| Scisca said:
I'm sorry, but this post is so full of ignorance, I find it hard to believe you really think this way. You seem not to understand at all what you're talking about. @1 - wtf? It's several generations ahead? PS4 is one generation ahead of PS3, how can Wii U be several generations ahead of PS360? It's a generation ahead of the Wii, which basically was two Gamecubes duct taped together. It's not a generation ahead of PS360, just like Wii wasn't a generation ahead of PS2/Xbox/GCN - all in terms of performance obviosly. Wii U is more powerful than PS360, but it's not even close to PS4One. Look at what multiplat games look like - they are just a little bit better than the PS360 versions, and are nowhere near PS4One versions. This is fact. If you think that PS360 cost $230-250, then you are obviously the misinformed one (duh!). FYI - a brand new PS3 costs 135 Euro in Europe. @2 - Both these consoles were in totally different spots than the Wii U is, so you can't put them as examples for Wii U to follow. PS3 was cutting edge and had all the Sony 1st party games and all multiplats. 3DS became dirt cheap and got a constant stream of games (1st and 3rd party), which were easy to develop thanks to how simple the graphics are on the system. Wii U? It's the most inferior console, gets next to no 3rd party games and will only be getting less of them in the future, on top of that Nintendo struggles like hell developing 1st party games, cause they ignorantly underestimated what HD development means. And it's not even cheap. I have no idea how knowledge about economics fit into this argument of yours - care to enlighten me? @3 - You can check my age in my profile, old fella The library is and always will be a problem, it will never be on par with PS4One - no matter what Nintendo does. They can't take on the whole gaming world. On top of that, the casuals have left home consoles and are now on tablets/smartphones. The only thing that Nintendo can do is turn the Wii U into a companion second console that core gamers buy only to play Nintendo games. But in order to convince numerous gamers to go that way, the console has to be cheap on top of having great games. These two things come together, one just won't suffice. All this is obviously true only if we assume that Nintendo still wants to invest in Wii U and believes it can turn it aroung, at least to some extent (+/- GCN sales). If they made the decision not to commit and just wait this generation out with minimum loses, then they obviously should always be selling Wii U at a profit. But if they do that, they'll never get anywhere near GCN sales. @4 - I'm struggling really hard not to call you an idiot here, but it's tough. Try to think this over again. I have bought the Wii as my first consoles last gen, for the full price. I have a DSi and have never owned a PSP. Now please take back and stop with your ridiculous "bias" bullshit or the absurd "you wouldn't take a free Wii U". It's just pathetic. I see that you are so pro-Nintendo that you ignore reality, but this is the truth - if Wii U cost around 200 Euro, I'd already have it, especially since my gf wants me to buy one ever since Nintendo killed online in MK Wii (I have even made a thread on it |
It's cool you know the history of the industry, pity that you don't understand it, even the stuff that you wrote here. You know that the key is library? Good. Now take a look at the Wii U's library. It's only Nintendo games and only a handful of them. The future looks rather bleak, as the few 3rd parties that were present on Wii U thus far are leaving it. Look at the competition - it's Sony/MS games AND 3rd party games. Every console in history that won its generation had 3rd party support. Even Wii had many 3rd party games that sold millions. You know which console was in a similar situation to Wii U? Dreamcast. It was the least powerful console, 3rd parties have left it, it pretty much only had 1st party games - which were great, but still the console ended the way it did.
1) You seem rather confused. I'm talking about the Wii U's graphical power. The GPU inside the Wii U is several generations ahead of the previous systems.
Source: http://mynintendonews.com/2013/05/29/shinen-says-wii-u-gpu-several-generations-ahead-of-current-gen/
Also, the Wii U's graphical prowess is closer to the PS4/Xbone than it is to the PS360.
2) The 3DS didn't get a constant stream of 3rd party games - at least not western 3rd party games. Your memory is a bit foggy. Western 3rd party support on the 3DS has always been subpar. What boosted the 3DS wasn't just the price cut, nor was it Japanese 3rd party support, but rather, the steady stream of 1st party games. I can stand here right now and tell you that you cannot name a single 3rd party game (Western or otherwise) that helped boost the 3DS when its sales were in the slump.
As for the PS3... The PS3 was $600 dollars, and it didn't get every 3rd party game initially. The Wii U was in the same boat. Only difference is that the PS3's slump lasted for 3 long years.
As for economics: you prove you honestly don't know much about it. When you say it's impossible for Nintendo to add value to a product, that shows your lack of understanding of just basic economics... Either that or you're just extremely bias. Listen... Any company can add value to a product that's available on the market. To add value means to add features or options that would make the product more desirable to the consumer. Ever see a commercial about a product and then you'd hear, "And if you act now, we'll even throw in 3 extra items for free!"? <--- This is what it means to add value.
3) Library does indeed determine a good system. However, even though you say this yourself, you don't seem to want to apply this logic to your own argument. If library is so important, then what makes a system any better than the next if it gets the same library as its competitor? If McDonalds and Burger King both served the same Hamburgers and Fries, what would the incentive be to go to one over the other? See? It's about exclusives - Experiences you cannot get on other systems. The PS1 and the PS2 had 3rd party exclusives. The PS4 and the Xbone do not have many of these exclusives at all. Because of this, their library suffers. Take a look at Metacritic and look at the PS4's exclusives. Notice how the PS4 doesn't have as many as the Wii U and notice how the Wii U has a higher number of higher rated exclusives. This quality actually shows in the PS4's software sales as well. Just look at the highest selling games on the PS4 and then look at the Wii U's highest selling games. NSMBU sold more than any game on the PS4. Super Mario 3D World outsold every single exclusive PS4 title, even though the PS4 has 8 million consoles sold.... Yes, library does determine a good system. If we go by the PS4's library in terms of both metacritic ratings and software sales, then the PS4 really isn't as good as you'd want it to be. Of course, if we go by just hardware sales, then sure! The PS4 is the most awesome console ever! </sarcasm>
4) You claim you're not bias, but your statements seem to prove otherwise. I can admit that I have a bias toward Nintendo. You can see it in my avatar. However, I can also admit the truth. I'm not saying the Wii U is flawless. I'm not saying Nintendo didn't drop the ball this gen (which they obviously have). I'm just simply calling out some of the incorrect statements you've made; and boy have you made a lot of incorrect statements. You see, the difference between you and I is that I research the things you say. I also research the things I want to say to make sure they are valid before I type them to you. If you were correct, I have no problem stopping and calling you the victor. However, in this sense, you are not correct - and the fact that you refuse to research the things you are saying proves that you are bias. Plain and simple.
