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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U and Why a New Product Requires New Experiences

curl-6 on 10 July 2013
superchunk said:

Disney - Epic Mickey 2 (new game but what's different as compared to part one?)

The first one was good while the second is shit, that's what's different.



Around the Network
NoirSon on 10 July 2013
BossPuma said:
EricFabian said:
BossPuma said:

After the DS, it is true.


yes. But you can't generalize


Ok, so after the DS Nintendo decided to make their hardware marginally more powerful than the generation before it and it backfired with the Wii U

Technically they have been doing this with their portable systems the entire time, but yeah after having superior hardware (that failed due to their medium) in two different generations they went the low price method with the Wii and then again with Wii U. It benefits them since the Japanese development industry outside of the major powers haven't adapted well to HD development along with the Japanese audience has pretty much abandoned hardware in favor of portable machines and they still make money off of hardware.

That being said, I agree the Wii U needs new experiences and Nintendo has failed to show off those it does have. Personally, I think a different name, along with controllers that move it away from the Wii brand probably would have been for the best if they couldn't guarantee having the software ready by the launch window by the time of E3.



curl-6 on 10 July 2013

So far Nintendo has utterly failed to show why Wii U is a major upgrade from the Wii; not only do their games (excluding the magnificent X) look like Wii games in HD, but more importantly they haven't shown the Gamepad to be a breakthrough, or even a very important feature; most of their games barely use it.

Games like ZombiU and Nintendoland show the Pad has great potential, but Nintendo don't seem to be interested in utilizing this potential.



Cobretti2 on 10 July 2013
Soundwave said:
Cobretti2 said:
BossPuma said:
MDMAlliance said:
BossPuma said:

Nintendo has a marketing problem and they are too stubborn to give 3rd parties what they want, like Sony and Microsoft do.

I love Nintendo games but there is just too much competition for them to carry themselves alone, not to mention that they dropped the ball with about everything regarding the launch of the Wii U.

Honestly I'm not sure what the bold means.  Nintendo does do marketing but I do agree that their marketing efforts are weak in comparison to Sony and Microsoft.

I don't think we know much at all with what Nintendo is doing with/to their 3rd parties, or that their competition really gives that much of what their 3rd parties want.  Also, giving too much power to 3rd parties would make it that you no longer are in control of your own console, and I am pretty sure Nintendo doesn't want to give up all the control they have.  I do think, though, that they should reach out more to 3rd parties for exclusives (multiplats too, but it's not as important considering the power difference between the PS4/XB1 and Wii U, most will go for the other consoles).

The italics part, I think it's more post-launch than the launch itself.  Wii U launched well with a good lineup available at launch, they just didn't follow through.

I was talking about Nintendo making their system incredibly less powerful than the Ps4 and Xbone, that developers dont even want to bother with the Wii U especially when it wont bring them a huge profit. Nintendo has done it in the past with the Wii which was hardly more powerful than the original Xbox, and the 3ds which is around 50% more powerful than the PsP. And just because those systems are really successful, i have no idea why Nintendo decided to test their luck with 3rd parties again when the stakes are so high.

The Wii U's launch was not as good as it could have been, Rayman and Pikmin 3 were delayed for almost a year.

Well this is what I think. They did listen to developers mainly EA with their unprecident support and hang holding at E32012.  Then origin happened and we all knwo what happened there.

I think EA lead them down the wrong path with the false promise of games.

Saying all that Nintendo should have listened to more than EA and got a broader opinion on what devs wanted. However as many have ases before countless times on these forums would 3rd parties jump onboard? They sure didn't on  Gamecube or even Wii for that matter when it was market leader by a huge marging, so what would differ in this scenario? 

We  have heard many excuses from 3rd parties over the years why they don't develope games for Nintendo consoles like:

1. We can't compete with Nintendo games - a stupid reason cause the games they make don't compete with them as different genres.

2. The hardware is too weak.

3. Nintendo needs to grow the market for us - do they really? 3rd parties is what made Sony and Microsoft grow, so 4rd parties grw their markets.

4. We testing the waters on Wii - yer with crap games that no one asked for and even publically annouced theycrao by gamers.

5. We will develope when Wii U base grows - well PS4 and Xbox One is 0 atm, games sell consoles not console sell games.

6. Nintendo gamers are all talk - partially true as even the good ports that arent too old didn't sell well, but you won't convince them to waste money on watered down ports with missing features and at full retail price against better discounted versions. Not to mention some games that have launched had nice special editions on the other systems with bonus stuff like sound tracks and books but Wii U was jsut a standard game only.

etc..

 

The problem here is:

Nintendo is stubborn

3rd parties are stubborn

Nintendo gamers are stubborn

 

Until everyone stops being stubborn, Nintendo consoles will never flurish in an all round way like a sony or micrososft console. They will be destined to be NIntendo game consoles only and the Nintendo fan base is shrinking due to the fact their games have really offered no new experiences.

How can this change? well the best start is the gamers, they need to support games like Watch Dogs, Rayman, Splinter Cell to show that there is a market for 3rd parties. There litrally is no excuses as they will be launching at the same time or infact ahread of some versions. 

Why should I pay the same $59.99 for Watch Dogs on Wii U when the PS4 version at the same price likely will have higher resolution graphics (1080p), better visuals, and quite likely a better frame rate also?

I like to support Nintendo when it makes sense, but I'm not buying any multi-plat on the Wii U unless it's the best version of the game available to me.

As far as Rayman goes, Ubi Soft can suck it. I would have bought the game probably in spring or summer when there was no competetion, but in the fall I'd rather spend that money on Wonderful 101 or Pikmin 3.


Then why do you care about 3rd party support so much on Wii U in your other threads over the last few months that you have posted, if all you care about is better graphics?

You are a prime example of why most the fans are stubborn. You can't have the best of both worlds, if you want 3rd party support on Nintendo consoles then support 3rd parties if the games are good, otherwise stop complaining it has no 3rd party support and buy it for Nintendo games only.

Also your attitude to Rayman is BS, because before the delay all the Nintendo fans had was Rayman, now they got 3 more Ubisoft games coming. I think its a fair trade of and a win win situation for Nintendo only console gamers.



 

 

superchunk on 10 July 2013
RolStoppable said:

Bolded: You concluded your OP by saying that new experiences will be obvious on the X1/PS4, even though all those consoles are going to have at first are 360/PS3 games in HD.

But that is their way. So for them showing prettier new graphics is the way they can instantly demonstrate that its a new console with new experiences. Plus, its not just their graphical increase... but both of them have multiple new IPs coming along as well.

Nintendo only had ZombiU. A game that is not visually "next-gen" by major standards and who's gameplay is not easily transmitted through a commercial. Then if you do play it, you either love the style or hate it. Everything else existed in pretty much the same way, last gen.

I think Nintendo needs to do it with major changes to their IPs, through the gamepad, and/or massive graphical upgrade. It has to be quickly noticeable via a commercial that its new.



Around the Network
JGarret on 10 July 2013
RolStoppable said:
superchunk said:
RolStoppable said:

Bolded: You concluded your OP by saying that new experiences will be obvious on the X1/PS4, even though all those consoles are going to have at first are 360/PS3 games in HD.

But that is their way. So for them showing prettier new graphics is the way they can instantly demonstrate that its a new console with new experiences. Plus, its not just their graphical increase... but both of them have multiple new IPs coming along as well.

Nintendo only had ZombiU. A game that is not visually "next-gen" by major standards and who's gameplay is not easily transmitted through a commercial. Then if you do play it, you either love the style or hate it. Everything else existed in pretty much the same way, last gen.

I think Nintendo needs to do it with major changes to their IPs, through the gamepad, and/or massive graphical upgrade. It has to be quickly noticeable via a commercial that its new.

You've been here long enough to remember the 360's and PS3's first year struggles. Two consoles with graphical increase and multiple new IPs. It didn't work back then, it's not going to work now. It took the PS2 pipeline of games to dry up and price cuts to get things moving.

The Gamepad is new, it's just that it is lame and expensive. That's a dangerous combination. Nintendo could have easily succeeded in the eighth generation by making gaming affordable, but that's not the route they chose.

Rol, do you think there´s a risk that Mario 3D World will end up performing worse than Nintendo expects (it´s true that I don´t know what their expectations are, but they´re sure hoping it´ll move a lot of systems)?...or to put it differently, do you see it as a game that neither 3D Mario fans nor 2D Mario fans asked for?



teigaga on 10 July 2013
RolStoppable said:
superchunk said:

But that is their way. So for them showing prettier new graphics is the way they can instantly demonstrate that its a new console with new experiences. Plus, its not just their graphical increase... but both of them have multiple new IPs coming along as well.

Nintendo only had ZombiU. A game that is not visually "next-gen" by major standards and who's gameplay is not easily transmitted through a commercial. Then if you do play it, you either love the style or hate it. Everything else existed in pretty much the same way, last gen.

I think Nintendo needs to do it with major changes to their IPs, through the gamepad, and/or massive graphical upgrade. It has to be quickly noticeable via a commercial that its new.

You've been here long enough to remember the 360's and PS3's first year struggles. Two consoles with graphical increase and multiple new IPs. It didn't work back then, it's not going to work now. It took the PS2 pipeline of games to dry up and price cuts to get things moving.

The Gamepad is new, it's just that it is lame and expensive. That's a dangerous combination. Nintendo could have easily succeeded in the eighth generation by making gaming affordable, but that's not the route they chose.


I'd say it did work. The PS3 didn't perform to its full potential but both system did fairly well.

Xbox 360: 8m- Pretty good year for the successor of a system which only sold 22m for its entire life. It only had 2 System sellers (Oblivion and Gears)
PS3: 9.5m- Pretty good for a $600 system which didn't launch in Europe til spring 2007 and had no killer apps year one. 

Year ones sales are slow, the masses aren't interested in a new $400-$500 system, they never have been.  Even a lot of hardcore gamers aren't. However Nintendo couldn't have simply taken the cheap route because they would still face the dilema of the fleeting casual audience and having to compete with the PS3/360 + arrival of PS4/ONE.



famousringo on 10 July 2013

You're absolutely right, chunk. Even with the Wii, the new experiences from Nintendo tapered away to be replaced by an endless stream of 2D platformers. There was clearly pent-up demand for some classic 2D platforming, but seeing another platformer on the Wii was getting to be as stale as seeing a new shooter on 360. Quality, freshness, variety builds a game library.

Nintendoland shows lots of new ideas for the gamepad, but there are no killer apps yet. After playing Pikmin in Nintendoland, Pikmin 3 may be the first. Nintendo needs to build those ideas into full-blown experiences, because the lowest common denominator games of third parties sure aren't going to do that for them.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

teigaga on 10 July 2013
RolStoppable said:
teigaga said:

I'd say it did work. The PS3 didn't perform to its full potential but both system did fairly well.

Xbox 360: 8m- Pretty good year for the successor of a system which only sold 22m for its entire life. It only had 2 System sellers (Oblivion and Gears)
PS3: 9.5m- Pretty good for a $600 system which didn't launch in Europe til spring 2007 and had no killer apps year one. 

Year ones sales are slow, the masses aren't interested in a new $400-$500 system, they never have been.  Even a lot of hardcore gamers aren't. However Nintendo couldn't have simply taken the cheap route because they would still face the dilema of the fleeting casual audience and having to compete with the PS3/360 + arrival of PS4/ONE.

Microsoft burned $1.5 billion and Sony burned $3 billion to achieve those numbers. That's a far cry from success. It's desperately buying market share, because the product itself is so poorly conceived.

A Wii 2 with the Wiimote/Nunchuk as the standard controller wouldn't have been in symmetrical competition with the PS3 and 360, just like the Wii wasn't with the PS2.

Thats where I argue the case of the fleeting casual audience and the diminishing selling point of the motion controllers, especially a controller which everone already has (wiimote/numchuck). Its not new anymore.

They'd either need to come up with a new gimmick/novel feature (they tried and failed) or try to incorporate the core gaming audiences  and go for graphics+online connectivity.  



superchunk on 10 July 2013
RolStoppable said:

You've been here long enough to remember the 360's and PS3's first year struggles. Two consoles with graphical increase and multiple new IPs. It didn't work back then, it's not going to work now. It took the PS2 pipeline of games to dry up and price cuts to get things moving.

The Gamepad is new, it's just that it is lame and expensive. That's a dangerous combination. Nintendo could have easily succeeded in the eighth generation by making gaming affordable, but that's not the route they chose.

The WiiU is only 400k to 600k behind PS360 at the same time. However, the big difference is they were selling weekly what WiiU did for all of last month. They clearly had something WiiU does not at the same time frame. Its new experiences. In their case, it was games that were clearly new as compared to the prev gen.

Wii U still doesn't have that.

Gamepad could be good given the right experience. I don't think that's unfathomable at their current $350 price.