By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Alcyon on 15 January 2020
Edit Thread
Wyrdness said:
Snoorlax said:

It's not just the price, the Vita is twice or more as powerful as 3DS so even though the 3DS eventually recovered and won the battle it was underpowered compared to it's competition. So again it's the same strategy Nintendo took with the DS, Wii and Wii U so yes, your point is debunked.

No, nope and seriously what are you even typing. Wii U vs PS360 is not relevant, PS4X1 are it's competitors and it failed to make an impact. Sony and MS are indeed bigger companies with more resources but the SNES was more powerful than Sega Genesis, N64 was more powerful than PS1 and Gamecube was more powerful than PS2 and on par with Xbox, ever since the Iwata era Nintendo went blue ocean and it worked at first then it failed with the Wii U. Nintendo has over 10 billion dollars in the bank, there's no reason why Nintendo couldn't produce hardware with similar specs to their competitors other than Nintendo not wanting to take any risks and keep their systems affordable for families. Sure, Nintendo systems are more innovative than they used to be and this goes well with their gaming philosophy but they have been making severely underpowered systems since the Wii.

That's because Reggie was the President of NoA... He's supposed to unveil it and make it sound as cool as possible. As far as the technical side of things, Reggie probably didn't knew shit about what the Wii U was capable of. Miyamoto knows the ins and outs of Nintendo systems so no, Reggies remarks on the Wii U doesn't tell us anything other than it's another Nintendo console, and personal experiences doesn't mean that it's solely aimed at core gamers like you've claimed.

The Wii U tried to follow the Wii's path with a different approach, that approach was a new gimmick and targeting both casual and core gamers and it failed.

The articles clearly say that Wii U was designed with both audiences in mind, not just one so your argument falls apart as soon as that was stated and especially since you're now just flip flopping.

- You basically said nothing here on the point presented.

- Nope it's very relevant you just don't want it to be because it's a point you can't debunk as it highlights the change in approach to hardware which further shows they had a different approach to the Wii. Nintendo had 10bn in the bank and do you know the total cost the approach you're championing cost MS and Sony with the 360/PS3? 8bn (link below), 2.9bn for MS who had Live making money from the start of the gen and 4.9bn for Sony who had an expensive platform and that is with both platforms selling 80m plus this backs fully what I'm saying in that WiiU was as powerful as Nintendo could afford it to be had Nintendo gone this route the platform would have been more expensive and they had no way to offset losses like Sony and MS who also use a different licensing model.

https://www.mcvuk.com/8bn-the-total-losses-made-by-xbox-360-and-ps3/

- Or maybe just maybe it's because he's the President of NOA that he has the concept explained to him so he gets and idea of how the company wants to handle it in order to sell to the consumer Reggie after all knows the ins and outs of running a company better than Miyamoto which makes your claim comical not to mention Nintendo themselves backed what Reggie said with their concept demonstration video with the Japenese gamer which solely focused on personal experience.

- Wii U didn't follow the path of Wii in anyway this is shown on all levels and backed by objective factors sharing a similar name is not having the same approach so far only arguments that has fallen apart are your own as they've been debunk.

"Cousins uses the data to argue that consoles as we know it are nearing extinction."

I must say that this prediction is hilarious, seven years later.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/173011/Ngmocos_Cousins_predicts_the_death_of_consoles_within_510_years.php

It was in 2012, the next generation was in 2013.

"I believe Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo won't produce dedicated hardware past the next generation. ... Further, I believe traditional game companies like EA will be purchased by existing digital companies, or close entirely."

LOL.

For the Wii U, look at the Wii first: beaten by the X360 in the US, by the PS3 in Europe and ROTW and only better in Japan, where the gamers were buying handheld devices (DS+PSP) and the overall sales for PS3/X360/Wii were low. This a good hint: the audience was wide without a specific target. Having Wii Sports included is another hint.

And then they launched the Wii U. Of course the marketting was bad, but even if we forget about it: who was the target?

The console was more powerful than a PS3/X360, but it was a clusterfuck for the devs. So many games looked similar to what a PS3/X360 has to offer. Why buy a Wii U if the games are not looking better? If the console offers something different. Oh, and the PS4/XOne was already announced, about 10 times more powerful than the PS3/X360.

Ok, the Game Pad can be a great addition (the second screen can be great -> DS) but if you don't use it, the Pad is too big. And this isn't something new like the Wiimote. They tried to promote the asymetrical gameplay, but the games weren't as fun as when we were moving like idiots, playing Wii Sports.

The games:

https://techcrunch.com/2012/09/26/here-are-the-23-nintendo-wii-u-launch-titles/

Quite weak. And I don't see who was the target. So, if you liked the Wii for the innovation, the Wii U isn't for you. If you like good looking games, the Wii U isn't for you. And the console tanked.