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
curl-6 on 08 March 2013
TheJimbo1234 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.


Or I have a degree in the relevant field and know exactly what those figures mean... What do you have?

1. Yes, common place thus it isn't new, fancy, or going to add anything. It does not cause the same buzz as motion controls.

2. To have one in your room? To have one with your PC? Also seeing that tablets can stream TV shows, this also makes that feature usless. If you can't afford a second scree or tablet, how can you afford a console with games? It's a contradictory target market.

3. Yes, now go use ebuyer and stop commenting on things you clealry don't know anything about.

4. No it isn't. It broke immersion and was an over glorified eyetoy. As I said a million times before, it added nothing to the actual game. You couldn't do things you were unable to do before. Take WiiSport and GoW. WiiSport was not immersive, and fun for about 2 hours. GoW was very immersive and the cover system added to that.If motion controls was such a massive jump, why are they not compulsory anymore? Why are we keeping pads? They only work with something like the Oculus Rift, otherwise they are a waste of time. Oh, and the games feature them as a side function, not a necessity unless it is a specific kinetic party game or wii party game.

5. And their ideas are so good few people are buying the WiiU. Wait what? And 6 player local splitscreen? Who cares. I was playing 16 player lan parties on Halo back in 2001 in one room, so how is this an advancement 12 years on?

 

 

As I said, the fact that you haven't proved me wrong and this debate still continues, along with the sub 30k sales this week, no one can fairly argue that the PS3 had a worse launch.

No proof that you really have a degree is what I have.

1. Whoever said it had the same buzz as motion controls? Stop changing the question. They are relateable.

2. And people who are willing to spend money on a console because they want to play games, but don't want to throw away money on a redundant screen? PCs come with monitors. Cheaper to buy a Wii U and TV than two TVs and another console.

3. Sorry, but you lost all credibility as someone who knows what they're talking about when you said you can build a complete PC than can match a PS4 in gaming for 450 pounds. Start a thread on that and watch your claim get torn to shreds.

4. Gears of War wasn't immersive; aiming meant fiddling with a thumbstick the same way I aimed weapons back on the N64 and PS1 in 1997. That's not innovative, that's backwards. It's not just "last gen" but "gen before last gen." It's a gameplay method older than the turn of the millennium. Now being able to use your own movements to interact with a game world in connective way, a swing of your arm swinging a sword in Zelda, the pointing of my own arm moving Samus's arm cannon, that goes beyond anything story, graphics, or a cover system could ever hope to accomplish. They're not mandatory the same way 3D graphics or a first person camera aren't mandatory, doesn't meant they're not an important step for gaming.

5. Most good ideas don't explode right off the bat, they take time to gain traction.

And you were playing 16 player games with how many TVs and consoles though? Because not everyone wants to set up two TVs and two consoles (if they even have that many available) in the same room every time they want to play with more than 3 friends. Playing with friends in the same room is the quitessential Nintendo experience. And playing with 6 people on one TV instead of 4 is powerful stuff. No longer having to take turns when you have 6 people at a party or if you're a family of 6. Can't do that on other consoles.

And once again, you're making assumptions and countering claims I never made. I voted Wii U.

Anyway, I'm done. This was fun, but it's starting to get repetitive, and like with games, I quit when the fun stops. Have a good day, sir.



Around the Network
TheJimbo1234 on 08 March 2013
curl-6 said:
TheJimbo1234 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.


Or I have a degree in the relevant field and know exactly what those figures mean... What do you have?

1. Yes, common place thus it isn't new, fancy, or going to add anything. It does not cause the same buzz as motion controls.

2. To have one in your room? To have one with your PC? Also seeing that tablets can stream TV shows, this also makes that feature usless. If you can't afford a second scree or tablet, how can you afford a console with games? It's a contradictory target market.

3. Yes, now go use ebuyer and stop commenting on things you clealry don't know anything about.

4. No it isn't. It broke immersion and was an over glorified eyetoy. As I said a million times before, it added nothing to the actual game. You couldn't do things you were unable to do before. Take WiiSport and GoW. WiiSport was not immersive, and fun for about 2 hours. GoW was very immersive and the cover system added to that.If motion controls was such a massive jump, why are they not compulsory anymore? Why are we keeping pads? They only work with something like the Oculus Rift, otherwise they are a waste of time. Oh, and the games feature them as a side function, not a necessity unless it is a specific kinetic party game or wii party game.

5. And their ideas are so good few people are buying the WiiU. Wait what? And 6 player local splitscreen? Who cares. I was playing 16 player lan parties on Halo back in 2001 in one room, so how is this an advancement 12 years on?

 

 

As I said, the fact that you haven't proved me wrong and this debate still continues, along with the sub 30k sales this week, no one can fairly argue that the PS3 had a worse launch.

No proof that you really have a degree is what I have.

1. Whoever said it had the same buzz as motion controls? Stop changing the question. They are relateable.

2. And people who are willing to spend money on a console because they want to play games, but don't want to throw away money on a redundant screen? PCs come with monitors. Cheaper to buy a Wii U and TV than two TVs and another console.

3. Sorry, but you lost all credibility as someone who knows what they're talking about when you said you can build a complete PC than can match a PS4 in gaming for 450 pounds. Start a thread on that and watch your claim get torn to shreds.

4. Gears of War wasn't immersive; aiming meant fiddling with a thumbstick the same way I aimed weapons back on the N64 and PS1 in 1997. That's not innovative, that's backwards. It's not just "last gen" but "gen before last gen." It's a gameplay method older than the turn of the millennium. Now being able to use your own movements to interact with a game world in connective way, a swing of your arm swinging a sword in Zelda, the pointing of my own arm moving Samus's arm cannon, that goes beyond anything story, graphics, or a cover system could ever hope to accomplish. They're not mandatory the same way 3D graphics or a first person camera aren't mandatory, doesn't meant they're not an important step for gaming.

5. Most good ideas don't explode right off the bat, they take time to gain traction.

And you were playing 16 player games with how many TVs and consoles though? Because not everyone wants to set up two TVs and two consoles (if they even have that many available) in the same room every time they want to play with more than 3 friends. Playing with friends in the same room is the quitessential Nintendo experience. And playing with 6 people on one TV instead of 4 is powerful stuff. No longer having to take turns when you have 6 people at a party or if you're a family of 6. Can't do that on other consoles.

And once again, you're making assumptions and countering claims I never made. I voted Wii U.

Anyway, I'm done. This was fun, but it's starting to get repetitive, and like with games, I quit when the fun stops. Have a good day, sir.


Haha! Your defense is "You're lying!!!! You can't actually be that well educated and know more than me!" Well sorry, I do.

1. You clealry don't posses the analytical mindset needed to understand the writers point (or mine). If you think that explaining how touchpads make games more fun is as easy as explaining why motion controls are good, than we are living on two different planets.

2.So it is aimed at the poorer market...yet this is a recession so only the wealthy middle class can splash out on luxuries such as new consoles. No wonder sales are low.

3.Or an AMD 8 core and 7850, with 8GB of RAM are dirt cheap. All of that comes in at less than £250 *rollseyes*. I advised you to look at ebuyer but you didn't and now just look silly.

4.Oh so now no game is immersive because of pads? Wow, warping reality a bit aren't we. "Hey guys! FFVII wasn't immersive 'cause you had a pad!". Just no.

5. According to whom? Just you. Wii was strong from the start and didn't struggle to implement the motion controls into games, but apparently things now take time.

 

4 tvs, 4 consoles, 16 guys. Well kids should stop being lazy. It took almost no effort and was brilliant, plus no one was constrained by battery life or squint-o-vision.

If you can afford to have 6 kids, you can afford to have 2 tvs and 2 consoles.



Netyaroze on 08 March 2013

PS3 had a worse launch in terms of price and losses.

 

Wii U had a worse launch in terms of awareness.

 

If you look back at the PS3, everybody was aware it existed. It had this highend feeling to it. Nobody was willing to pay ofcourse and Sony made huge losses. But people still wanted one just not for that price. Xbox 360 had superior price and software yet people stil kept talking about the PS3. And when you look at it Sony offered Hardware features from the future in the PS3, which made it look desireable despite the price and the game drought.

 

But the Wii U is basically unknown. And I know noone who plans to buy it or even talks about it. People seem to think Wii U is a Wii. And if they say Nintendo HD console on TV nobody even realizes what the novelty is or the difference to what existed years ago.  The Screencontroller seems old. In the way that the average person  knows tablets. While visiting my relatives we saw a a Wii U Commercial and I observed them watching the commercial. And I asked them so what do you think of the new Wii. Irritated they asked me what new WII ? I said we just watched the commercial. Ohh right. So whats new ? I said the screen controller and HD. They were surprised that this was a new thing. Thinking that this has been somehow done before, somewhere else.

 

Nintendo needs games and need better marketing and show why people should buy it. Also 349 for a Nintendo is too much its "just" a Nintendo aka gaming device.

 

 

 

Wii Us problems can be fixed if the games are there and the marketing shows whats good about it what can be done, 

 

This is how uninformed people would probably percieve it (in Europe atleast): PS 3 expensive but hightech maybe later. Wii U ??????

 

I would say its a tie PS3 screwed up everything but all those screw ups were not obvious except price. Wii Us screw up is not being seen as new or not being seen at all. 

 

 

 

 



coolguy on 08 March 2013

both had bad launchs i rember geting my ps3 on launch day pre- order. then the week before thanksgiveing
every store had them in stock



VITA 32 GIG CARD.250 GIG SLIM & 160 GIG PHAT PS3

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

Lolwut, how'd you come to the conclusion that the CPU based parts are better on the Wii U?! The article clearly stated that the Wii U is not good with CPU intensive games...

Because the article clearly says that the more advanced physics of the PC build are present in the Wii U build, but not on PS3/360.

The article's claim that the Wii U isn't good at CPU intensive games is based on CPU intensive games so far, which have all been rushed, badly optimised launch ports built on crappy devkits. That's like using Half Life 2's often single-digit framerate on PS3 to say the Cell is weak.

Way to warp the article. It clearly states the CPU intensive games are not good for the Wii U. Because of this lack of potential, sales are very, very low.



Around the Network
adriane23 on 08 March 2013

PS3 in my opinion. The Wii U's failings are mostly in its performance capabilities, and lack of games.



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

curl-6 on 09 March 2013
Mazty said:
curl-6 said:
Mazty said:

Lolwut, how'd you come to the conclusion that the CPU based parts are better on the Wii U?! The article clearly stated that the Wii U is not good with CPU intensive games...

Because the article clearly says that the more advanced physics of the PC build are present in the Wii U build, but not on PS3/360.

The article's claim that the Wii U isn't good at CPU intensive games is based on CPU intensive games so far, which have all been rushed, badly optimised launch ports built on crappy devkits. That's like using Half Life 2's often single-digit framerate on PS3 to say the Cell is weak.

Way to warp the article. It clearly states the CPU intensive games are not good for the Wii U. Because of this lack of potential, sales are very, very low.

And what are they basing this assumption on? The performance of rushed, sloppy launch ports made with subpar devkits. (Arkham City, Black Ops 2, Mass Effect 3) That's not an accurate measurement of a console's potential.

 

Criterion had this to say about the CPU: "When they first looked at the specs on paper a lot of developers said, 'Well, you know this is a bit lightweight' and they walked away. I think a lot of people have been premature about it in a lot of ways because while it is a lower clock-speed, it punches above its weight in a lot of other areas." 

"So, I think you've got one group of people who walked away, you've got some other people who just dived in and tried and thought, 'Ah... it's not kind of there,' but not many people have done what we've done, which is to sit down and look at where it's weaker and why, but also see where it's stronger and leverage that. It's a different kind of chip and it's not fair to look at its clock-speed and other consoles' clock-speed and compare them as numbers that are relevant. It's not a relevant comparison to make when you have processors that are so divergent. It's apples and oranges."



Mazty on 09 March 2013
curl-6 said:
Mazty said:
curl-6 said:
Mazty said:

Lolwut, how'd you come to the conclusion that the CPU based parts are better on the Wii U?! The article clearly stated that the Wii U is not good with CPU intensive games...

Because the article clearly says that the more advanced physics of the PC build are present in the Wii U build, but not on PS3/360.

The article's claim that the Wii U isn't good at CPU intensive games is based on CPU intensive games so far, which have all been rushed, badly optimised launch ports built on crappy devkits. That's like using Half Life 2's often single-digit framerate on PS3 to say the Cell is weak.

Way to warp the article. It clearly states the CPU intensive games are not good for the Wii U. Because of this lack of potential, sales are very, very low.

And what are they basing this assumption on? The performance of rushed, sloppy launch ports made with subpar devkits. (Arkham City, Black Ops 2, Mass Effect 3) That's not an accurate measurement of a console's potential.

 

Criterion had this to say about the CPU: "When they first looked at the specs on paper a lot of developers said, 'Well, you know this is a bit lightweight' and they walked away. I think a lot of people have been premature about it in a lot of ways because while it is a lower clock-speed, it punches above its weight in a lot of other areas." 

"So, I think you've got one group of people who walked away, you've got some other people who just dived in and tried and thought, 'Ah... it's not kind of there,' but not many people have done what we've done, which is to sit down and look at where it's weaker and why, but also see where it's stronger and leverage that. It's a different kind of chip and it's not fair to look at its clock-speed and other consoles' clock-speed and compare them as numbers that are relevant. It's not a relevant comparison to make when you have processors that are so divergent. It's apples and oranges."

Yeah I'm going to stop here and just say you obviously don't understand how hardware works. Both articles have now reaffirmed that while the GPU may be better than what's in the PS3/360, the CPU is weaker, which drastically limits the consoles capabilities. Note in the first bolded sentence "OTHER AREAS", not "all", but "other".

Either way we have yet to see any game that looks "next gen" on the Wii U and because of this, the launch has been worse than the PS3 because we have to just work on the belief that it's next-gen rather as we have no evidence that it is (and frankly other sources believe it not to be).



curl-6 on 09 March 2013
Mazty said:
curl-6 said:
Mazty said:
curl-6 said:
Mazty said:

Lolwut, how'd you come to the conclusion that the CPU based parts are better on the Wii U?! The article clearly stated that the Wii U is not good with CPU intensive games...

Because the article clearly says that the more advanced physics of the PC build are present in the Wii U build, but not on PS3/360.

The article's claim that the Wii U isn't good at CPU intensive games is based on CPU intensive games so far, which have all been rushed, badly optimised launch ports built on crappy devkits. That's like using Half Life 2's often single-digit framerate on PS3 to say the Cell is weak.

Way to warp the article. It clearly states the CPU intensive games are not good for the Wii U. Because of this lack of potential, sales are very, very low.

And what are they basing this assumption on? The performance of rushed, sloppy launch ports made with subpar devkits. (Arkham City, Black Ops 2, Mass Effect 3) That's not an accurate measurement of a console's potential.

 

Criterion had this to say about the CPU: "When they first looked at the specs on paper a lot of developers said, 'Well, you know this is a bit lightweight' and they walked away. I think a lot of people have been premature about it in a lot of ways because while it is a lower clock-speed, it punches above its weight in a lot of other areas." 

"So, I think you've got one group of people who walked away, you've got some other people who just dived in and tried and thought, 'Ah... it's not kind of there,' but not many people have done what we've done, which is to sit down and look at where it's weaker and why, but also see where it's stronger and leverage that. It's a different kind of chip and it's not fair to look at its clock-speed and other consoles' clock-speed and compare them as numbers that are relevant. It's not a relevant comparison to make when you have processors that are so divergent. It's apples and oranges."

Yeah I'm going to stop here and just say you obviously don't understand how hardware works. Both articles have now reaffirmed that while the GPU may be better than what's in the PS3/360, the CPU is weaker, which drastically limits the consoles capabilities. Note in the first bolded sentence "OTHER AREAS", not "all", but "other".

Either way we have yet to see any game that looks "next gen" on the Wii U and because of this, the launch has been worse than the PS3 because we have to just work on the belief that it's next-gen rather as we have no evidence that it is (and frankly other sources believe it not to be).

You obviously know nothing about hardware if you think ported launch titles made with poor devkits are indicative of a system's potential. Was Call of Duty 3 indicative of the PS3's potential? Was Call of Duty 2 indicative of the Xbox 360's?

The digital foundry article confirms nothing because it is speculation. Speculation based on illogical reasoning to boot.

And I'm not arguing about 7th versus 8th gen, because gens are not defined by graphics.



Mazty on 09 March 2013
curl-6 said:
Mazty said:

Yeah I'm going to stop here and just say you obviously don't understand how hardware works. Both articles have now reaffirmed that while the GPU may be better than what's in the PS3/360, the CPU is weaker, which drastically limits the consoles capabilities. Note in the first bolded sentence "OTHER AREAS", not "all", but "other".

Either way we have yet to see any game that looks "next gen" on the Wii U and because of this, the launch has been worse than the PS3 because we have to just work on the belief that it's next-gen rather as we have no evidence that it is (and frankly other sources believe it not to be).

You obviously know nothing about hardware if you think ported launch titles made with poor devkits are indicative of a system's potential. Was Call of Duty 3 indicative of the PS3's potential? Was Call of Duty 2 indicative of the Xbox 360's?

The digital foundry article confirms nothing because it is speculation. Speculation based on illogical reasoning to boot.

And I'm not arguing about 7th versus 8th gen, because gens are not defined by graphics.

Lol don't you mean software?..........

Fact is CoD 3 looked a hell of a lot better than anything available on either the PS2 or Xbox, same with CoD 2. The Wii U currently offers NOTHING that looks superior to the existing consoles. 
Oh right because the Wii U is showing us game demos that look as good as Shadow Fall....Oh wait......It looks like DF are quite obviously right on this front. If you think a HD4650 can keep up with a HD7850 you shouldn't try to discuss hardware. 

Well DF and EA seem to think gens are defined by power. Either way the Wii U has shown us nothing superior to the existing consoles, hence why it's launch has been a total bust. People weren't speculating the downfall of Sony with the slow sales of the PS3.