Cobretti2 said:
JWeinCom said:
Cobretti2 said:
JWeinCom said:
Except that many of those teens are going to switch sides at any rate due to Nintendo's first party software. Sony and Microsoft will have more "mature" games, because that's what they make. Nintendo does not make games like Halo, Uncharted, Gears of War, Infamous, etc, and making those games to attract "hardcore" gamers (including those teens who want to play call of duty cause you can shoot stuff) would necessitate detracting from the games Nintendo does do well.
If Nitnendo wanted to boost its spect to the levels third parties would want, their options are eating a huge loss in money, raising the price of the console, or losing the tablet. Raising the price wouldn't work well. Its $300 price point (it was 300 before price cut as well in basic form) with a game is going to be a big factor in attracting less avid gamers who naturally don't play games as much.
As for eating the loss, that would also be a poor idea. The Wii U is already being sold at around cost (the price drop changes things, but on the flip side, the Yen is much weaker), and beefing up specs would probably mean 50-100 extra dollars per unit. 6GB of RAM alone is not going to come cheap. Considering that the average console owner buys around 9 games (not all at full price and including pack ins) making back that money is going to be hard to do. In the end, the console game is not just about getting hardware out there but making money. That's not even mentioning the costs of online infrastructure if they were to change from a console focusing on local multiplayer to one focussed on online multiplayer.
So then, Nintendo can ditch the tablet, which I expect is what many people think they should do. However, I think the tablet is an important factor to the Wii U, and I believe it will be key to the Wii U's success. There is a lot of potential use here, both big and small, and with Wii Fit and Wii Party, we're going to see how the Gamepad will streamline social networking, and differentiate the Wii U's multiplayer experience. Nintendo can of course prove me wrong by not releasing more titles that take advantage of the Gamepad, but the thing has a lot of potential.
Of course, the ideal situation is to make a console that does have the specs of the PS4 and XBox One, and the Gamepad, but from a dollar and cents perspective it doesn't make sense. It is FAR more important for Nintendo to differentiate itself from its competitors than to secure third party support.
|
I'm not talking about the people that moved to play the halos and uncharted. Those are lost causes as they think FPS are the only real games.
I am talking about those people who can only afford one console. So their choice is simply Nintendo games or 3rd party games (i.e. EA Sports games, GTA, FINAL FANTASY aka NONE FPSers lol). If they want 3rd party games more than they want Nintendo games due to them being adult oriented and can only afford oen system they will go. However If they cna get their adult fix (NOT ALL BUT ENOUGH) then they get the best of both worlds, Nintendo games and 3rd party mature games.
And as I said, they need to focus on RETAINING there users first rather then wanting to get a huge flow of Sony and Micrososft users to their console. This is why 3rd party support is critical. It also woud help if they created more new IPs or resurected some of the other franchises like FZero and Starfox.
Hell they should have bought the rights to the RARE games when they had the chance in the GCN days. Those games alone are iconic enough for people to stick with Nintendo. Imagine if Wii U launched with Killer Instinct, Banjo, then followed it up a year later with say conker and perfect dark and even ressurect battle toads.
|
The people who like GTA are far more likely to be fans of Sony and Microsoft IPs than Nintendo, because those games are more similar to GTA. The big third party franchises are all like that. Assassin's Creed, Red Dead, Borderlands, etc. Final Fantasy really isn't a megaton franchise anymore. FF and Kingdom Hearts would be nice, but they're not essential.
Madden/Fifa are the biggest IPs that are missing that would be in line with Nintendo fans, but the reason for their absense is not hardware. Even if we assume the Wii U cannot run PS4/XBox One games, EA is going to be making Madden games for the next five years or so on PS360, so there is no reason those couldn't be ported to the Wii U. It's crystal clear that EA's problem with Nintendo has more to do with a personal spat than the hardware on the Wii U. As for the other big third party franchises, COD is there. Assassin's Creed is there. Batman Arkham Origins is there. Aside from EA the bigger franchises are present. We'll see if this contiues as the PS4 and One roll out.
As for Rare titles... lol @ the idea that these games are still relevant. Take your nostalgia glasses off. Conker and Battletoads are going to make some sort of difference? I love Banjo as much as the next guy, but the days where he makes a difference are long behind. Instead, Nintendo has been investing in other things. Buying Monolith Soft for example which made Xenoblade, bringing Sonic Lost World as an exclusive, Shin Megami X Fire Emblem, and Bayonetta 2.
And still, the dollars and cents of making a more powerful console don't make sense for Nintendo.
|
Firstly you need to stop taking every single game I write as some sort of list of the types of games and go thorugh their relevance. Those are jsut SOME examples. I am not going to write out every 3rd party title that would fit a Nintendo audience.
Now the reason Banjo etc.. are irrelevant today is because Microsoft killed the franchises. If Nintendo owned them they would not have let them die of like that and probably Retro would have made somehting magical out of the franchise like they did to Donkey Kong. Also look at killer instinct, many people are going nuts over it and that has been missing for 15 years or so. So who is to say if banko and conker were in the right hands it still wouldnt be relevant. I used this as an example of NIntendos past mistakes of letting those IPs go.
The poiint being CORE games just doesn't mean FPS, there is lots of key games Nintendo gamers are missing out. In the end as I said some can only afford one console. So if it is a choice between 5 Nintendo games they like vs 30 3rd party core games, then they will get the other platform. Imagine if 25 of the 30 games were on a Nintendo system, then those users would stick with a Nintendo system to get the 5 Nintendo games + 25 3rd party games.
|
But what are the biggest third party franchises? Cod, Elder Scrolls, Battlefield, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed, Fifa, Fallout, Arkham City, Left 4 Dead, Borderlands, Lego. Those are just going straight down the list on XBox 360's best sellers list. Aside from Skyrim, the potential for these games to win over gamers from other consoles is limited. The only big exception is the Lego franchise, which is probably why Nintendo invested in Lego City Undercover.
Banjo and the rest are irrelevant because they are irrelevant. Perfect Dark is a game that was that the FPS genre left behind. Conker was a novelty game that was based around the appeal of a drunk squirrel and an enemy made of feces. Killer Instinct was a game that rode the wave of massive 2D fighter popularity on the SNES and would be a 1-2 million seller, at absolute best, today. Banjo is the only one that MAY be relevant today (I actually loved Nuts and Bolts), but even that is iffy. You love those franchises, and I love those franhises, but they weren't worth the $377 million dollars (a little over 400 million with inflation). Nintendo instead invested in things like Retro Studios, Monolith, deals with Sega and Platinum games, Lego City Undercover, and so on so forth.
And yeah, of course it would be better if Nintendo could get all those third party games on their console, but you're completely ignoring the cost of getting those games on the console. If it was free, then hell yeah Nintendo would do it, but these things cost money. If Nintendo operated the way people on the internet seems to think it does, in a world with unlimited money and zero overhead, then there would be no issue. But making a console on par with the PS4 and XBox One costs money, which is a point you seem to be missing here, and Nintendo won't necessarily be able to recover that money or shrug off a billion dollar loss like M$.
