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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Fact is, who bought a Nintendo console, primary want to play games from nintendo!! True story party people

Zero999 said:
archbrix said:

The PS3 is currently $199 and not sold at a loss.  PS3 is older and has been in production much longer than WiiU, but it's also a blu-ray player, and WiiU is not vastly superior/more expensive tech.

It may only break even at $199, but a WiiU packaged with a Wiimote/nunchuck instead of the Gamepad would absolutely not hemorrhage money.

yes, it is. making a wii u costs a lot more than a ps3, wheter you like it or not.

Proof?

And why would I like it or dislike it if WiiU cost more to manufacture than a PS3?  Logic tells us that the box itself is not high end, expensive tech.  

I say the Gamepad is what's driving up the cost/causing losses.  I've already provided you with a link in another thread showing what Nintendo charges for a replacement.  While that could be on the high end, where's your proof to the contrary?  I'm still waiting for that evidence.



Around the Network

I bought a Wii for Nintendo games yet wanted third party games like Red Steel and No More Heroes as well as some gems like Deadly Creatures and Silent Hill Shattered Memories. I then purchased a 360 and PS3 because games like Dead Space, GTA, Mass Effect were only available for those systems.

With WiiU nintendo promised third party support so I bought it, and every single third party title I could to support them, yet I still have to buy a PS4because it'll be missing quite a few great third party titles in the future.



archbrix said:
Zero999 said:

yes, it is. making a wii u costs a lot more than a ps3, wheter you like it or not.

Proof?

And why would I like it or dislike it if WiiU cost more to manufacture than a PS3?  Logic tells us that the box itself is not high end, expensive tech.  

I say the Gamepad is what's driving up the cost/causing losses.  I've already provided you with a link in another thread showing what Nintendo charges for a replacement.  While that could be on the high end, where's your proof to the contrary?  I'm still waiting for that evidence.

bold: logic tells us that the box is quite HIGHER end than a ps3. I'm still trying to understand why do you think a much more powerful system can be sold for the same price as the old ps3 and still profit.



I bought the Wii U to be able to play Nintendo games AND 3rd party games- It is the only hoe console in our house- I would not have bought the Wii U if Iwata, Reggie and Co had not emphatically insisted they would do a much better job re 3rd party support for the Wi U- Nintendo does not put out many games- although they are high quality, the variety is very narrow-
THey also insisted they had learned from the 3DS software drought- now we are already in the middle of our 2nd major software drought for the Wii U in less than 2 years

So if all Nintendo wants are people to buy their console to play only their games they are doing a great job in that respect. But, even many of the people who bought the Wi U for Nintenod only games are still disappointed in the lack of games and lack of variety- so the amount of people they are pleasing right now is very low- and many of those that are "pleased" are still waiting to buy the console



Zero999 said:
archbrix said:
Zero999 said:

yes, it is. making a wii u costs a lot more than a ps3, wheter you like it or not.

Proof?

And why would I like it or dislike it if WiiU cost more to manufacture than a PS3?  Logic tells us that the box itself is not high end, expensive tech.  

I say the Gamepad is what's driving up the cost/causing losses.  I've already provided you with a link in another thread showing what Nintendo charges for a replacement.  While that could be on the high end, where's your proof to the contrary?  I'm still waiting for that evidence.

bold: logic tells us that the box is quite HIGHER end than a ps3. I'm still trying to understand why do you think a much more powerful system can be sold for the same price as the old ps3 and still profit.

I don't think that a much more powerful system can be sold for the same price as PS3 and still profit - but I think that WiiU could certainly be close to breaking even at the same price.  To say WiiU is "quite higher end" than the PS3 is grossly inaccurate as it implies that the console is more on par with the PS4.

We know that Ninty was selling the Gamepad from their site for $140 as of a year ago, and, even if that was a high end figure, it's quite obvious that the Gamepad is the main culprit of the higher price, not the tech.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
People put their money towards the best games. That's why third party titles in general don't do as hot on Nintendo systems as on other consoles. Whether it is the Nintendo fan or the multiconsole-owner, everyone knows that Nintendo games are the best choice.

There are two options to rectify this "problem":

1) Third parties offer better games on Nintendo systems.
2) Nintendo makes their own games worse and/or adjusts their hardware to appease third parties in order to make third party titles more appealing to consumers.

However, option 2 would negatively impact hardware sales of Nintendo platforms, thus third party games would once again not sell any significant numbers. Currently we can witness the results of option 2 with the Wii U; the console solved the problem of making equal ports of 360/PS3 games possible on Nintendo hardware, something that the Wii lacked. But those ports sell significantly worse than Wii third party games. Ergo, option 2 is not viable and needs to be scratched. Option 1 is the only way to go, so third parties need to step up their game.

So the reason 3rd party games sell poorly on nintendo systems is because people are so preoccupied with the three 1st party titles that come out every year? There are plenty of 3rd party games that are better than Nintendo's own titles, it has nothing to do with Nintendo titles being too good that other publishers can't compete. Call of Duty 4 sold great on 360 even though it launched near Halo 3.

P.S. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. If you are then disregard my post. 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Zero999 said:
archbrix said:
Zero999 said:

yes, it is. making a wii u costs a lot more than a ps3, wheter you like it or not.

Proof?

And why would I like it or dislike it if WiiU cost more to manufacture than a PS3?  Logic tells us that the box itself is not high end, expensive tech.  

I say the Gamepad is what's driving up the cost/causing losses.  I've already provided you with a link in another thread showing what Nintendo charges for a replacement.  While that could be on the high end, where's your proof to the contrary?  I'm still waiting for that evidence.

bold: logic tells us that the box is quite HIGHER end than a ps3. I'm still trying to understand why do you think a much more powerful system can be sold for the same price as the old ps3 and still profit.

Logic seems to be ur argument for everything yet u barely ever use it. What part of the hardware other than the Gamepad makes the console so much more expensive?



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

RolStoppable said:
People put their money towards the best games. That's why third party titles in general don't do as hot on Nintendo systems as on other consoles. Whether it is the Nintendo fan or the multiconsole-owner, everyone knows that Nintendo games are the best choice.

There are two options to rectify this "problem":

1) Third parties offer better games on Nintendo systems.
2) Nintendo makes their own games worse and/or adjusts their hardware to appease third parties in order to make third party titles more appealing to consumers.

However, option 2 would negatively impact hardware sales of Nintendo platforms, thus third party games would once again not sell any significant numbers. Currently we can witness the results of option 2 with the Wii U; the console solved the problem of making equal ports of 360/PS3 games possible on Nintendo hardware, something that the Wii lacked. But those ports sell significantly worse than Wii third party games. Ergo, option 2 is not viable and needs to be scratched. Option 1 is the only way to go, so third parties need to step up their game.

Third parties don't need Nintendo and won't be bothered. 

It's like that friend you had in junior high, you used to be best buds, but now you're in your 20s, and he lives an hour away, doesn't like going out, and doesn't have a car so you have to pick him up to go anywhere. 

You're more likely to hang out with your newer friends who all drive and have more similar tastes to you now. 

It doesn't mean you "hate" your old friend, you're still friendly and all ... it's just that you've moved on. 

Third parties are in the same place. Once upon a time they needed Nintendo, but now they have Sony and MS to make games for, and simply it's less of a headache to work with them. They make consoles that are generally straight forward in their design and marketed heavily to core gamers, which is the bread and butter of most third parties. 



That's true, but that's also the reason why the Wii U sales are trending towards GC numbers or less, because there are about that many dedicated Nintendo fans in the world who would buy a console just to play Nintendo games.

But with those kind of numbers, Nintendo won't be having the same kind of mainstream success they had with the Wii, or that Sony has with the Playstation brand.



 

Soundwave said:
RolStoppable said:
People put their money towards the best games. That's why third party titles in general don't do as hot on Nintendo systems as on other consoles. Whether it is the Nintendo fan or the multiconsole-owner, everyone knows that Nintendo games are the best choice.

There are two options to rectify this "problem":

1) Third parties offer better games on Nintendo systems.
2) Nintendo makes their own games worse and/or adjusts their hardware to appease third parties in order to make third party titles more appealing to consumers.

However, option 2 would negatively impact hardware sales of Nintendo platforms, thus third party games would once again not sell any significant numbers. Currently we can witness the results of option 2 with the Wii U; the console solved the problem of making equal ports of 360/PS3 games possible on Nintendo hardware, something that the Wii lacked. But those ports sell significantly worse than Wii third party games. Ergo, option 2 is not viable and needs to be scratched. Option 1 is the only way to go, so third parties need to step up their game.

Third parties don't need Nintendo and won't be bothered. 

It's like that friend you had in junior high, you used to be best buds, but now you're in your 20s, and he lives an hour away, doesn't like going out, and doesn't have a car so you have to pick him up to go anywhere. 

You're more likely to hang out with your newer friends who all drive and have more similar tastes to you now. 

It doesn't mean you "hate" your old friend, you're still friendly and all ... it's just that you've moved on. 

Third parties are in the same place. Once upon a time they needed Nintendo, but now they have Sony and MS to make games for, and simply it's less of a headache to work with them. They make consoles that are generally straight forward in their design and marketed heavily to core gamers, which is the bread and butter of most third parties. 

Actually a pretty sweet analogy.