Wii U Forum

Topic: Why does the Wii U get so much hate?

Showing 121 to 140 of 202

AuthorMessage
Avatar

doctor_doak

121. Posted:

Partly their own fault....but also, they're a soft target. Nintendo are a bit weird and isolationist...they don't eat the sort of candy the cool kids have been sold..

A lot of people are counting the days down until Miyamoto is shafted...I don't agree with some of the ideas he's pushed, i.e. motion controls.....but the man's a genius, and an oddity in the current AAA landscape..

It will be a sad day when he retires...He's been saying some very re-assuring things in recent times RE: Nintendo's future...

I'd just like to see more Pikmin type stuff and less Project Giant Robot or Wii Music, tbh...

Focus on innovating within games, and not forcing gimmicky control schemes...

Edited on by doctor_doak

doctor_doak

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Ralek85

122. Posted:

@TheRealThanos First of all, let me say that I quite enjoyed reading your comment, while I think you were degressing at times, it was still an interesting read at all times, bringing several good points to the table.
The first thing you alluded to, about the hate being from gamers or the industry or both, is one such point. We definitely should differniate that, but honestly, in the end, some of those reasonings will still overlap, some circular logic, so to speak, is bound to apply. In the same vain we should pay more attention to what is actually the cause of a development, what is the effect and last but not least what is the occasion. Despite that it is something I'll keep in mind in the future.

Btw, while it might be OT, I'd love to hear your thoughts on why gamers "hate" (I still feel that is a poor term to use on the subject, but anyways) the WiiU.

As for your actual comment, I'll only address the last part, since for the most part, I agree with what you said, and I really only want to add a couple of remarks, where I think your reasoning was flawed.

TheRealThanos wrote:

  • Nintendo makes the hardware that it wants, not giving third parties their way in giving them a platform to make easy money on.
  • The bigger companies still remember the stranglehold Nintendo had on them in the old days and may still feel some resentment
  • Because of Nintendo's marketing failure, the Wii U platform is too small to make a decent profit on, making development too costly
  • Self-fulfilling prophecy behavior by delivering inferior versions of their own software for full price to "prove" it doesn't sell on Wii U

It is NOT about power, the GamePad, region locking, different chip sets and it's DEFINITELY not about Iwata, that one is too ridiculous to even consider being worth mentioning. Simply put: if the Wii U's market share was large enough, then most of these games WOULD be coming to Wii U, there's no doubt about that, not even a millisecond. Why else did the Wii get so many of these games, practically the whole COD series included, even though the graphic fidelity was WAY lower? Because of money, THAT'S why...
(and Nintendo's marketing is largely at fault for that this time around)

First, the last point about the "Self-fulfilling prophecy behavior", I didn't really get. Why would any of the big publishers have to "prove" anything? If they feel porting/ releasing on the WiiU is not economically viable, they would just skip on it, wouldn't they? You make it sound, in my understanding, as if they had to somehow create a pretext for that? I'm really not sure they do.
In the same vain, I wasn't entirely sure what you meant by "delivering inferior versions of their own software for full price". If I understood you correctly, you yourself made the point, that, while it is not harder but just "less easy", to develop for the WiiU, this of course does drive up costs? To me, from a business side of things, logic would imply, that either the games will be "proper" ports, optimized to architecture at hand, and thereby more expensive, in one way or the other, or they will be about the same price, but "poor" ports, with little optimization. I mean just look at Ubisoft's more or less offical policy when it comes to PC ports. It's not really clear to me, why a dev would bear any responsibility for soaking up that additional cost?
As far as games for the PS4/X1 go, that take actually advantage of those most similar systems, ports of those games would have to be inferior anyways, since the WiiU is a weaker system, despite you being absolutely right about there being no point in 1:1 comparisons. In the end, you are left with a very real power gap, even if you account for "proper" optimization and the locked system ressources, which exist on all three platforms of course.

This brings me to my last point, about this: "It is NOT about power, the GamePad, region locking, different chip sets and it's DEFINITELY not about Iwata". I mostly agree, but for the first two points. Before I get to those, I'd like to add, that I'm not familiar enough with the company structure of Nintendo to assign blame, but Iwata's position, and everything you wrote about company culture/ tradition, would sugget, that he HAS to bear the brunt of the blame for "Nintendo's marketing failure" ...so in that regard, hate for Iwata would not only make sense, but be somewhat undestandable, I wager. I'm not sure there is any hate for Iwata as far as the industry itself is concerend, I really can't speak to that, as for gamers though, there certainly is some hate and for the aformentioned reason, it is somewhat hard to argue with that, I think.

That aside, in regards to power and the Gamepad, I feel you might be wrong or at least only temporarily right. I think the Gamepad is a burden, in some ways, it is a burden in the same way Kinect was and still is. Ironically, I think no where does this become much clearer than by Nintendo's own efforts. I think, after reading your entire comment, you will probably disagree with me, but still, I have to say, most of Nintendo's developers themselves don't seem to know what to do with it. Case in point are for example Intelligent Systems efforts with Wario Ware, which I found, to put it polite, rather, let's say, lacking and uninspired. Additionally, as much as I admire and adore Miyamoto, seeing his projects on the matter, I can't help but feel that even he has an extremly hard time coming up with anything worthwhile here, that will make a real difference to the consumer, add value for them in one way or the other. It can't be a coincidence that so far, for the really overwhelming part, the Gamepad was just used to off-load HUD elements from the "main"-screen to the "second"-screen. Tragically, I think that was not even always benefical, at least in the case of MK8, one of Nintendo's carthorse titles noless, the placement of the map felt not only forced, but actually like a downside. The fact, that they felt the need to address this via an update, is quite telling I think. But I don't want to get into the Gamepad much more than that, I think I made my point already ^^.

As for power, there is an issue here, I feel you have basically just ignored. The question is this, what about next year, and what about the years after? What I mean is this: Sure you could have put Destiny, with some very real effort I guess, on the WiiU ... but what about Destiny 2 and 3? Assuming those will push the graphics, the physics, the AI, the scale of the world and so on and so forth, I really don't see how the WiiU would be able to cope with that. You seem to be way more tech savy than me, but from what I can gather, that seems like a deadend to me. That is all completely ignoring the very legitimate question of the viability of the Nintendo Network vs PSN/ Xlive. The reason I chose Destiny is of course it's imminent release next week and it's status as one of THE big industry releases this year. But of course the real meat here lies with the 2015 releases and what will come beyond that. Would it be possible to make a game like The Division, to give another example, or even The Witcher 3, for the WiiU, without, due to technical limitations, compromising it's design? Completely ignoring the fact, that porting might not be economically viable once again, how about the actual integritiy of the product itself? If you read, sometimes between the lines^^, some interviews/ comments by industry representatives, the impression I get, is that, even if it made economic sense, to bring those big future games to the WiiU, it wouldn't make any sense design-wise.

In that regard, the WiiU has a problem, a design-flaw if you will (again, who would be held responsible for that?^^) and on that ground I would contend, that your claim, that "if the Wii U's market share was large enough, then most of these games WOULD be coming to Wii U, there's no doubt about that, not even a millisecond", is not entirely correct, or to be more precise, WILL be turning out to be wrong. Certainly, WAY more games would be coming the WiiU's way, IF it could boast the same kind of installbase as the other platforms, but "most" seems doubtful at best, and if we take a long term perspective, that share would certainly decrease over time, probably rapidly at that. I mean, and that is important to keep in mind, even the Wii, with it incredible installbase last gen, didn't get blessed with many of the big "next-gen" games, just think of the likes of RDR or GTAV etc. The WiiU has nowhere near that market power, and the incentive to limit one's design to accomodate the WiiU is basically non-existent.
If I put it that way, I have to say, I think I might actually be glad, that this seems to be in fact the case.

Edited on by Ralek85

3DS Friend Code: 2809-7989-1816 | Nintendo Network ID: Ralek85

AuthorMessage
Avatar

TheRealThanos

123. Posted:

mamp wrote:

@TheRealThanos Can't believe I actually read through it but I found time :) For sure I know of some companies that hold a grudge against Nintendo due to their old business practices.

Well thank you for the effort, your time and an interesting video. As for your reaction to that video and saying that image may be "some" part but not everything, I can only give you my professional point of view:
I've been a professional in Sales & Marketing for almost 14 years now and have worked for several large IT related companies.
Image is the first big step in this whole strategy and initially, it actually IS everything. The product itself is of secondary importance. A well known phrase in sales and marketing is "sell the sizzle, not the steak" meaning that you must pay more attention to selling the feeling and comfort that people get from your product, rather than telling them how powerful or modern and versatile it is. And in the case of consoles, one should market how you would enjoy having one and how much fun you could have with it.

With the coming of the other two consoles this has changed quite a bit, because they DID start to pour out tons of data concerning how powerful they were and what was inside the box. As we all know, Nintendo has never been that forthcoming with hardware information and that never bothered anyone, until Microsoft and Sony started to do it. Sony being particularly notorious for using almost half of its E3 presentations to bore us to death with endless slideshows of numbers and data. This year they've made a massive improvement and it shows in the results, so that is what image can do for you. The image is the foundation or, if you will, the face of your product and from there on out, you can build so it is not "some" part, it is a BIG part.

'The console wars are like boobs. Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'

Nintendo Network ID: TheRealThanos

AuthorMessage
Avatar

spizzamarozzi

124. Posted:

I believe @TheRealThanos is spot on in mentioning Nintendo's identity as an "asian company".
One of the things I was trying to express is that now that the videogame industry has broaden its horizons, the business is becoming more Western-focused than ever. It's not a coincidence that companies like Capcom or Square, once exquisitely japanese in their sensibilities, are trying so hard to please the western audience that they have lost their identity and as a result, are now irrelevant on a quality point of view and financially very close to bankruptcy at the moment.

I don't know how it works in the east, but here in the west consumers' motto has always been "We want - you give". We live in the delusion that just because we have €60 to buy a game, the company has to lick our a*se. I don't know much about japanese culture, but if I remember correctly, there isn't this "I owe you - you owe me" kinda of rapport between companies and consumers.

I believe Nintendo doesn't fit at all with this standard. Sony has always had a western inspired behaviour: you can do what you want as long as you do it on our system. I always remember the user AlexSays saying "I don't like to be told what I should like" and I think this is one of the reasons Nintendo is the black sheep among consoles, at least from an audience perspective. You have to accept their way of doing things, otherwise you have no alternative on their consoles. Of course the irony of the western market is "I don't like to be told what I should like - but I play the games that are relevant the moment they come out", which means you are basically told what you like through marketing and hype - a very american way to pretend you have some kind of free choice but in reality you don't (and mind you, I love americans - I'm not criticizing the people but the economy system of their country).

spizzamarozzi

3DS Friend Code: 0104-0649-7464 | Nintendo Network ID: spizzamarozzi

AuthorMessage
Avatar

kyuubikid213

125. Posted:

@Ralek85
The self fulfilling prophecy thing happened in a kind of weird way.

(Some) third party developers released games on the Wii U and made it so the Wii U version was the version no one would WANT. EA released Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U while the other consoles got the Mass Effect Trilogy. Why waste your time getting one game when you can get the whole trilogy in one go? Ubisoft delayed Rayman so it could be demoted from an exclusive to a third party multiplat. Well, there go the Rayman fans that would have potentially bought a Wii U. Games like Batman Arkham Origins and Splinter Cell launched on Wii U with missing features. The Call of Duty games, while having some Wii U specific features, didn't have the DLC the other versions got (and didn't get the heavily advertised Nuketown map until a few weeks ago). And, most recently, Assassin's Creed IV didn't have DLC and Watch_Dogs was delayed half a year.

With all of these delays, unfinished games, and sloppy ports, a precedence was set that third party titles on the Wii U would always be the inferior version even compared to the 360 or PS3 versions. Sure there were exceptions (Ninja Gaiden 3, Deus Ex Human Revolution Directors Cut, and Need for Speed), but ultimately, the other versions were going to get DLC, multiplayer, and run at a steady framerate.

Whether or not all of these were due to developers not knowing how to optimize on the Wii U (which I find hard to believe if @TheRealThanos is correct), I don't know, but that's the "self fulfilling prophecy."

Wii Owner, 3DS Owner, Wii U Owner

I promise to not derail threads. Request from theblackdragon

I promise to be a mature individual. Request from theblackdragon

3DS Friend Code: 4639-9073-1731 | Nintendo Network ID: kyuubikid213

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SkywardLink98

126. Posted:

Personally I dislike the Wii U because I don't see enough exclusive games that make it worth upgrading to. It's also not getting multi-platform games. When I finally upgrade to a current gen system, it will be to the PS4 because it offers quality exclusives and multi-platform games.

There are no stupid questions, except for the ones that are.
Bergmite, Piloswine and Snover safari.
I love Nintendo, that's why I criticize them so harshly.

3DS Friend Code: 4296-3424-5332

AuthorMessage
Avatar

TheRealThanos

127. Posted:

@Ralek85 I'm going to try to make my post a bit less huge, because both of us seem to have a gift for humongous comments if the topic interests us... ;)
Having said that, I am going to address all points that you made, but I will group some of them together for reading convenience and will also do it in no particular order.

First off, if the time and money was there, most of these games would DEFINITELY be coming to Wii U. I say this because the facts support it. ANY game that is now still coming to Xbox 360/PS3 (and that will be for at least another year) could run on Wii U, PERIOD. That is both a technical fact and a given fact BUT the investment is now far too great in comparison to what companies could get out it, so from a business point of view the Wii U isn't interesting anymore or yet. (I'm not going into "the Wii U is already dead" point that some people like to make. Not you, just to be clear)

In relation to that point and my comment stating that they COULD have made decent ports, when you have truly read it all and understood it, then it should have been clear that I meant that when the Wii U had just been introduced, was getting ready to be launched, games were already in development, also quite a few third party titles. That means as I have also already said, that the money thing wasn't an issue YET because that risk is there for third parties on EVERY new platform they start to make games for.

Nobody can predict the future so no one could have guessed back then that Nintendo would fail so hard in marketing their new console and that the result would be where we are now. The other side is also true: we never know how good a new console will perform as well, so even if a console was massively successful last generation, that is ab-so-lute-ly no guarantee whatsoever that it will be again this generation.

What that means is that the initial risk at launch of a new system is for the larger part EXACTLY the same.

That brings me to the you not getting the "Self-fulfilling prophecy behavior". I thought I gave enough examples to give you an idea of that, but let me try another example:
Let's say we are going to buy a car. You want a certain brand, a certain type and you are going to look for a good price, but you would also expect the car to be fully functional and give you your money's worth, right?
Now what if you chose to buy the car from your regular dealer out of loyalty and because you appreciate his service, but the car is delivered by a third party and you find out that it is missing some extras that may not be entirely necessary but would increase the value and enjoyment that you get from that car, and you have already seen that the very same car can be bought elsewhere, for the SAME price (or less) but WITH all the extras.

Guess what you're going to do? You will not buy that car from your regular dealer. And you will not be the only one, so in the end the car manufacturer will no longer want his cars to be sold by your regular dealer because "apparently" he isn't able to sell them. And they knew full well that they were delivering incomplete cars to begin with so it is actually the fault of the manufacturer.

Moral of the story: don't give us games with less content and options than on other consoles and certainly don't ask full price for it, only to see it fail in sales, which you could known before you even started. THAT is a self fulfilling prophecy.
That also relates to the inferior products remark. You HAVE to invest to make a profit. These developers put one toe in the water and said: "no, I can't swim here, it's way too cold" instead of diving in completely and taking a chance on success.

I was ONLY talking about the period in the beginning, when the first parties wanted to make some easy money by literally dumping their CPU based Xbox360 ports onto the Wii U with little to no optimization. This could also be partly Nintendo's fault for all we know because they wanted a lot of third party games on Wii U that were "hardcore" to once again attract the "serious" gamer, so they might have wanted to rush things a little bit too much.

Developers didn't take their time, didn't fully optimize CPU based software towards the GPGPU based Wii U and low sales were the result. AGAIN: this was BEFORE anyone knew the Wii U was going to bomb so the excuse of low user base and so on wasn't there YET.
From a business standpoint, publishers then had to make decisions. The other two consoles were going to be launched, and they offered an environment that was more or less a PC in a box with quite a lot of off the shelf parts, so the whole process of design, programming, porting and optimizing was very level because you design on a PC, implement middleware on a PC to add mechanics and to port to the console dev kits so the process was streamlined. And time is money so from the publisher's point of view it is very logical.

But the power gap, as you say is NOWHERE near last gen. I can say this time and again, and we can go into the technical details, but I won't for now because it would make this comment so much longer. Suffice it to say that last gen the power scale Wii to Xbox360/PS3 was 1:10 and now that same power scale is 1:4 - 1:5 (at most and only in console specific software)
So we can safely say that the gap has shrunk immensely. Of course it is still there, because 4 times as powerful is still a big difference, but most of it goes into the details and, as I also already explained, the other two consoles need to do a whole lot more with that extra power. The Wii U just has to play games and has only one platform running everything. The Xbox One for example, has three environments running simultaneously: the base Xbox operating system, a Windows kernel that provides access to web-powered applications and experiences and a third environment that connects these two operating systems to enable the instant switching and multitasking.

So, in conclusion, if you have roughly 4 times the power but you have to do 3 times more with it, then the difference in what you have left purely for games isn't all that big. Really, it isn't. Can't make it any simpler than that. The ONLY exception will (as almost always) be the console exclusive titles because they are more often than not developed with a far longer time scale so they can take FULL benefit of the hardware. (hey, there's that optimization thingy again!)
And later on. in the second and third generation of third party games they will have finally caught up and so games from third parties will also start to look better and better. But until then, and as long as games are also released on the previous HD platforms, the Wii U could easily support such games as well, if we forget about the financials for a while. This is PURELY from a hardware point of view.
All previous consoles were power based, the architecture is known by developers, the Wii U is more powerful than the Xbox 360/PS3, however small that difference may be, it is still a fact so if the old twins can run the games, the Wii U can. PERIOD.
And I even dare to say that slightly downgraded versions of the first batch of games that will come AFTER support for Xbox360/PS3 has stopped could also still be possible: downgrade 1080p to 720p, less advanced graphical effects (lighting, Anti-Aliasing and so on), fewer players online, slightly simpler AI and so forth. Differences, especially the graphical ones, that are hardly noticeable for 90% of the populace while they are playing. Same as with for example the Call of Duty games on the Wii. Ask yourself: why was it possible then? Not because the Wii was easy/easier to develop for but because there was money to be made. And now they have a much more powerful platform compared to the Wii, so tech-wise it should be a no-brainer, especially with multi-platfom games also released on Xbox 360/PS3. The later games will definitely be too much, but by then we will be near the end of 2016/beginning 2017 and Nintendo will probably have introduced the successor to the Wii U.

As for Iwata: yeah sure, he is the face of the company so if you have a problem with someone you look them in the face and maybe even hit them in the face too. But besides being the face, Iwata ISN'T the company. He is only managing and representing. There's a board of directors that could kick his butt to the curb if they thought that would be the right thing to do, but apparently it wasn't because he's still here.

It's almost like in sports: if a football team is performing badly we always fire the coach nowadays and to me that is the stupidest thing possible. The coach is NOT ON THE FIELD! He can tell his players a thousand upon a thousand times what they should do, but THEY have to do it. So if they fail, then they haven't executed the coach's plan correctly or the other team had a better plan but that doesn't take away from the expertise and experience that this coach has.

As far as the hate goes: most of these decisions are business related and have nothing to do with emotions. For the most part it's about money.
My bullet points still stand, though because there is a lot of enmity in business. (I've experienced some myself when I went to work for the competition) but the largest reason is everything that is driven by money.

As for the fan hate: misconception, lack of intelligence, need to express yourself/make yourself count, sheep behavior (can't be alone in supporting something/someone if your friends all support something else) and not knowing the other parties and also not being open to try them out, so it's automatically inferior because you "obviously" support the superior platform.

Well, that's it. Unfortunately it became a huge post again... oh well...
If I missed anything I'm sure I'll hear back from you... ;)

@kyuubikid213 I didn't say ALL developers and I also didn't say that they don't KNOW how to optimize. They DO, because they know these sort of environments very well as I've explained in detail in the previous comments, but the way things are standing right now, it just costs too much time and money, so the publisher is never going to allow them to do that because the investment wouldn't be equal to what they can earn from it.

Edited on by TheRealThanos

'The console wars are like boobs. Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'

Nintendo Network ID: TheRealThanos

AuthorMessage
Avatar

arnoldlayne83

128. Posted:

TheRealThanos wrote:

@Ralek85 I'm going to try to make my post a bit less huge....

you were obviously joking here, weren't you? :D

anyway, nice talk man (kudos)

psn: markthesovver83 ; Nnid: arnoldlayne83

Nintendo Network ID: arnoldlayne83

AuthorMessage
Avatar

tanookisuit

129. Posted:

I think the self fulfilling comment is pretty right on. I've said it before on other sites, probably here too. It only takes a look into the long history of the Wii and the first year efforts of third parties on WiiU.

Often times in the gaming press we found third parties who did make games pop up when asked questions about a game and the future, they'd say, if this game would sell so much, we would do more in the future or something of that sort. Some of these games were put together with care, others were just slapped together. One thing was clear, Nintendo doesn't advertise third parties, and other than preaching to NIntendo fans on Nintendo sites, the companies would never advertise a damn thing. If people don't know something exists, that's kind of death in the waiting. Another example would be in the case of a game that would be done, but just slapped together poorly, or to take a hot franchise and make a lame spinoff style game using the franchise yet not using it. Dead Space and Resident Evil being perfect examples, damned rail shooters. Dead Space being even worse, the developers of Extinction came out in development and said it started as a rail game, then they redid their engine and made it the same as the primary franchise, and EA MADE them switch it back to a lame rail shooter. When you get companies that sit there and say, buy this and we'll do more, and then they don't, that's creating a vacuum of interest. When you get them making a game, then just sliding it out to no fanfare, no press, no tv or ad spots, that's sabotage too. And then you get a huge AAA franchise and then make a shadow of a game claiming the hardware isn't suited or can't do it, when it can, and expect people to get a watered down experience, again you got more sabotage. All this plays into the self fulfilling prophecies of failure the Wii had.

This then rolled into the WiiU. Ubisoft, Activision and EA lined up to put stuff up for the system when it came out. In every case they put out very dated (1year~) old experiences and did minimal additions for the touch panel, but did nothing to clean up the games for release or optimizing them for the differently functioning WiiU processors. AC3 was glitchy, Black Ops2 had visual problems and framerates that were in the toilet and uneven, and EA just did minimalist works and sabotaged the best of them (ME3) by placing it out full price against 'Trilogy' on PS3/360 which cost $10 less. Some bailed, some tried harder a second go around, but the damage was done and trust shattered. Ubisoft goes multi on Rayman the promised exclusive and while doing a nice effort on AC4 compared to 3, nothing good to draw people to buy it on WiiU. Activision did better but again nothing to stand out and still limited what they gave Nintendo users compared to the others with AC4 and Ghosts(I have Ghosts it's great.) EA amazingly actually did try with NFS but had already been talking crap about Nintendo, they supposedly put the best version of it out there yet it was well delayed heavily over other versions and it's glitchy. All these games they self-fullfilled the concepts of failed sales by their own actions then pointed fingers at Nintendo and the WiiU owners.

Had the first go around they put up games that were NEW ports of stuff going at that rate to the other guys that would have made a difference. If they had bothered to not cut out DLC and other stuff from the packages only allowing the others to have them that helps too. If they'd properly port the stuff so it runs and displays right would be a good idea. Not undercutting the sales of a game by placing better versions or 'package' deals out at the same time for less would be wise (ME3 vs ME Trilogy.) Of course going back further, actually bothering to aggressively advertise and talk up the stuff couldn't hurt either as if no ones aware, no one buys.

My Personal Video Game / Accessory List
http://http://tanooki.home.insightbb.com/

AuthorMessage
Avatar

tanookisuit

130. Posted:

All said in my last post, another good stand alone reason why the WiiU gets hate. It's Nintendo. There has been years now since they were perceived as cool and fun to own, use, and get third party goodies on without caveats or being blatantly ignored and that hasn't happened since the SNES. Throw in some major smear campaigns over the decades of the kiddie box, no adults and teens use that, their do it themselves gimping of hardware or the media it is on. If Nintendo actively tried to make a system up to par with what game makers want and actively did things like Sony does to get developers, help them, and blow out the media to get the attention, they'd be in a better place. Right now you have a system that again is a generation old that third parties self-sabotaged their efforts on from day one, and now it's left in the dust by most game makers. It's a nice system, a nice one without backing.

My Personal Video Game / Accessory List
http://http://tanooki.home.insightbb.com/

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Octane

131. Posted:

SkywardLink98 wrote:

Personally I dislike the Wii U because I don't see enough exclusive games that make it worth upgrading to. It's also not getting multi-platform games. When I finally upgrade to a current gen system, it will be to the PS4 because it offers quality exclusives and multi-platform games.

Eh, not enough exclusives? It's all about exclusives. If you want multiplat games, buy a decent pc. Oh well, to each their own.

Octane

AuthorMessage
Avatar

arnoldlayne83

132. Posted:

Ok, despite the lenght of each post is assuming a biblical scale, I guess we are all agreeing there is a huge problem of "portability" on WiiU, some says it's developer lazyness, some says it is mainly market driven, but I guess we touch a open nerve in the WiiU-saga. For one reason or another, porting games on the console is not worthy, probably for a mix of reason (hardware complexity + profitability issues in doing so). I believe that's why they still port games on Xbox1 and not to WiiU, despite the similar userbase size.

I believe this is something the next Nintendo console has to address... at the end, correct me if I am wrong, the change of hardware architecture won't damage any possible "gimmick" (let's call them like this even if many are great) nintendo will introduce in the new console.....

This I believe will be a must have factor for the new console, as long as Nintendo won't decide to become a real "niche" console, made only for its own game.

psn: markthesovver83 ; Nnid: arnoldlayne83

Nintendo Network ID: arnoldlayne83

AuthorMessage
Avatar

arnoldlayne83

133. Posted:

tanookisuit wrote:

.... If Nintendo actively tried to make a system up to par with what game makers want and actively did things like Sony does to get developers, help them, and blow out the media to get the attention, they'd be in a better place. Right now you have a system that again is a generation old that third parties self-sabotaged their efforts on from day one, and now it's left in the dust by most game makers. It's a nice system, a nice one without backing.

I particularly agree with this.... I felt in love with No Man's Sky since the announce at e3, and so I dig a little in the history of the title.... it was born as Indie (actually 4 ppl working on it), and then sony put their eyes on it, help the developers and give them support, and bringin them on the stage in the main Gamescom Sony event...

psn: markthesovver83 ; Nnid: arnoldlayne83

Nintendo Network ID: arnoldlayne83

AuthorMessage
Avatar

TheRealThanos

134. Posted:

arnoldlayne83 wrote:

TheRealThanos wrote:

@Ralek85 I'm going to try to make my post a bit less huge....

you were obviously joking here, weren't you? :D

anyway, nice talk man (kudos)

Yeah, you got me on that one. ;)
I tend to automatically use some skills of my professional role (account manager, leader of a sales team) in my private life as well. Essays like this are written on a weekly basis by me and my fellow account managers to divulge our plans to our seniors/employers and to educate our teams. I therefore have this inherent need (or fault, depending on one's view) to explain in so much detail, which is of course always accompanied by lots and LOTS of text.
But thanks for the compliment and I also partially agree with you on the "Nintendo and the Developers" story.
But to me that is more aimed at the Indies, because Nintendo shouldn't have to help big buck developers like EA, Ubisoft and so on.
Just because Sony and maybe Microsoft too are holding their hands and throwing money at them (something that Nintendo couldn't do anyway because they just don't have a comparable wallet) that doesn't mean that Nintendo has to follow suit. Like "if I jump in the water, will you do the same?" Nope..
The dev kits are there, the architecture is well known by developers, Nintendo offers all the necessary middleware and offers support on eShop and what not, so yeah...
And the indies seem to be doing quite well in that department now, but for the most part it is too little, too late.

@tanookisuit Nice to see that you get the whole self fulfilling prophecy thing. Some people just keep digging and digging for other reasons, while the truth is already out there. You'd have to make more of an effort to NOT see it than just accept it for what it is. And it played a MAJOR part in this whole tragic comedy we're in right now.

Edited on by TheRealThanos

'The console wars are like boobs. Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'

Nintendo Network ID: TheRealThanos

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

135. Posted:

@mamp
The only problem with that video, is that Sony has a weird image right now, too. They said that Nintendo makes them think of kid friendly experiences, but that's not all that is there. If Wii U got the likes of Tear Away or Ryme, people would totally be saying those are kid games and "hate" those games, instead of liking them, because they are on PS4. That's how things seem half the time.
Even with Xbox. He said it comes off as "dudebro", but PS fans would be totally stoked for games like Sunset Overdrive if they were coming out for PS4.

I'm not trying to target PS4 by itself, per se, but it is selling well and people are trying to figure out what Nintendo and Microsoft are doing wrong. I just don't see how Wii U and Xbox One are completely missing the mark, but PS4 is somehow "God" status.

As for everything else, I'm at least glad people are starting to realize that 3rd parties didn't do that good of a job in the first place. ME3 vs. Trilogy, missing modes, late releases, and lack of DLC is a legitimate a reason not to care about 3rd parties on Wii U. I think alot of people just don't really care much about those games anymore, either. I would personally prefer to have a new Tony Hawk game or something, rather than another CoD. If their games aren't selling on Wii U, they need to make something that does. That's besides the point that I think they didn't expect them to sell in the first place.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

TheRealThanos

136. Posted:

@SCAR392 in all fairness, the narrator of that video explicitly stated that he himself does NOT think of Nintendo that way, but that he feels that the majority of the public and maybe even the business perceives them as being kiddy oriented. And for the larger part the Xbox crowd is indeed seen as dudebro gamers (not that I'd agree since I own an Xbox 360 myself) and the Playstation is the "we want to please everybody" platform in the perception of the crowd.

That doesn't mean that it is true and indeed some people would love to see Xbox One exclusives on PS4 and the other way around and there are probably some people that would even sell their family or cut off their left foot to be able to play Zelda or any other Nintendo game on their platform of choice, but in the larger picture it is all about how these parties come across to the majority of the public.

These labels didn't just materialize out of thin air... ;)

'The console wars are like boobs. Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'

Nintendo Network ID: TheRealThanos

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Ralek85

137. Posted:

@kyuubikid213 Thanks for elaborating on that point, but I got that part. I'm sorry, this is my fault, I seem to have kind of expressed myself poorly last time around. What I meant was, that I got the impression from @TheRealThanos comment, that there was some level of intention to these poor ports, that they were almost meant to fail, to "proof" that the WiiU had no merit. I was just wondering, why anyone would bother with something like that. I don't see the upside for them, or anyone else for that matter. I think it was just a bunch of publishers being either cheap, meaning their believe that the game, even if flawed, would still sell enough, or just being cautious, meaning not willing to commit to much ressources to an unknown platform, maybe even a platform they were somewhat wary of, right from the beginning.

@TheRealThanos Well, we do both seem to have a penchant for, let's say, caring for details and being very forthcoming with elaborating on them. ^^
Anyways, in regards to your last comment, in a nutshell, you don't really seem to disagree with me. To abridge what you were saying, and please make sure to correct me if I'm wrong, the only real dissent between us, seems to be about the timeline and the degree of downscaling.
I don't dispute the fact, that you could put all those multi-generational games, that are still coming to the Ps3/X360 on the WiiU as well. That was the whole reason I raised the point about Destiny. At the same time, and on that we seem to agree, there are limits to this in the future, when the sequels e.g. to said game, will be taking full advantage of the level of power the X1 and especially the PS4 provide for.
The question then becomes if it makes any sense to port a game like Destiny, which is not just a game, but a whole new IP, spanning several games and most likely decades of publishing (Blizz.-Act. said as much), on a platform, where it has no future, esp. considering the additional cost of it putting there in first place.

Moving beyond that, and that brings me back to the part about 2015, the other pertinent question becomes then, if there is any good reason to downgrade games like the Division (assuming it will indeed be a 2015) title, or the Witcher 3, to name just two, to the point that they could still be ported to the WiiU (assuming such is in fact possible). That is an economic as well as an artistic question, and at least in that regard, both are closely linked together. A 'butchered' version of one of those games, would do no-one any good. It would hurt the long term image of all involved, thus limiting any future financial leeway, and thereby, in conclusion, also any artistic leeway, such as it were. It's hard to see either the devs nor the publisher having any vested interest in doing so then.

You made your point expressedly by "ONLY talking about the period in the beginning", and in that regard, I completely agree, and everything you say about that makes perfect sense to me. But we are already quite a bit beyond that peroid by now, and as you say yourself, there are already limits on the horizon: "downgrade 1080p to 720p, less advanced graphical effects (lighting, Anti-Aliasing and so on), fewer players online, slightly simpler AI and so forth."
To come back to my original summary, we seem to only disagree about timing and, let's say, degrees of compromise in quality, here, in the end, meaning the development mid- and long-term:
Mid-term: Basically this means, how far should a developer go in compromising his product, to be still able to make it available to as broad an audience as possible, including WiiU consumers. Again, I feel this has two sides to it, business and design, respectively long- and shortterm, just to keep that in mind. I don't have any definite answer to that, but I think graphic-downscaling, to a certain point mind you, is fine. If the downscaling effects other aspects, you mentioned slight KI changes e.g., which is where I think things would start to get tricky, but who am I to say really ^^

Long-term: This is what I was alluding to earlier with my remark our seeming dissent about the timeline. Long-term there will be games that can not be sensibly ported to the WiiU, no matter if the power gap is 1:3, or as you say, 1:10 in the Wii days. If this "will be near the end of 2016/beginning 2017" or earlier I cannot say for sure, but on the risk of repeating myself, from what I gathered from dev interviews, this point is already reached by at least some of the 2015 releases, like the aforementioned games the Division and the Witcher. And as you pointed out already, "The ONLY exception will (as almost always) be the console exclusive titles because they are more often than not developed with a far longer time scale so they can take FULL benefit of the hardware", for those the question is already answered. Games like Ryse and Infamous: 2nd Son would not have worked on the WiiU, as much as they would not have worked on the Ps3/x360, although of course, this is a mood point, since we are talking exclusives anyways ... except for one consideration. The fact that a game like Infamous: 2nd Son is released within 6 months of the PS4 release, tells me that at least as far as Sucker Punch is concerend, there is already a level of 'system mastery', we haven't seen at the start of the previous generations. Normally games like Infamous: 2nd Son would be what we expect out of I'd say at best 2nd year releases. I don't think there is any reason to assume that Sucker Punch is completely alone in this advanced stage of understanding the hardware they are working with. In fact considering Ryse was available on Day1, at least Crytek, too, obviously, despite making some concessions on resolution and modells, has to have a solid graps on their respective new system.
You yourself made some remarks as to why that is in your previous comments. All this adds to my impression that 2015 will bring even more games, and this time around not only exclusives, that are technic-wise already truly "next-gen". I.e. Games not suitable, even if there was a will and money for it, for being ported to the WiiU/x360/ps3 respectively.
Once again, this got longer than it had to be, sorry ^^

As for Iwata, I am very curious about it, but I think the simpel fact is, that we all lack even the most basic, and thereby crucial, insight into the internal dynamics of Nintendo (same is true for Sony to a lesser degree imo), to make any educated guesses on that part. This kind of personel decisions are never as clear cut as one might think from the outside, you probably know that better than I do, judging from your previous remarks.

Your points about the gamer hate, I think are well taken. I'm not sure why you termed it "sheep behavior" though, makes it sound rather negative (at least to me, but I'm not native speaker^^), when in fact accounting for your friends inclinations is completely reasonable, assuming of course you are into multiplayer games. Afterall, what good is a great console, if everyone you know, is playing on something else, and you have effectively cut yourself off from the rest. I know that multiplayer, especially online mutliplayer, is not that big a deal (yet) for (most) Nintendo users (something that personally annoys me to no end, since most of my friends don't live next door anymore :-/). That being sad, the situation is compeletely reversed for many if not most the Sony/ Microsoft users. I play on all platforms anyways, but as a simple example, the decision on what device I'm going to play Destiny, is entirely dependent on the choice of my buddies, since I play it for the purpose of playing it with them. I can assure you, I am not alone in that kind of thinking and consideration, and for people who want/ have to settle for one system or the other, this kind of "sheep behavior" becomes a completely sound criterium of choice ^^

Btw, just as a sidenote, this is also the reason the WiiU was the last system I got, and why it could never be the only system I play own. Nintendo is making strides in the right direction when it comes to online, but it is not quite there yet, even worse, it's reputation in that regard is still way worse than Sony's, which had kind of the same problem last gen, and to a degree still has. At least for me, that is a major point why I "hate" the WiiU ( I don't "hate", hate it obviously, I like quite a lot, but it is something that I just have to hold against it, time and time again, for good reason unfortunately).

3DS Friend Code: 2809-7989-1816 | Nintendo Network ID: Ralek85

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Ryu_Niiyama

138. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

@mamp
The only problem with that video, is that Sony has a weird image right now, too. They said that Nintendo makes them think of kid friendly experiences, but that's not all that is there. If Wii U got the likes of Tear Away or Ryme, people would totally be saying those are kid games and "hate" those games, instead of liking them, because they are on PS4. That's how things seem half the time.
Even with Xbox. He said it comes off as "dudebro", but PS fans would be totally stoked for games like Sunset Overdrive if they were coming out for PS4.

I'm not trying to target PS4 by itself, per se, but it is selling well and people are trying to figure out what Nintendo and Microsoft are doing wrong. I just don't see how Wii U and Xbox One are completely missing the mark, but PS4 is somehow "God" status.

As for everything else, I'm at least glad people are starting to realize that 3rd parties didn't do that good of a job in the first place. ME3 vs. Trilogy, missing modes, late releases, and lack of DLC is a legitimate a reason not to care about 3rd parties on Wii U. I think alot of people just don't really care much about those games anymore, either. I would personally prefer to have a new Tony Hawk game or something, rather than another CoD. If their games aren't selling on Wii U, they need to make something that does. That's besides the point that I think they didn't expect them to sell in the first place.

I think marketing comes into play for this. Sony had the perception of the "console for gamers by gamers". It met the graphics requirements to keep the third parties happy, it was a cheaper price (implying Sony learned from the ps3), it has some exclusive franchises that help keep the sony fans happy, and Sony is known for chasing the indies and they did a good job capitalizing on the bad PR the Xbox one (you wanna talk confusing names...that one takes the cake) got prior to launch. I also kept seeing statements that sony went to devs and asked their input about what specs to use getting bandied about.

While I'm personally not drawn to the PS4 (I will admit to wanting the metal slime one because...dragon quest) I can see how some or all of the above create an awesome sales platform. Though I do feel both Sony and Microsoft need to get some games in the pipe line asap (they are coming but honestly to me it feels worse than the wiiu launch year).

As far as why the WiiU itself gets hate aside from the third party debacle (which I expected... though I didn't expect the half arsed ports) I'm not really sure. I love the gamepad both for off tv play and for its usage as a second screen and navigation device. I adore the backwards compatibility but then again I don't consume and discard media. I think the graphics are more than enough since nintendo as usual tends to leverage the hardware as much as they can (I almost wish Zelda was coming out in a few years due to the teams having more time to really learn the system). My only real points of irritation are region lock (because I import) and my fear that the need to keep a hard selling library will mean Nintendo won't get to take as many risks this gen (which means only high selling ips). Since they are propping the system up by themselves (and indies).

I do wish Nintendo would market more but they only have so much money to spend and if they had to choose between blowing the marketing out of the water and working on good games...I'm picking the games.

Edited on by Ryu_Niiyama

Taiko is good for the soul.
Feel free to send me a friend request however please let me know your user name on NintendoLife in your request. Thanks!
I now have Smash 3ds...my life is forfeit.

3DS Friend Code: 3737-9849-8413 | Nintendo Network ID: RyuNiiyama

AuthorMessage
Avatar

arnoldlayne83

139. Posted:

ok, guys, I am enjoying the conversation here, everyone got good points and the discussion is evolving, but jeez, here I need a tea cup for each posts of your! :D

Could we try to syntetize a lil?

From my point, Sony is selling for two (no, maybe 3) simple reasons:

1) Can rely on a huge and "historical" userbase on which Sony didn't try to change, betray or modifiy from past to current gen (contrary to Nintendo) and a strong "brand" tradition
2) Didn't try to suicide like Microsoft with its overpriced console (thanks to Lord of the Gimmicks: Kinect) and its stupid policy about used games...
3) As many of you already said, it as the most widespread selection of titles, from Nintendo-like (Little Big planet, Crash Bandicoot, many Japanese series) to "dude bro" games

That's why in a way I find hard to hate Sony (I mean, not me personally cos I generally don't hate any of them)... in their menu' there is really food for everyone taste, and "politically" they looks the more open minded....

Edited on by arnoldlayne83

psn: markthesovver83 ; Nnid: arnoldlayne83

Nintendo Network ID: arnoldlayne83

AuthorMessage
Avatar

TheRealThanos

140. Posted:

@Ralek85 Yeah, I do think we indeed agree overall, save for a few points and I want to make some clarifications:

First off: I don't think that there is some evil plan amongst third parties to want to see Nintendo fail, but I do see that they only made half baked attempts at bringing their IP's to the Wii U. We could discuss this for the rest of the year but it doesn't change the fact that this is the truth. Just ask yourself why all these extras were cut from the Wii U versions? And what do you think these third parties could expect from us in return? Let that sink in and then we'll see the answers that you'll come up with. You come across as quite smart, so inevitably you should come to more or less the same conclusion.
From the very beginning they were very reserved and went for the quick buck/easy money so they brought their titles quick and full of bugs/glitches. Some of them still made some respectable sales regardless, but most of them failed to meet targets and support was gradually pulled.

Third parties should just come clean and say it is a money issue mainly due to the smaller market share of the Wii U without making excuses like "the Wii U is hard to develop for" or "the Wii U's online is still too simple compared to the other two" or "Nintendo gamers don't want all this DLC anyway so they will be more than happy with the standard local game" and let's not forget "well, for Nintendo only gamers this is a completely new game, so even if it's old or part of a series we could easily ask full price for it".

The short term should be simple: as long as they support Xbox360/PS3 with games, that should imply that the same could be done for Wii U because truly, there is NO significant difference in programming time if you compare these three to each other. This support should be attainable once Nintendo steps it up big time and does something about it's market share. A price reduction could very well be the way to go. That or a bigger package with more software and controllers.

Long term is also easy: port the games that are possible (and I forgot to mention in previous comments that ALL engines are scalable to the point that they can even run on the most basic of smart phones, so that should make it even more easy) and by the time that the games size and or graphics truly start to (for lack of a better word) obliterate the Wii U's, then it is time to pull the plug and like I said I fully expect Nintendo to at least have published some news of their next platform. (very likely to be x86 too)

And I'd hardly call reducing the resolution of a game from 1080p to 720p butchering. Even the reducing of graphical effects, when done correctly through a game engine's incorporated scaling ability, is hardly noticeable. The switching off of some of the more advanced effects can be ever so subtle if you know what you're doing. And especially in games were environments move fast or are drawn further away there are also lots of programming tricks to make the graphics look nicer so hardly anyone would notice unless you'd put it under a microscope.

As far as the other two consoles are concerned: there is hardly any "mastery" needed. The workstations they design on are x86 and so are the two consoles. The software is almost like a blanket that only needs to be moved from one bed to the other (PC design to console dev kit) and then all that there is left to do is to make the blanket nice and smooth and neat around the corners, so minimal optimization.
That is also why I expect third parties to be able to get more out of it way sooner than before, like I also previously said. Were it took 5 to 6 years on the previous HD systems, it will now only take 2 to 3 years tops. But by then Nintendo will have introduced the Fusion or whatever and if that is not going to be x86 (Power architecture being near obsolete as it is, except for use in dedicated servers) then I myself can safely say that they will have to come up with a VERY good alternative or otherwise I will not buy a Nintendo console anymore...

The point about Iwata is clear enough: the board of directors decides what should happen, so if they had wanted him gone, he would be.
So either they made that decision on their own or Iwata is such a persuasive person that he was able to convince them to let him stay on. I'd go with the first choice, by the way. NOBODY is THAT persuasive with the financial results being what they currently are...

And the last point: we call it sheep or herd (flock) behavior not as an insult but because that's what it is. It's large groups of people influencing each other positively or negatively with their choices. Another thing that overlaps this is peer pressure: other kids almost bullying you into doing the same thing they do otherwise you won't fit in and be part of the "popular" crowd. Just think of school and sports clubs or even going out with your friends...

Edited on by TheRealThanos

'The console wars are like boobs. Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'

Nintendo Network ID: TheRealThanos