EA Exec: We're "Committed" to Wii U

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

EA Exec: We're "Committed" to Wii U

image

EA's COO says that despite any production worries, his company has full faith in Nintendo's next console.

Sadly, the Wii U hasn't won many admirers so far; even its own shareholders were unimpressed with it on the day it was announced. However, in good news for Wii U fans everywhere, the nascent tablet-controlled console has picked up a new, vocal supporter in the form of publishing giant EA.

Speaking to Reuters, Peter Moore, EA's COO, confirmed his support for the console and Nintendo. "There are no indications that there's anything that feels like it's off target," he said. "Our teams are working on it around the world. Our key franchises will be there. We've made that commitment to Nintendo."

Worries about the machine's capabilities and build quality came to the fore a few months ago, when it was rumored that some of the chips in the tablet controller were so badly-made that they prevented the console from working altogether. These rumors haven't escaped EA's attention, either. Moore said that during a planned visit to Nintendo headquarters in Kyoto later this month, processing units, price and a prospective launch date will rank high among his priorities. "From our perspective right now, specs are a big deal," he added.

This year has been a troubled one for Nintendo; even before the Wii U managed to pummel share prices with its announcement, the launch of the 3DS was such a mess that Nintendo was forced to cut its projected profit for 2011-12 by 82%. Its CEO felt so responsible that he wound up taking a 50% pay cut. Much of Nintendo's future rests on the success of the Wii U, and the big publishers will be as aware of the need for this kind of good publicity as Nintendo is. We'll keep an eye out for any developments Moore has to report on his return from Kyoto, but given how much both companies have invested in this project, something tells me the script isn't going to change all that much.

Source: Reuters

Permalink

I do hope the WiiU is successful enough to keep Nintendo going, they are still one of the better game developers in my opinion.

I can't really see this taking off. They couldn't even push the WiiMote Plus thing that made it do what it was actually supposed to.

I think that there is a lot of abandonment issues that gamers are taking out on Nintendo, but I see no reason that it would be a failure. It's going to be more powerful than all the current generation systems, it's got some major third party support (as this article is about), and the tablet controller is a much better idea than motion controls were. I think they probably alienated some people out there against them with some of the titles they put out, but if you look at the titles that were good, or even spectacular (Metroid Prime Trilogy), Nintendo still has it. I am looking forward to it.

I am engrossed in Dark Souls right now, and there is even a version for the WiiU planned that will be easily comparable to what's out there (though some of the frame rate hits I could live without, they probably won't be present on the more powerful hardware) and the inventory system is made easily more accessible with control on the tablet screen. Should be exciting to see.

EA Exec: Wii are committed to U!

eh? eh?

I know that I'm definitely getting it (just gotta save up first), I just don't know if it will be right at launch or a while later. If it has some great first party launch games, then I'll have no choice but to get it day one.

Woodsey:
I can't really see this taking off. They couldn't even push the WiiMote Plus thing that made it do what it was actually supposed to.

It's just a matter of marketing nowadays.
Look at the smartphone/tablet-market. It's not about the product, but about the name. iPhone and iPad are the best examples. Some days ago a classmate came to school with a brand new Samsung Tablet 10.1. She gave it to a friend to try it out and he said that it's OK, but the iPad is muuuuuuuuch better. I asked him in what point. He just said that it is muuuuuuuuuuch better. *facepalm*

TheSniperFan:

It's just a matter of marketing nowadays.
Look at the smartphone/tablet-market. It's not about the product, but about the name. iPhone and iPad are the best examples. Some days ago a classmate came to school with a brand new Samsung Tablet 10.1. She gave it to a friend to try it out and he said that it's OK, but the iPad is muuuuuuuuch better. I asked him in what point. He just said that it is muuuuuuuuuuch better. *facepalm*

Well, in all fairness, people who get the new iPhone/iPad every time talk about how "muuuuch better" it is, but they never have a reason why. That is the mindset that Apple devotees have had for years. I can tell you exactly why I prefer my Android based phone over an iPhone, but I have only met a single person who could tell me why they liked the iPhone better. Quite simply, you don't have the same amount of options and customization. That is the reason I prefer Android, and my friend isn't tech savvy like myself, so he just wants something simple that will work for him. I like trouble shooting problems, he hates doing it. It's all about perspective.

And with this the WII U's products dropped 40% in quality.

Here's the thing. Other than Nintendo no one would push the limits of the WiiU, PS3 and Xbox have such a large market force, that any game made would be made to play on those two and WiiU second. In short - developers have no reason to take advantage of WiiU's hardware update.

Too bad for Nintendo that EA has no key franchises to commit to the Wii U. It's not getting the Mass Effect series, or at least not all of the first three games, so what exactly do you have to offer EA? Some sports games? Whoopee.

Seeing as the MGS series is over I have no reason to stay with Sony, all aboard the Nintendo boat, set sail for 2012!

Words are wind, EA.
Put actual games on the system; and we'll see.

Baresark:

Well, in all fairness, people who get the new iPhone/iPad every time talk about how "muuuuch better" it is, but they never have a reason why. That is the mindset that Apple devotees have had for years. I can tell you exactly why I prefer my Android based phone over an iPhone, but I have only met a single person who could tell me why they liked the iPhone better. Quite simply, you don't have the same amount of options and customization. That is the reason I prefer Android, and my friend isn't tech savvy like myself, so he just wants something simple that will work for him. I like trouble shooting problems, he hates doing it. It's all about perspective.

People rarely buy an iPod for its technical power, they buy it for the associated lifestyle. That's what Apple's been good at marketing for over a decade. The users tend not to care how restricted they are because they're not really computer/music/whatever people.

The wii-mote was a crap idea in my opinion because it wasn't perfected at the time of launch and it took away from the traditional controller before adding anything.

I hope the tablet thing turns out well because it keeps the already functional controller as a fall back point and just adds a touch screen that's uses could be most anything.
Eg,DAO on console had more spells than they could make a proper interface for so you would have to pause the game removing any prospect of multi-player, which now could be implemented a touch screen. Or the darksiders thing where you don't have to pause the game to work the menu.

So thank you for learning a lesson, Nintendo, I hope you live through this.

mjc0961:
Too bad for Nintendo that EA has no key franchises to commit to the Wii U. It's not getting the Mass Effect series, or at least not all of the first three games, so what exactly do you have to offer EA? Some sports games? Whoopee.

There's a very popular game coming out soon. Rhymes with Rattle-field Tree. EA have already confirmed it's going to be released on Wii U. Along with other games...

Baresark:
I think that there is a lot of abandonment issues that gamers are taking out on Nintendo, but I see no reason that it would be a failure. It's going to be more powerful than all the current generation systems, it's got some major third party support (as this article is about), and the tablet controller is a much better idea than motion controls were.

More powerful than current generation systems, and even then, only barely. When the new Playstation rolls out, the WiiU's gonna look like the Wii.

And considering it doesn't have the level of third party support that the Ps3 and the 360 has, then its third party support sucks. If you compare it to the Wii, its good, but compared to the standard, hell no.

And considering the Tablet thing will already be being done by the time the WiiU launches, thanks to the Vita (a system people actually want), that doesn't make the WiiU special.

What makes people think it'll be "blown out of the water". Graphical fidelity is hitting the peak and games won't look much better.

Baresark:
Well, in all fairness, people who get the new iPhone/iPad every time talk about how "muuuuch better" it is, but they never have a reason why. That is the mindset that Apple devotees have had for years. I can tell you exactly why I prefer my Android based phone over an iPhone, but I have only met a single person who could tell me why they liked the iPhone better. Quite simply, you don't have the same amount of options and customization. That is the reason I prefer Android, and my friend isn't tech savvy like myself, so he just wants something simple that will work for him. I like trouble shooting problems, he hates doing it. It's all about perspective.

Look. I respect every opinion as long as they have valid reasons....that's why I don't respect "apple-product-owners". I own a Galaxys S2 and I share your opinion. If I wanted something super simple, I'd rather go with Windows Phone 7.
As for the Wii U:
At the moment it sucks for me. We'll see once it's released. However, neither Apple nor Nintendo change, because they generate money anyway. So we'll get overpriced Apple products in future and the same bunch of games from Nintendo too. I just don't see them changing...would like it through.

Nintendos future rides on the Wii U as much as it rode on the gamecube or their first 3D handhold

Zachary Amaranth:

People rarely buy an iPod for its technical power, they buy it for the associated lifestyle. That's what Apple's been good at marketing for over a decade. The users tend not to care how restricted they are because they're not really computer/music/whatever people.

TheSniperFan:

Look. I respect every opinion as long as they have valid reasons....that's why I don't respect "apple-product-owners". I own a Galaxys S2 and I share your opinion. If I wanted something super simple, I'd rather go with Windows Phone 7.
As for the Wii U:
At the moment it sucks for me. We'll see once it's released. However, neither Apple nor Nintendo change, because they generate money anyway. So we'll get overpriced Apple products in future and the same bunch of games from Nintendo too. I just don't see them changing...would like it through.

I couldn't agree more with you guys. I know we will have to wait to see the game lineup before anything else. I considered a 3DS (I would have played the games with the 3D off) but as of now, the games suck really bad for it. I'm surprised that Nintendo released with such a weak launch lineup. I was hoping that honestly, the next Zelda would have been a WiiU launch title. It's really important that they present more than a new Pilot Wings title. A good adventure game would have been incredible for it. But, we'll see.

As far as change is concerned, Nintendo is the only company that is constantly re-tooling their properties and not putting out the same product again and again. They are always changing the dimensions so each game is different than the last, but also while keeping strong play styles. They have done this with each new mario game (with the exception of Mario Galaxy 2), they did two different kinds of Metroid games on the Wii alone, and each Zelda has had some kind of new mechanic that changes the game (time travel, sailing between islands, turning into a wolf, flying around on a bird, etc). And don't forget they don't just mass produce a title a year, which is all the rage in the industry today. I mean, this entire generation of consoles is pock marked by new iterations of each popular game that offers very little in changes. So, I can't agree that Nintendo doesn't innovate.

OutrageousEmu:

Baresark:
I think that there is a lot of abandonment issues that gamers are taking out on Nintendo, but I see no reason that it would be a failure. It's going to be more powerful than all the current generation systems, it's got some major third party support (as this article is about), and the tablet controller is a much better idea than motion controls were.

More powerful than current generation systems, and even then, only barely. When the new Playstation rolls out, the WiiU's gonna look like the Wii.

And considering it doesn't have the level of third party support that the Ps3 and the 360 has, then its third party support sucks. If you compare it to the Wii, its good, but compared to the standard, hell no.

And considering the Tablet thing will already be being done by the time the WiiU launches, thanks to the Vita (a system people actually want), that doesn't make the WiiU special.

Well, it's reportedly going to be 50% more powerful than the PS3. Meaning it will outshine the current generation easy, and it'll give them a head up on Sony. I'm also considering the business point here though. They can beat every member of the current generation for pretty inexpensive. When the PS4 comes out, how much do you think it's going to cost? It's probably gonna be stupid expensive, like the PS3 originally was. I know Sony is huge, and they can afford to sell them at a loss for years (just like they did with the PS3), but gamers got the short end of that stick with a game price increase. Why were the game prices increased? Because they increased the cost of licensing to make up for losses.

You are right though, the third party support sucks compared to the other two, but companies got scared away by the Wii era Nintendo model where they mostly tried to appeal to kids. Companies aren't making a lot of money on kiddie software, most of it comes from the Gears of War's and the CoD's. So, it will take some time before they are ready to jump right in again. But there is no reason they would not. There is not planned new Microsoft system, so Nintendo will be top for about year, then the PS4 releases, and it'll lose some share, but there is no reason why Nintendo won't stay competitive.

Also, I don't think there is actually much market buzz for the Vita, but the situation is completely different, regardless of that. The Vita will have a touch screen (the DS had that though) and some tablet functionality. The WiiU controller functionality works completely different from that. It is there as a second screen to handle things like minigames and inventory and such things as a way to enhance gameplay, versus being an actual tablet. I was looking forward to hearing more about the Vita and the news is not very satisfying. The built in software is really lame. It is going to have things like social functionality, but most people I game with aren't in the least bit interested in having another Facebook ripoff with their information on it. And the fact that Sony is selling them at a loss means that they are simply going to try and find more ways to get money out of the gamers. When a company loses money, they are not in the right mindset to actually meet the needs of their customers. The only thing that saved them is all the other businesses Sony has it's name on (mostly electronics).

Traun:
Here's the thing. Other than Nintendo no one would push the limits of the WiiU, PS3 and Xbox have such a large market force, that any game made would be made to play on those two and WiiU second. In short - developers have no reason to take advantage of WiiU's hardware update.

That isn't entirely true. There have been plenty of games that were not identical on both the PS3 and 360. Companies will do more than just the bare minimum. It benefits them to do that. Also, why do you think that Nintendo won't have a large market share. As far as install bases go, the Wii has the largest market share of the current generation, by those standards. That is one thing publishers look at. It's clearly not all they look at, either. In another post I mentioned that the Wii appealed mostly to kids. The WiiU is not going the same route. They are intentionally appealing to an older more "hardcore" crowd. I know a lot of people looking forward to the WiiU. I have a buddy who is gonna wait and buy that instead of a 360 (he already has a PS3).

I still can't get over how proud Iwata's self-inflicted pay cut made me to be a hardcore Nintendo fan. You only see that kind of humble attitude from Nintendo on a constant basis.

Just curious (not trying to start anything) but did anyone in Sony take a self-inflicted cut in response the PSN disaster?

What EA really said:

"Well, now that Nintendo decided to enter the current generation, we will push some sports games over there to see how well they sell."

The WiiU has some design flaws that really have to be worked out. Once again it's about the controller rather than the console. The Wii did well with this gimmick, it did so well that the Microsoft and Sony finally followed and made their own motion controllers. However, this is now a "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" thing. Wii owners know how quickly their Wii became a dust collector and they might not be so willing to do it twice.

Also, the controller itself is a failure. Multiplayer games will only use one WiiU controller and the other 3 players will use Wiimotes. Nintendo isn't showing much confidence there, whatever advantages the new controller had over the Wiimote, they are useless in multiplayer. If the controller is the main selling of your console, Nintendo, then you need to show complete confidence in it. If all 4 players can't play with the new controllers for any reason, that is a design flaw. Go back to the drawing board. In my mind, half-assing the WiiU controller is the same as half-assing the 3DS (battery life, 15 min play before a break or you pay with a headache, no second analog stick, horrible stylus placement) and that is poor design.

Still no HDD. What happens when you want to download Gamecube games? Wouldn't it be cheaper to use a HDD than SD cards or USB drives?

The WiiU may be more powerful than the 360 and the PS3 but that's not a selling point since it is expected that all the next gen machines will be more powerful than the previous gen. It's like Nintendo advertising that the N64 is more powerful than the Sega Genesis.

Baresark:

OutrageousEmu:

Baresark:
I think that there is a lot of abandonment issues that gamers are taking out on Nintendo, but I see no reason that it would be a failure. It's going to be more powerful than all the current generation systems, it's got some major third party support (as this article is about), and the tablet controller is a much better idea than motion controls were.

More powerful than current generation systems, and even then, only barely. When the new Playstation rolls out, the WiiU's gonna look like the Wii.

And considering it doesn't have the level of third party support that the Ps3 and the 360 has, then its third party support sucks. If you compare it to the Wii, its good, but compared to the standard, hell no.

And considering the Tablet thing will already be being done by the time the WiiU launches, thanks to the Vita (a system people actually want), that doesn't make the WiiU special.

Well, it's reportedly going to be 50% more powerful than the PS3. Meaning it will outshine the current generation easy, and it'll give them a head up on Sony. I'm also considering the business point here though. They can beat every member of the current generation for pretty inexpensive. When the PS4 comes out, how much do you think it's going to cost? It's probably gonna be stupid expensive, like the PS3 originally was. I know Sony is huge, and they can afford to sell them at a loss for years (just like they did with the PS3), but gamers got the short end of that stick with a game price increase. Why were the game prices increased? Because they increased the cost of licensing to make up for losses.

You are right though, the third party support sucks compared to the other two, but companies got scared away by the Wii era Nintendo model where they mostly tried to appeal to kids. Companies aren't making a lot of money on kiddie software, most of it comes from the Gears of War's and the CoD's. So, it will take some time before they are ready to jump right in again. But there is no reason they would not. There is not planned new Microsoft system, so Nintendo will be top for about year, then the PS4 releases, and it'll lose some share, but there is no reason why Nintendo won't stay competitive.

Also, I don't think there is actually much market buzz for the Vita, but the situation is completely different, regardless of that. The Vita will have a touch screen (the DS had that though) and some tablet functionality. The WiiU controller functionality works completely different from that. It is there as a second screen to handle things like minigames and inventory and such things as a way to enhance gameplay, versus being an actual tablet. I was looking forward to hearing more about the Vita and the news is not very satisfying. The built in software is really lame. It is going to have things like social functionality, but most people I game with aren't in the least bit interested in having another Facebook ripoff with their information on it. And the fact that Sony is selling them at a loss means that they are simply going to try and find more ways to get money out of the gamers. When a company loses money, they are not in the right mindset to actually meet the needs of their customers. The only thing that saved them is all the other businesses Sony has it's name on (mostly electronics).

This reasoning not only is based off a whole lot of marketting bs and outright wrongness, its also bloody hypocritical, lapsing between a double standard like clockwork.

First, considering what the devs who've actually used the kits have been saying (not the studios who swallowed Nintendos BS and spoke before they could really try to make something), the power of this thing is not that impressive. But even ignoring that, what the hell are you arguing? You're saying that being more powerful means Nintendo will instantly gain control of the market, yet saying Sony getting far, far more power will not take the market away completely? You also say that gamers won't like the Ps4 cause it'll be "too expensive", yet somehow Nintendo will make the WiiU cost less than the Ps3 because... magic? What is your reasoning?

Also, games got more expensive because of basic economics. Its called inflation.

Second, no. No. Look at the Gamecube. While it was never as bad as the Wii, it didn't have anywhere close to the third party support of the Xbox or the Ps2.

Third, if you honestly think the Vita gets less positive buzz than the WiiU, you're exclusively reading Nintendo Power. I'll refer you now to Gravity Rush, a title virtually every games journalist who's seen it has said its one of their most anticipated titles for 2012, versus the zero (that number again is zero) interesting exclusives for the WiiU. I could also mention Persona 4 the Golden, Sound Shapes and Uncharted golden Abyss, but you get my point. And I'm referring to this.

http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/117/1173628p1.html

And it doesn't only allow one controller, unlike the WiiU. Given how every gamer I've seen has basically reacted with pure lust towards the Vita, I think Sony are in a far better postion to give gamers exactly what they want than Nintendo.

Baresark:

I couldn't agree more with you guys. I know we will have to wait to see the game lineup before anything else. I considered a 3DS (I would have played the games with the 3D off) but as of now, the games suck really bad for it. I'm surprised that Nintendo released with such a weak launch lineup.

To be fair, the DS didn't have a stellar launch, and sold like hotcakes. The Wii didn't exactly come rife with major titles, and sold like hotcakes. Nintendo doesn't seem to care about launch titles, and the fans generally reward them by buying anyway.

They thought they could get away with it again; in fact, they thought they could inflate the price of the 3DS solely because fans were all excited over it. The iPod effect, if you will. They failed.

Will they learn? Hard to say. I don't think the fans will, though.

OutrageousEmu:

Baresark:

OutrageousEmu:

snip

snip

This reasoning not only is based off a whole lot of marketting bs and outright wrongness, its also bloody hypocritical, lapsing between a double standard like clockwork.

Are you accusing me of having a double standard? I based everything off of facts in my statement. I speculated on the facts, sure. I'm just not gonna sit here and make the mistake of thinking the market isn't big enough for both systems to exist. Hell, for ten systems to exist. I just don't think that the WiiU is gonna suck so bad because gamers felt burned by the Wii.

First, considering what the devs who've actually used the kits have been saying (not the studios who swallowed Nintendos BS and spoke before they could really try to make something), the power of this thing is not that impressive. But even ignoring that, what the hell are you arguing? You're saying that being more powerful means Nintendo will instantly gain control of the market, yet saying Sony getting far, far more power will not take the market away completely? You also say that gamers won't like the Ps4 cause it'll be "too expensive", yet somehow Nintendo will make the WiiU cost less than the Ps3 because... magic? What is your reasoning?

In no point in my statement did I say Nintendo was going to "instantly gain control of the market". I simply stated that Nintendo can oust the current generation easy for cheap. That is why the Wii sold so well, because it was so cheap. Sony will not be able to make the PS4 inexpensively. Even if it's really expensive, they will be losing money because of the sizable investment. That is the cost of self manufacturing your hardware though. Sony is the most capable of the current generation companies, but it took them years to catch up, and they are in third place right now, based on world wide sales figures. Nintendo is in first, but we all know it collects dust in the year between good releases. I think that if the 360 did better in Japan, it would be number 1. But the Japanese don't want anything to do with it, it would seem.

Also, games got more expensive because of basic economics. Its called inflation.

This is untrue. Why didn't the Wii have a game price increase? Why didn't the cost of handheld games from the GBA to the DS go up? Because Nintendo didn't have the same cost issue that Sony did. There was actually a big debate about that very thing here on the Escapist. It's not inflation, that is an easy fallback for people to justify it, but you are wrong in this case. Not that inflation does not occur, but it's irrelevant to this conversation.

Second, no. No. Look at the Gamecube. While it was never as bad as the Wii, it didn't have anywhere close to the third party support of the Xbox or the Ps2.

There was a reason for the lack of third party support on the GC, it's because it was difficult to program for. It all had to do with Nintendo and there lack of ability to just follow simple console design like the others did. The very thing that Nintendo likes to try and do (innovate in the console) is also the thing that hurt developers ability to program for. Then the media was mini DVD's while everyone else was using full sized ones, meaning that to release a game cross platform they had to do some kind of weird compression. The weird part is that graphically, the GC looked better sometimes. Blew me away a bit. I never had one though, I was happy with my PS2, the undisputed king of that generation (based off of sales and third party support). I'm not saying that it's gonna blow everyone away or that they are going to take publishers from Sony or Microsoft. I am saying that the WiiU, if it fixes the problems I previously mentioned, shouldn't have any problem garnering third party support. You seem to think that it won't just because? Based on the past, and not the potential future?

Third, if you honestly think the Vita gets less positive buzz than the WiiU, you're exclusively reading Nintendo Power. I'll refer you now to Gravity Rush, a title virtually every games journalist who's seen it has said its one of their most anticipated titles for 2012, versus the zero (that number again is zero) interesting exclusives for the WiiU. I could also mention Persona 4 the Golden, Sound Shapes and Uncharted golden Abyss, but you get my point. And I'm referring to this.

http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/117/1173628p1.html

And it doesn't only allow one controller, unlike the WiiU. Given how every gamer I've seen has basically reacted with pure lust towards the Vita, I think Sony are in a far better postion to give gamers exactly what they want than Nintendo.

I never said there wasn't positive media buzz for the Vita. And are you talking about inter system play, because the Vita is a handheld system, so I don't know how they are going to allow for more than one controller. I also never said it got more or less, I simply stated that all the gamers I know, none of them talk about the Vita, and they are all interested in seeing the WiiU offering. Maybe it's because they don't feel burned by the Wii. There were some really fantastic titles for the system, unfortunately, there were more terrible titles. But none of us played them, we played the Mario's, Zelda, the Metroid games, etc. The only thing that sucked about them were the standard definition graphics. The motion controls, when done by Nintendo, were really good. And in some cases they had the sense to not use them at all. Though, I do prefer the PS3 controller, given the option.

And that is very true, we haven't heard much of anything about starting lineup from Nintendo. But, I know it's important, the 3DS proved that if nothing else, and I would never say otherwise. But, Persona only appeals to a niche audience (I know, I have played them all), I have never heard of Gravity Rush and I do read a lot of videogame magazines (not Nintendo Power though), and of course people are looking forward to another new Uncharted game (I played them, but was never really that wowed by the clumsy shooting sections and Indiana Jones style exploration, but they did look good and they were still fun to play in short spurts).

In Conclusion:

I simply didn't say some of the things you seem to think I said. I know Nintendo isn't going to dominate, but Sony isn't dominating anything right now, so I don't know why you think they will in the future. There is plenty market all around for every videogame system, this isn't really a competition. Especially since most people own multiple systems. Domination is a funny thing, it doesn't exist in the current generation of consoles. Domination is more like when Steam controls 75% of the digital PC distribution market and the remaining 5 or so control the rest. You don't get that on consoles. There is a first, second, and third place, but all three of those getting many many many millions of sales. To assume one is going to just dominate the market is just plain wrong. The whole point of posting on this thread was to just add a bit of love to a forum that seems to mostly feel abandoned by Nintendo. I don't, and others shouldn't. Everyone likes to talk about how Nintendo releases the same old thing and how "hard core gamers" aren't interested in Nintendo. Here they are trying to fix all the pent up animosity that people are feeling towards them, and they get hated on for it. People need to grow up a bit(this last bit isn't aimed at you, but at the forum in general).

It's going to be a bad few years to be Nintendo you watch. First the 3DS launches and almost nobody could be paid to give a damn. Then, the Wii U is announced to the sound of deafening silence. I think this hat trick ends with the Wii U launch going over not unlike a fart in church.

Nintendo had a nice thing going fleecing the preschoolers and soccer moms, they should have stuck with it. The idea that Nintendo is going to enter the "hardcore gaming market" again is about as laughable as hearing Larry Flynt is going to start producing children's programming.

When you think about it it's rather amazing. Nintendo decided they couldn't hack it competing for the core gamer money so they jumped ship and started pandering to the casuals and told the core gamers to bugger off. Now, after fleecing the soccer moms for what they could they think they are magically going to be able to compete in the core market again. That's fucking rich.

The Wii U is going to be not nearly casual enough for the kiddies and soccer moms and too little too late for the core gaming audience. The only people that will even give a toss about this thing will be the hardcore Nintendo fanboys like that idiot Triforce (keep wearing that power glove fella one day you won't look like a total loser I promise) and his lot. Although if we give em enough time maybe Nintendo can alienate them next.

Baresark:

OutrageousEmu:

Baresark:

snip

This reasoning not only is based off a whole lot of marketting bs and outright wrongness, its also bloody hypocritical, lapsing between a double standard like clockwork.

Are you accusing me of having a double standard? I based everything off of facts in my statement. I speculated on the facts, sure. I'm just not gonna sit here and make the mistake of thinking the market isn't big enough for both systems to exist. Hell, for ten systems to exist. I just don't think that the WiiU is gonna suck so bad because gamers felt burned by the Wii.

First, considering what the devs who've actually used the kits have been saying (not the studios who swallowed Nintendos BS and spoke before they could really try to make something), the power of this thing is not that impressive. But even ignoring that, what the hell are you arguing? You're saying that being more powerful means Nintendo will instantly gain control of the market, yet saying Sony getting far, far more power will not take the market away completely? You also say that gamers won't like the Ps4 cause it'll be "too expensive", yet somehow Nintendo will make the WiiU cost less than the Ps3 because... magic? What is your reasoning?

In no point in my statement did I say Nintendo was going to "instantly gain control of the market". I simply stated that Nintendo can oust the current generation easy for cheap. That is why the Wii sold so well, because it was so cheap. Sony will not be able to make the PS4 inexpensively. Even if it's really expensive, they will be losing money because of the sizable investment. That is the cost of self manufacturing your hardware though. Sony is the most capable of the current generation companies, but it took them years to catch up, and they are in third place right now, based on world wide sales figures. Nintendo is in first, but we all know it collects dust in the year between good releases. I think that if the 360 did better in Japan, it would be number 1. But the Japanese don't want anything to do with it, it would seem.

Also, games got more expensive because of basic economics. Its called inflation.

This is untrue. Why didn't the Wii have a game price increase? Why didn't the cost of handheld games from the GBA to the DS go up? Because Nintendo didn't have the same cost issue that Sony did. There was actually a big debate about that very thing here on the Escapist. It's not inflation, that is an easy fallback for people to justify it, but you are wrong in this case. Not that inflation does not occur, but it's irrelevant to this conversation.

Second, no. No. Look at the Gamecube. While it was never as bad as the Wii, it didn't have anywhere close to the third party support of the Xbox or the Ps2.

There was a reason for the lack of third party support on the GC, it's because it was difficult to program for. It all had to do with Nintendo and there lack of ability to just follow simple console design like the others did. The very thing that Nintendo likes to try and do (innovate in the console) is also the thing that hurt developers ability to program for. Then the media was mini DVD's while everyone else was using full sized ones, meaning that to release a game cross platform they had to do some kind of weird compression. The weird part is that graphically, the GC looked better sometimes. Blew me away a bit. I never had one though, I was happy with my PS2, the undisputed king of that generation (based off of sales and third party support). I'm not saying that it's gonna blow everyone away or that they are going to take publishers from Sony or Microsoft. I am saying that the WiiU, if it fixes the problems I previously mentioned, shouldn't have any problem garnering third party support. You seem to think that it won't just because? Based on the past, and not the potential future?

Third, if you honestly think the Vita gets less positive buzz than the WiiU, you're exclusively reading Nintendo Power. I'll refer you now to Gravity Rush, a title virtually every games journalist who's seen it has said its one of their most anticipated titles for 2012, versus the zero (that number again is zero) interesting exclusives for the WiiU. I could also mention Persona 4 the Golden, Sound Shapes and Uncharted golden Abyss, but you get my point. And I'm referring to this.

http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/117/1173628p1.html

And it doesn't only allow one controller, unlike the WiiU. Given how every gamer I've seen has basically reacted with pure lust towards the Vita, I think Sony are in a far better postion to give gamers exactly what they want than Nintendo.

I never said there wasn't positive media buzz for the Vita. And are you talking about inter system play, because the Vita is a handheld system, so I don't know how they are going to allow for more than one controller. I also never said it got more or less, I simply stated that all the gamers I know, none of them talk about the Vita, and they are all interested in seeing the WiiU offering. Maybe it's because they don't feel burned by the Wii. There were some really fantastic titles for the system, unfortunately, there were more terrible titles. But none of us played them, we played the Mario's, Zelda, the Metroid games, etc. The only thing that sucked about them were the standard definition graphics. The motion controls, when done by Nintendo, were really good. And in some cases they had the sense to not use them at all. Though, I do prefer the PS3 controller, given the option.

And that is very true, we haven't heard much of anything about starting lineup from Nintendo. But, I know it's important, the 3DS proved that if nothing else, and I would never say otherwise. But, Persona only appeals to a niche audience (I know, I have played them all), I have never heard of Gravity Rush and I do read a lot of videogame magazines (not Nintendo Power though), and of course people are looking forward to another new Uncharted game (I played them, but was never really that wowed by the clumsy shooting sections and Indiana Jones style exploration, but they did look good and they were still fun to play in short spurts).

In Conclusion:

I simply didn't say some of the things you seem to think I said. I know Nintendo isn't going to dominate, but Sony isn't dominating anything right now, so I don't know why you think they will in the future. There is plenty market all around for every videogame system, this isn't really a competition. Especially since most people own multiple systems. Domination is a funny thing, it doesn't exist in the current generation of consoles. Domination is more like when Steam controls 75% of the digital PC distribution market and the remaining 5 or so control the rest. You don't get that on consoles. There is a first, second, and third place, but all three of those getting many many many millions of sales. To assume one is going to just dominate the market is just plain wrong. The whole point of posting on this thread was to just add a bit of love to a forum that seems to mostly feel abandoned by Nintendo. I don't, and others shouldn't. Everyone likes to talk about how Nintendo releases the same old thing and how "hard core gamers" aren't interested in Nintendo. Here they are trying to fix all the pent up animosity that people are feeling towards them, and they get hated on for it. People need to grow up a bit(this last bit isn't aimed at you, but at the forum in general).

Oh for...where did you get the idea that the WiiU would either be made or be sold cheap from? If you claim the cost will be prohibitive for Sony, then the cost is prohibitive for Nintendo. Bloody simple.

Wii games don't get more expensive because they're piss poor. Doesn't change the basic reality. Inflation says we should be paying $124.23 per game today - that is what a $60 game from 1987 would cost in todays money. What Nintendos games cost is irrelevant.

The WiiU also chooses to use weird proprietary media instead of DVD's or Blu-rays like a sensible machine. It also is apparently a bitch to develop for. Third party support is dependent on sales, both of the console and of software, which is not bloody guarunteed.

Did you read the article? Several Vitas can be used along with the Ps3 in order to provide each individual player with a smaller touchscreen controller along with a larger screen visible to all. What the WiiU was implied to do, but can't.

Gravity Rush is this

http://www.destructoid.com/gravity-rush-is-my-first-must-own-playstation-vita-game-213140.phtml

Crono1973:
-snip-

This is how I feel about the console.

Also, couldn't Nintendo just make a cheaper version with none of the wii hardware instead? I think that makes more sense then one good controller, three crappy ones.

Also, to EVERYONE who thinks that putting the HUD on the controller is a good idea...

YOU ARE ALL FUCKING MORONS! THE FUCKING HUD BEING PUT ON THE CONTROLLER TOUCH SCREEN IS STUPID AND INCONVENIENT!

Putting the inventory there could help gameplay, using it to add a new gameplay mechanic could help gameplay, using it to fuck gameplay up is FUCKING STUPID!

Baresark:
I think that there is a lot of abandonment issues that gamers are taking out on Nintendo, but I see no reason that it would be a failure. It's going to be more powerful than all the current generation systems, it's got some major third party support (as this article is about), and the tablet controller is a much better idea than motion controls were. I think they probably alienated some people out there against them with some of the titles they put out, but if you look at the titles that were good, or even spectacular (Metroid Prime Trilogy), Nintendo still has it. I am looking forward to it.

I am engrossed in Dark Souls right now, and there is even a version for the WiiU planned that will be easily comparable to what's out there (though some of the frame rate hits I could live without, they probably won't be present on the more powerful hardware) and the inventory system is made easily more accessible with control on the tablet screen. Should be exciting to see.

I've just gotten used to this five-year-long, self-entitled tantrum so-called "hardcore gamers" have been throwing. It's pathetic, immature, insecure, and gutless, but that's just how things are. I don't see Nintendo going away anytime soon and considering the fact that they're the ONLY company who makes an effort to cater to an audience outside the 13-30 white male demographic, they're by far in a better position than Sony and MS are in the gaming world. Plus with TONS of third parties loving the WiiU, Nintendo's position is even better than before.

Now if we can just resist the temptation of having all games putting the stats screen on the controller. You can just look at your health and start hearing your hero getting whacked in the background.

due to the lack of apostrophe in the link to the thread (from the side bar) I thought the EA exec got committed to an ironically named mental health institution.

I guess that was too much to hope for..

OutrageousEmu:

Baresark:
snip

Oh for...where did you get the idea that the WiiU would either be made or be sold cheap from? If you claim the cost will be prohibitive for Sony, then the cost is prohibitive for Nintendo. Bloody simple.

Wii games don't get more expensive because they're piss poor. Doesn't change the basic reality. Inflation says we should be paying $124.23 per game today - that is what a $60 game from 1987 would cost in todays money. What Nintendos games cost is irrelevant.

The WiiU also chooses to use weird proprietary media instead of DVD's or Blu-rays like a sensible machine. It also is apparently a bitch to develop for. Third party support is dependent on sales, both of the console and of software, which is not bloody guarunteed.

Did you read the article? Several Vitas can be used along with the Ps3 in order to provide each individual player with a smaller touchscreen controller along with a larger screen visible to all. What the WiiU was implied to do, but can't.

Gravity Rush is this

http://www.destructoid.com/gravity-rush-is-my-first-must-own-playstation-vita-game-213140.phtml

I got the idea that it would be cheap because that is Nintendo's console model at this point. They didn't do HD when the Wii came out because it was expensive to do, technologically speaking. They have stated this. Now, that same technology is cheap to produce, so they can make a system better now for probably about the cost of a low end PS3 or 360. It will be more expensive for Sony to produce the new system because they are making some of the parts to it themselves (I did read the blurb about their own cell processor that they manufacture themselves, being used in the PS4). Sony's business model is that it's ok to lose money on a product for years as long as it pays out in the end. They have even gone on record saying that they are selling the Vita for less than manufacturing cost, and they planned on losing money for 3 years on it before making any money. They pump large amounts of money to be the top of the tech curve when they release something. So, the cost are going to be somewhat, but not entirely prohibitive. But, I'm simply saying that even if it's cheap for Sony, you are probably looking at $400, at least for the new console. Why? They shot themselves in the foot by releasing the PS3 at $600, most gamers (or their parents) wouldn't spend that kind of money on a video game console. So, there was no shortage of PS3's ever in the life of the system. So, they won't release a system at that price point again if they learned anything. What's bloody simple is the idea that the costs change depending on what you are doing.

I am fully aware of how inflation works. But, it's not a commodity we are tracking. Inflation doesn't follow on non commodity goods that are not produced the same over time, such as videogames. By your reasoning, games should have gotten more expensive since the PS3 came out. $60 in 2006 is now $67.42. Inflation is used to track money against commodity standards such as gold, platinum, wheat, soy, etc. If they were producing the same product with the same production cost as they were in 1987, you would have something. But they are not, the production cost is not nearly the same, the man hours aren't the same, the product is not the same, nothing is the same now as when they produced video games in 1987. Say the average Nintendo game cost $40 in 1987, that would mean that games should be around $80 now. You are wrong about it being inflation as the cost of games. And, some Wii games were real crap, but some were not, they had real production budgets and production costs. Metroid Prime 3 had a large budget, and still only cost $50 brand new.

They didn't say what the media was going to be for the WiiU. It is stated that the console disc format will be able to hold up to 25 Gigabytes. I find it rather amazing that it's also the capacity of a single layer blu ray disc. I'm just saying, it looks like it's going to be a blu ray disc. Perhaps they don't say so though because that is a Sony associated product. But it's a disc, and it holds 25 gigs of data. The math is up to you, I could be wrong though.

I have not read about how hard it is to develop for. But here is a list of games that are currently being developed for it:

Darksiders 2
Batman: Arkham City
"Tekken"
Assassin's Creed
Lego City Stories
Ghost Recon Online
DiRT
Aliens: Colonial Marines
Metro: Last Light
Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge

So, it probably isn't really hard to work with, and you also see some pretty comprehensive third party support there, to support my argument.

And no offense to your third point, but Nintendo did that with the Gamecube. But, needing a second expensive device to act a controller ($230 for the wifi model, $280 for a 3G model(as a second note, 3G seems like a stupid edition to me)) is not a substantial selling point I think. The WiiU comes with their controller included. And it is also offering backwards compatibility with GC controllers, Wiimotes, and classic controllers. But, the WiiU certainly can do what it implies, but they are just making it function as one per system (which I would have to agree, is completely lame).

Gravity Rush does look like a fascinating game. I will probably buy a Vita at some point, I simply hope it doesn't become the pirate machine the PSP or the Wii did.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here