two about computing, I am right when I say it isn't powerful and has problems. The 3rd party games have problens already with gimped dev kits and poor sales. I can't see how or why this would change. But point 6 is critical. Nintendo, succeed or fail with the WiiU will last. It has the IP and captial to support this and the next 2 generations of hardware to fail.
1. This is a debate, not a childish playground spat. Rather than spouting inane retort, reason why a touch pad is a selling point.
2.Those who don't are less well off and a poor choice of target customers, and lets be honest, if you can afford a new concolse, you can afford another TV/own another gaming device (phone/tablet/laptop).
3.The PS4 is not costly. To buy the equal hardware for a PC comes in at ~ £450, and this will crash by £100 within a year, and more so afterwards. Then you factor in the bulk purchase; it's cheap.
4.Motion controls was a gimmick, not gameplay changing. Did it add depth? Nope. Allow you to do something in the game a pad wouldn't allow? Nope. Thus it added nothing bar changing how the person physically interacts with the console. That is different from being innovative within a game eg. cover mechanics, 2 weapon systems etc. This is why all major games still opt for pads, not motion controls, where as how much did Halo affect the FPS genre? See the difference?
5. Such as??????? I could say "The ps4 will cure cancer!". Sadly, just saying so does not make it true. You have to reason why.
