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

Forums - Nintendo - Nintendo's Conflicting Hardware and Software Philosophies

Purple on 15 December 2013
Zero999 said:
Purple said:
Soundwave said:
The Wii was never a repeatable formula. That was the problem all along.

The whole concept doesn't work unless you have a NEW incredible type of gimmick/hook to sell the system and Nintendo's R&D failed to supply it (and to be fair, to ask them to replicate that every 5-6 years is unfair, even Apple is having a hard time finding something new with the same impact as the iPod > iPhone > iPad run they've had).

There's no doubt Nintendo were trying to repeat it though. You don't put in a controller that makes up 33% of the total cost of the console unless you have a very good reason. (And I'm guessing here, but a lot of the Wii U's best tech is streaming related, so R&D for it wouldn't have been cheap).

I wonder if EAD just realised there was nothing revolutionary they could do with it from day one. The fact we haven't seen any gamepad features for upcoming games makes me think it may just be an off-tv play accessory from here on out.

bolded: sinapses said hello.

I don't know what that means?



Around the Network
prayformojo on 15 December 2013
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
I do admit that the Gamepad didn't WoW me as much as motion controls did but what would be the other option? Make a regular game console and have all 3 consoles be virtually the same? Nintendo did that with the Gamecube where it was more powerful than the ps2 with the best Controller ever... Did it sell? Hardly.

The GameCube didn't have parody with the PS2. It didn't have a DVD player. It didn't have online play outside of a few titles. It didn't have two, regular sized analog sticks. It was purple and it's media was too small for games like GTA. 

The last time Nintnedo played the "out muscle your oppent" game was the SNES, and it worked beautifully. It would happen again if they decided to grow some balls and attack. They aren't interested in that though, sadly.



zorg1000 on 15 December 2013
Zero999 said:
bananaking21 said:
Zero999 said:
bananaking21 said:
Zero999 said:

"It serves a minimal function in most games, adds a huge cost in development, increases the price of the system for consumers"

I stopped reading after that.


i honestly want to know what you think the reason for the low WiiU sales is then. 

I honestly want to know the relation you think that exists between my post and yours.

its not hard really. the OP states there is a conflicitng philosophies between hardware and software. of course you dont need to be a genius to see that the end result is the WiiUs current failure. but since you shot down the OP's reasoning, i want to hear yours. unless, you dont have one that is. 

check the quote a few times. see this part "It serves a minimal function in most games, adds a huge cost in development, increases the price of the system for consumers"?

It was enough to know the kind of bullshit that was coming afterwards. and as I said, i didn't read.

Care to explain how that statement is incorrect?



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Zero999 on 15 December 2013
zorg1000 said:
Zero999 said:
bananaking21 said:

its not hard really. the OP states there is a conflicitng philosophies between hardware and software. of course you dont need to be a genius to see that the end result is the WiiUs current failure. but since you shot down the OP's reasoning, i want to hear yours. unless, you dont have one that is. 

check the quote a few times. see this part "It serves a minimal function in most games, adds a huge cost in development, increases the price of the system for consumers"?

It was enough to know the kind of bullshit that was coming afterwards. and as I said, i didn't read.

Care to explain how that statement is incorrect?

it increases the retail price by what? 50 dollars? wich means no huge cost in development. and regardless of x and y game using it, at the bare minimum, it makes the games slightly better. If you don't want some extra functions in certain games, many titles offer off tv play, wich is amazing.

the fact is that you pay just a little more for a much better controller.



Purple on 15 December 2013
Zero999 said:
zorg1000 said:
Zero999 said:
bananaking21 said:

its not hard really. the OP states there is a conflicitng philosophies between hardware and software. of course you dont need to be a genius to see that the end result is the WiiUs current failure. but since you shot down the OP's reasoning, i want to hear yours. unless, you dont have one that is. 

check the quote a few times. see this part "It serves a minimal function in most games, adds a huge cost in development, increases the price of the system for consumers"?

It was enough to know the kind of bullshit that was coming afterwards. and as I said, i didn't read.

Care to explain how that statement is incorrect?

it increases the retail price by what? 50 dollars? wich means no huge cost in development. and regardless of x and y game using it, at the bare minimum, it makes the games slightly better. If you don't want some extra functions in certain games, many titles offer off tv play, wich is amazing.

the fact is that you pay just a little more for a much better controller.

1) It accounts for one third of the raw material cost of the console. There are no specific figures but you can assume it would have taken up a huge part of R&D costs.

It is in no way a small amount.

2) You admit then it offers minimal function for most games.

3) A replacement gamepad costs ~$150. Half of the price of a new console.

 



Around the Network
Zero999 on 15 December 2013
Purple said:

1) It accounts for one third of the raw material cost of the console. There are no specific figures but you can assume it would have taken up a huge part of R&D costs.

It is in no way a small amount.

2) You admit then it offers minimal function for most games.

3) A replacement gamepad costs ~$150. Half of the price of a new console.

 

bolded: that isn't an argument at all, because as I said, you are paying just a little more for something that adds tons of possibilities. games have been developed without the game pad in mind for decades, so you would expect that games developed with tradicional controls in mind wouldn't make amazing use of the gamepad. and even then there's off tv. what matters is that there are games that use it greatly and the ones who don't still offer you a better experience.

say whatever you wan't, slapping a pro controller/wii mote + nunchuck instead of the gamepad would only reduce retail price by 50 dollars.



Purple on 15 December 2013
Zero999 said:
Purple said:

1) It accounts for one third of the raw material cost of the console. There are no specific figures but you can assume it would have taken up a huge part of R&D costs.

It is in no way a small amount.

2) You admit then it offers minimal function for most games.

3) A replacement gamepad costs ~$150. Half of the price of a new console.

 

bolded: that isn't an argument at all, because as I said, you are paying just a little more for something that adds tons of possibilities. games have been developed without the game pad in mind for decades, so you would expect that games developed with tradicional controls in mind wouldn't make amazing use of the gamepad. and even then there's off tv. what matters is that there are games that use it greatly and the ones who don't still offer you a better experience.

It's not a little more. It adds 50% more to the material price.

Game and Wario and Nintendoland are the only two Nintendo games that depend on the gamepad. There is no way Nintendo decided to add 50% to the price of the system for those two games and some handy extra features in other games. There has clearly been a conflicting vision between hardware and software divisions.

 



Scisca on 15 December 2013
Zero999 said:
Purple said:

1) It accounts for one third of the raw material cost of the console. There are no specific figures but you can assume it would have taken up a huge part of R&D costs.

It is in no way a small amount.

2) You admit then it offers minimal function for most games.

3) A replacement gamepad costs ~$150. Half of the price of a new console.

 

bolded: that isn't an argument at all, because as I said, you are paying just a little more for something that adds tons of possibilities. games have been developed without the game pad in mind for decades, so you would expect that games developed with tradicional controls in mind wouldn't make amazing use of the gamepad. and even then there's off tv. what matters is that there are games that use it greatly and the ones who don't still offer you a better experience.

say whatever you wan't, slapping a pro controller/wii mote + nunchuck instead of the gamepad would only reduce retail price by 50 dollars.


God, do I hate hearing BS like this. I hate when Reggie or officials from other companies go with "imagine the possibilities". No. F*** you. Show me what you can do, and stop with this BS. So far GamePad is heavily underutilised and Nintendo has to start making something out of it. So far Zombi U has the best usage I've seen (I don't care about minigames), so it's shameful for Nintendo to be outdone by a 3rd party launch game.

Imagine the possibilities... Please, stay excited... God...



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.

zorg1000 on 15 December 2013
Zero999 said:
zorg1000 said:
Zero999 said:
bananaking21 said:

its not hard really. the OP states there is a conflicitng philosophies between hardware and software. of course you dont need to be a genius to see that the end result is the WiiUs current failure. but since you shot down the OP's reasoning, i want to hear yours. unless, you dont have one that is. 

check the quote a few times. see this part "It serves a minimal function in most games, adds a huge cost in development, increases the price of the system for consumers"?

It was enough to know the kind of bullshit that was coming afterwards. and as I said, i didn't read.

Care to explain how that statement is incorrect?

it increases the retail price by what? 50 dollars? wich means no huge cost in development. and regardless of x and y game using it, at the bare minimum, it makes the games slightly better. If you don't want some extra functions in certain games, many titles offer off tv play, wich is amazing.

the fact is that you pay just a little more for a much better controller.

Well Miyamoto stated if the competitors had a gamepad it would increase there price by $100, that implies that it adds $100 to the cost of the Wii U. Now Wii U is currently sold at a loss at $299 with the gamepad so $199 without it would still be sold at a loss so lets say $229 for Wii U w/Motion Plus. 

Now they could still sell the gamepad seperatly bundled with a game that utilizes it the best, probably Nintendo Land, for $99-119.

 

 

U even just stated that it only makes games slightly better so u have to think is It worth an extra $70-100 for that and off TV play? For u it is and personally I agree but millions of people may think differently.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Soundwave on 15 December 2013

A $50 price cut could only help Nintendo at this stage. Wait another 5 months and maybe you can absorb another $50 in reductions and there you go $199.99 price point.

They may start to be able to sell around GameCube numbers at least with that and Mario Kart.