By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Which console launch was handled worse, PS3 or Wii U?

 

Worse launch?

PS3 394 56.85%
 
Wii U 299 43.15%
 
Total:693
slowmo on 07 March 2013

I voted Wii U as at least when the PS3 was released people knew it was a new console. Even now I still talk to people who dont realize the Wii U is a new console and not just a tablet for the Wii.

I think you could vote either depending on how you weigh the key issues.



Around the Network
oldschoolfool on 07 March 2013

It was obviously the ps3. I don't don't have to tell you why,everybody knows that answer.



torok on 07 March 2013

PS3 was a worser launch. But that makes really more problematic the fact that Wii U is doing considerably worse in sales even being handled better. That is something to get worried.



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.

TheJimbo1234 on 07 March 2013
curl-6 said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
 

The fact that we are arguing about what the WIiU is about says it all. The PS3 was clealry a high end media and gaming platform at relase, but what is the WiiU? You say it has a dcifferent focus...which is what exactly? 

Well if you think you are so much better than some of the other experts, why don't you become an analayst and go make millions? *rollseyes*

1. You fail to see the point.

2.I have 2 TVs....as do most people nowadays.

3. http://kotaku.com/5942876/the-wii-us-controllers-are-really-expensive. It won't be massed produced, and I think it won't have been ordered in the 10's of millions like the other consoles, so it wil cost a lot.

4. Such rubbish, and you dodged my question. Why am I not surprised. Gameplay has remained the same, and there has been no innovation. The result? A market who think the new console is a new extra for the previous one.

5.And they will do what exactly that the previous ones didn't do? 

 

As I said, you can argue this all you want, but a) it proves my point thaty this console has a lot of problems to overcome, b) you're arguing on the basis that experts are "wrong" because you don't like what they say, This of course brings us to the inevitable question; what would it take to make you change your mind?

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.

I never said the console DIDN'T have a lot of problems to overcome. It obviously does. What would it take to change my mind? Change my mind about what exactly?

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.



curl-6 on 08 March 2013
TheJimbo1234 said:

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.

Unless you're a developer who's worked with the Wii U hardware, (and how could you prove it if you are?) your opinion that it's not powerful isn't going to change many people's minds. Of course rushed launch games made with crappy devkits will look bad. That doesn't mean the system is weak. Look at the PS3's early games.

1. You've forgotten what this point was even about. It was about people relating to a touchpad. In today's world, people can. They are commonplace.

2. Why buy a second TV when you already have one? Many people in this economy could afford a second TV if they wanted but don't see the point. Being able to play off screen is a valuable and convenient feature, I can just switch to the pad mid game, and still share the couch with my girlfriend.

3. 450 pounds for PC that equals PS4? Sorry, I'm going to call BS on that.

4. Motion controls did add depth. They changed the fundamental way people interact with their games, that's more significant than some relatively minor feature like differing cover mechanics or a 2 weapon limit. Being able to  interact with a virtual world with your own bodily movements was the biggest step in gaming since the shift from 2D to 3D. All major games do not opt for non-motion controls. Many Wii U and 360 games feature motion, not to mention many Wii games still selling.

5.  Nintendoland, ZombiU, and Rayman Origins give us some good ideas on what can be done with it. Then there's the potential for 6-player local splitscreen.



Around the Network
Mazty on 08 March 2013

Easily the Wii U. Why? Because people knew Sony could ride out the storm due to the size of their company. Nintendo on the other hand are getting some very, very negative press that calls into question the future of the company:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlouis/2013/03/02/nintendo-the-new-sega/
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/01/3-things-nintendo-must-do/

No one was saying Sony was in big trouble with the PS3, they just said it needed games. Considering what the PS4 has shown, it looks like the Wii U will in no way be able to compete with the next-gen consoles from MS and Sony meaning that games may not be able to boost sales.



Zappykins on 08 March 2013

Absolutely the WiiU. The PS3 had buzz, anticipation, people were excited to see it, and it actually sold pretty well, if you compare it to the other consoles. Just not half as much as it's predecessor, and some were expecting it to do much better.

The WiiU barely generated any buzz or anticipation. They didn't even market it as a 'High Definition Wii.' Mostly 'Asymmetrical play' which leaves people asking what does that even mean? Playing with one eye closed?



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Mazty on 08 March 2013
curl-6 said:
TheJimbo1234 said:

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.

Unless you're a developer who's worked with the Wii U hardware, (and how could you prove it if you are?) your opinion that it's not powerful isn't going to change many people's minds. Of course rushed launch games made with crappy devkits will look bad. That doesn't mean the system is weak. Look at the PS3's early games.

1. You've forgotten what this point was even about. It was about people relating to a touchpad. In today's world, people can. They are commonplace.

2. Why buy a second TV when you already have one? Many people in this economy could afford a second TV if they wanted but don't see the point. Being able to play off screen is a valuable and convenient feature, I can just switch to the pad mid game, and still share the couch with my girlfriend.

3. 450 pounds for PC that equals PS4? Sorry, I'm going to call BS on that.

4. Motion controls did add depth. They changed the fundamental way people interact with their games, that's more significant than some relatively minor feature like differing cover mechanics or a 2 weapon limit. Being able to  interact with a virtual world with your own bodily movements was the biggest step in gaming since the shift from 2D to 3D. All major games do not opt for non-motion controls. Many Wii U and 360 games feature motion, not to mention many Wii games still selling.

5.  Nintendoland, ZombiU, and Rayman Origins give us some good ideas on what can be done with it. Then there's the potential for 6-player local splitscreen.

I actually know a dev who has and his view was that the Wii U was on par with the PS3 and 360 in terms of power. It isn't powerful:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed


"It was ballpark speculation at the time based on what we had eyeballed at the event, but the final GPU is indeed a close match to the 4650/4670, albeit with a deficit in the number of texture-mapping units and a lower clock speed - 550MHz"

"AMD's RV770 hardware is well documented so with these numbers we can now, categorically, finally rule out any next-gen pretensions for the Wii U - the GCN hardware in Durango and Orbis is in a completely different league. "

If the Wii U was going to be successful, it wouldn't be going through such a rough time. 



curl-6 on 08 March 2013
Mazty said:
curl-6 said:
TheJimbo1234 said:

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.

Unless you're a developer who's worked with the Wii U hardware, (and how could you prove it if you are?) your opinion that it's not powerful isn't going to change many people's minds. Of course rushed launch games made with crappy devkits will look bad. That doesn't mean the system is weak. Look at the PS3's early games.

1. You've forgotten what this point was even about. It was about people relating to a touchpad. In today's world, people can. They are commonplace.

2. Why buy a second TV when you already have one? Many people in this economy could afford a second TV if they wanted but don't see the point. Being able to play off screen is a valuable and convenient feature, I can just switch to the pad mid game, and still share the couch with my girlfriend.

3. 450 pounds for PC that equals PS4? Sorry, I'm going to call BS on that.

4. Motion controls did add depth. They changed the fundamental way people interact with their games, that's more significant than some relatively minor feature like differing cover mechanics or a 2 weapon limit. Being able to  interact with a virtual world with your own bodily movements was the biggest step in gaming since the shift from 2D to 3D. All major games do not opt for non-motion controls. Many Wii U and 360 games feature motion, not to mention many Wii games still selling.

5.  Nintendoland, ZombiU, and Rayman Origins give us some good ideas on what can be done with it. Then there's the potential for 6-player local splitscreen.

I actually know a dev who has and his view was that the Wii U was on par with the PS3 and 360 in terms of power. It isn't powerful:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed


"It was ballpark speculation at the time based on what we had eyeballed at the event, but the final GPU is indeed a close match to the 4650/4670, albeit with a deficit in the number of texture-mapping units and a lower clock speed - 550MHz"

"AMD's RV770 hardware is well documented so with these numbers we can now, categorically, finally rule out any next-gen pretensions for the Wii U - the GCN hardware in Durango and Orbis is in a completely different league. "

If the Wii U was going to be successful, it wouldn't be going through such a rough time. 

And here's a developer saying Wii U is  more powerful than PS3 and 360:

http://www.destructoid.com/5th-cell-wii-u-definitely-more-powerful-than-360-ps3-231285.phtml



Mazty on 08 March 2013
curl-6 said:

And here's a developer saying Wii U is  more powerful than PS3 and 360:

http://www.destructoid.com/5th-cell-wii-u-definitely-more-powerful-than-360-ps3-231285.phtml


By how much? The dev I spoke to said it's more powerful by such a small amount that you may as well say they are on par. Considering the CPU, this would make sense. 
Either way, we have yet to see it actually demonstrate any power beyond what we can see in the 360 & PS3...So people can say it's more powerful all they want, but until we have some evidence, I'm going to side with the devs who say it's virtually the same.