News Article

MCV: Wii U Is A Stopgap System, Real Successor Is Still To Come

Posted by Damien McFerran

"It was never intended as a next generation console"

Video game trade site MCV Pacific has posted an interesting opinion piece which speculates that the Wii U is merely a stopgap to lift Nintendo's flagging fortunes following the false start of the 3DS (in the west, at least) and plummeting Wii sales.

The Wii U hasn't been given a new moniker, but rather a tacked on brand extension of a title. This gives Nintendo an easy out if the Wii U doesn't work.

"It was never intended as a next generation console", they'll say as they distance themselves from it three years down the track and come out with a 'real' successor which can match the grunt of the next Sony and Microsoft offerings. "It was part of the Wii family, but this is what we're actually doing for the future of gaming."

Nintendo are quite happy for everyone else to sing about the Wii U being the next big thing for now. It only helps them satisfy investors. Just remember when the next Nintendo console comes out and the Wii U appears to be a little less next gen than you were expecting, it wasn't Nintendo who made the claim - it was hungry and desperate gamers tired of the current generation, eager to herald the new era without properly waiting for the flag to drop.

While many will point out that this is an outlandish suggestion, consider this: when the DS was announced in 2004, Nintendo was quick to point out that it wasn't the successor of the Game Boy, but instead a 'third pillar' in Nintendo's hardware portfolio.

This hinted that the company expected the Game Boy to continue its dominance, while the DS would offer an alternative platform for portable players. As we all know, the opposite happened - the DS became the biggest selling handheld of all time, while the Game Boy brand was put to bed not long afterwards, following dismal sales of the Game Boy Micro.

Is a similar situation happening with the Wii U, but this time without Nintendo making public its 'third pillar' aspirations? Could the Wii brand be overtaken by an entirely new console before the end of the next console cycle?

What are your thoughts on this viewpoint? Is the Wii U destined to have a short lifespan, allowing Nintendo to keep up with the likes of Sony and Microsoft before releasing what will be its true next-generation console? Or is MCV just blowing a load of hot air? As ever, the comments section is the place to voice your opinion.


From the web

User Comments (185)



BenAV said:

I can't see it happening.
They seem to be putting a lot of money and effort into the Wii U, so I don't think in three years time when the system is starting to get a pretty good fan base they're just going to come out with a new system, leaving the Wii U behind and annoying a majority of their fans who have invested their money in the system.
Part of me would sort of like it to happen, because then I get an even better system sooner, but unfortunately I don't have the kind of money to buy a new console every three years.



Bejeeta said:

First of all, sorry for my english. Now... Well... Hit me but I think the same. Burn me, but I always thought that Nintendo was planning something else more marketing related, such (as the article explains) the loss of sales of 3DS. Stomp me, but I feel that WiiU will have a short lifespan and that it won't be as revolutionary or even 'cool' as Wii was. Forgive me, but I'm sure that Nintendo didn't know how to make a Next Gen console and throw out this one to earn some money before Microsoft and Sony, jumping this stage and preparing for the next->next gen console only after having seen the rivals. I'm not a blind fanboy, I love this company, but I can't see the point in WiiU.



Spoony_Tech said:

Well of course if its not successful they will bring out a new system in a few years. But if they screw this up then they might be a handheld only company by then. This has to work. They can't afford a stop gap



Nintenzo said:

I suppose the Playstation 2 & 3 and the Xbox 360 are also stopgap systems for having a tacked on extension of a title.



ThomasBW84 said:

My two pennies worth is that this isn't going to turn out that way, though time may prove me wrong. Nintendo gave up caring about being in the graphics tech race when GameCube struggled. It's not going to win-over all of the Xbox/PS3 crowd, but it's got a big enough following of its own that likes the angle taken with DS/Wii/3DS, so it can go its own way.

There's also the view in some quarters that Wii U isn't starting the next-gen because of graphical capability, but I think anyone who thinks generations are defined solely by graphics is seriously missing the point. That rule might have been true during the "Bit Wars" in the '90s, but Angry Birds, phones and tablets made it less important: graphics matter to plenty of gamers yes, but I don't think they define a generation any more, if console generations are even a thing nowadays.



Mollutje said:

I call bull.. people would be seriously pissed off if Nintendo were to release a new console only two years or so from now, so nobody would buy it. Also, development for this baby was started quite a while before the 3ds was released, I reckon, so I find it highly unlikely that they simply rushed this one out the door to make up for poor sales. There's a lot of cool new ways of gaming to explore on this system, and it's got plenty of horsepower to keep me entertained, so no.. not buyin' this story. Not at all.



Bejeeta said:

"There's also the view in some quarters that Wii U isn't starting the next-gen because of graphical capability, but I think anyone who thinks generations are defined solely by graphics is seriously missing the point. That rule might have been true during the "Bit Wars" in the '90s, but Angry Birds, phones and tablets made it less important: graphics matter to plenty of gamers yes, but I don't think they define a generation any more, if console generations are even a thing nowadays."

That's an interesting view and I would like to agree. Unfortunately I see and hear many different points out there, so I believe that for the majority of customers graphics makes a great difference.
I hope you are right, however, because I think the same.



Hokori said:

I don't think Nintendo will make the same mistake they made with the GBA or the GBC



Marty-O said:

Who gives a shiny blumpkin. If at has great first party exclusives, then you have to get it eventually. I'm not getting it at launch, or anywhere near it. I like to stay a generation behind to save money. I just got a WII and it's "brand new" to me.



Grubdog said:

People are seriously underestimating the tech behind the GamePad. That thing isn't an accident.



darkgamer001 said:

First of all, let's make this clear. The MCV article is flamebait, pure and simple.
That said, their 'argument'....if you can even call it that...can be shot down in more ways than one. Graphics don't define a console generation any more, and just because it's called 'Wii U' doesn't mean it's just an extension of the Wii. By that logic, are the PS2 and PS3 revisions of the original Playstation?
Finally, people are seriously underestimating the R & D costs of developing new consoles if they think that stop-gap consoles are a viable strategy.



chiptoon said:

The article seems to imply that there's something malicious going on. But they will have a new console out in 4 to 6 years. And if the Wii U is a failure they will manage the way people view that failure. They would be stupid not to. That does not mean that they don't believe in their product 100%

And the Wii is one of the most successful game systems of all time. Naming it the Wii U shows a great deal of confidence in the machine.



XCWarrior said:

We had the NES, then the SNES. I see this as a similar situation. They had a name brand that worked, so they aren't going to deviate much from it. I can see a "shorter" life span - just 5 years, not 6 to 7, but no way is it a 3 year life span.

I don't see this as the next Virtual Boy.



GameLord08 said:

I've considered this possibility for a while. With Wii sales plummeting rather rapidly, the Wii U seemed to have jumped the gun by being an unexpected "shotgun console" that Nintendo needed to stay alive in the gaming industry without missing a year or two to have a release alongside Sony and Microsoft (which, in my opinion, would've inevitably lead to an industry crash). But that does not mean I believe the Wii U is "catching up" with their competitors - far from it, actually. And what does the name have anything to do with it?

But on the other hand, I've seen how much effort and strain Nintendo is really putting into the Wii U. The GamePad is truly a powerful and innovative contrivance, and it does have some pretty advanced tech integrated into it that not many people care to realise. And let's not forget all the features and utilities Nintendo is really focused on incorporating heavily into the Wii U this time; they're really learning from their mistakes on the Wii. They know what they're doing, and they're building upon how influential the Wii was while removing its flaws. Besides, do people really believe graphics define the start of the next console gen? An introduction of more powerful graphics will re-live the first HD console era all over again - a $600 console, $800+ TVs that can actually support the graphics, and it took five years for HD to become the accepted standard in gaming. The Wii took a calculated risk knowing this would happen, and it failed for staying on the safe side, but I doubt this will happen again for the Wii U as I don't think the next-gen will be able to survive a repeat of the scenario.

Nintendo may still be playing catch-up for a while, as they're undoubtedly balancing both re-addressing of last-gen mistakes and competence for the next-gen ahead in the Wii U. As Pachter has also said just recently, I think a few aspects of the Wii U (especially the online system) will still be a slight work in progress, just hopefully not extensively. Anyhow, this MCV article looks like purely malicious flamebait to me. It's a very sinister speculation to me and not very well-read into.

TL;DR: MCV, U Mad?



FritzFrapp said:

There are more holes in the writer's arguments than Blackburn, Lancashire. It really isn't worth a comment.



Rekiotsu said:

That MCV is talking nonsense. Wii U is next gen no matter how you look at it. I trust Nintendo I know it well(nintendolife has helped me with that) and because of that I don't believe that nintendo would do anything stupid like that.



steamhare said:

The most recent spec sheets I've seen all seem to show the Wii U as a successor to this generation, rather than a stop gap measure for a company that is (not) hemorrhaging money. The specs are VERY clearly above and beyond this generation, which people who build their own machines know.

More likely, Nintendo is going for the generational head start that gave the PS2 and Xbox360 commanding leads against their direct competitors for years (that the 360 has since lost).



triforcepower73 said:

@GameLord08 Well the wii was released just 4 years after the gamecube cause they realized that they couldn't get the sales up. But I think that nintendo has learned that if they release a console right after sales start plummeting, they need to put a lot more effort into it. NOT saying that the wii was a bad system though! It has some of my favorite games of all time. But as many people say, it was just a gamecube with tacked on motion controls. But I don't think wii u is going to be a wii with a tacked on touch screen controller.



Nintenjoe64 said:

It's a bit of a silly way of looking at it. Was the snes just an extension of the nes brand or was it a massive advance?

If they really were releasing a 'true next gen' system so soon after the U, why has it taken them this long to release an HD console? They could've cleaned up with an HD wii when the PS3 was still expensive and struggling to gain momentum.



DiaperSystem said:

I think a lot of you guys are missing the point by focussing too much on technical specifications. A Link to the Past, Wind Waker, Super Mario World and Super Mario Galaxy are great and will always be great games. All Nintendo needs to do, is what they always do, and that's make games on Wii U that will always be great.



PeterW77 said:

I would imagine that somewhere in the bowels of Nintendo HQ that a group of boffins are planning Nintendo's next home and handheld masterpieces but that's all they'll be, plans!



blinder2 said:

Anybody who read the Iwata ask Wii u interview,on the hardware and the one on the Gamepad would No MVC Pacific are talking a load of rubbish,there just in it to get some press coverage,the care and love they put into this is and the way they talk about its ups and downs,in my opoin they should be comended



New_3DaSh_XL said:

@ThomasBW84 True, and since graphics are becoming so good they don't matter too much anymore. There was a point where graphics mattered simply because they weren't almost-real-life graphics. Now they aren't changing considerably, and I think overall Nintendo made the right choice.



Lalivero said:

@Bejeeta If graphics were on the majority's mind as you say, then there would be no need for any new consoles because PCs will forever be ahead in Tha area. Also, why exactly do you not see a point in the Wii U, on top of no mention to the other 2 console makers?

Granted, we have near no word on their successors but, going by their recent offerings, surely there'd be even less point in successors who simply just up the power and add a different number on the end of the brands?

No offense, but your post(s) do seem slightly fanboyish.



GameLord08 said:

@triforcepower73: I agree, but this time, Nintendo evidently seem to be making up for their mistakes. They will indeed need to put more effort into it to ensure a healthy longevity for the system to cater and compete well among audiences.



zionich said:

My first thought is , who cares. I'll get a WiiU because I want to play the games on it. If somthing better comes out that appeals to me , ill get that.



iphys said:

Nintendo have never been crazy about releasing lots of consoles the way they do with handhelds. I do feel burned for buying the DSi, like they were using us as test subjects for the 3DS or something, but I honestly don't see Nintendo releasing a successor to the Wii U for many years. If the Wii U doesn't sell well, we may not see Nintendo release another console ever if they decide to give up and focus on software.



Mk_II said:

bollocks. Companies like Nintendo know about product life cycles and they have a long-term view on research and development. Work on a new console starts as soon as the current model is out the door. Wii U has been planned many years ago and wasnt prompted by the sudden (after 7 years?) or unexpected demise of the Wii.



Lin1876 said:

That's a rather cynical plan, but I could see it happening, albeit not for a while yet. Nintendo have traditionally held on to successful consoles for longer (the NES, SNES and Wii lasted for 6-7 years, compared to the N64 and Gamecube which got around 5). If the Wii U flops, and its success is far from certain, then I can see a successor being released in around 4-5 years, which would take us to around 2017.

Assuming consoles are still a viable business plan by then, Nintendo could release a successor around that point, but to call the Wii U a stop-gap is pushing that definition a bit far.

Edit: I will add that Nintendo are likely to cling to consoles for longest, making a Wii U successor more likely than a PS5, etc, but that's another matter entirely.



CowLaunch said:

It seems quite possible Nintendo are hedging they're bets.

I'm far from convinced by the Wii U yet, but I don't think it being a stop gap console (if it turns out to be) is necessarily a bad thing.



SilverSeraph said:

I don't know why it's so hard for everyone to figure out Nintendo's strategy. They have an actual business plan structured around profitability and gameplay innovation with less emphasis on impressing people with cutting edge visuals.

Once, when asked in an interview about the importance of graphics, Iwata pointed to DQ9 on the DS being the top selling game in Japan to refute the idea. I would also point to World of Warcraft or any Blizzard game for that matter as they never run on top hardware. Developers have to go for the widest range of consumers to maximize profit. This is what Nintendo does.

Nintendo has always been a very fiscally conserviative, and higly iterative company. This is probably why they've stayed in business, and remained profitable for all but a handful of years, since 1889!!

With every hardware iteration they release they are providing a stable and inexpensive ecosystem for consumers, developers, and themselves. Thus, the widest spectrum of consumers can buy in with relatively little buyer's remorse if it doesn't pan out, and Nintendo makes money on every unit sold. It's true the developers have been a different story since the N64 by supporting Nintendo's platform second, if at all, but that seems to be changing for the better with Wii U as Nintendo seems to be trying to improve it's relationship with 3rd party developers.

What's going to happen for some developers if the PS4/XBOX3 are prohibitively expensive to develop for? They may be able to produce photo realistic cities full of photo realistic people, but all of those art assets and the code to manipulate them have to be created and someone has to be paid to create them. Unless you are one of the Epic Games or Square Enix's of the world, that door will probably be closed for you due to the ridiculously high cost of development.

The next PS/XBOX consoles will also be ridiculously expensive for consumers. Sony for example seems to have no business strategy at all. The next PS is rumored to run games at 4k resolution, but the TV to display 4k resolution is $25,000! Who in the hell is going to buy that in this economy? Who's going to pay $500 or $600 for the PS to play the games on their $25000 TV? Almost nobody.

Nintendo know this because they've tried that strategy before. The N64 had the best graphics capabilities of the generation, but the PS1 beat it.



Shworange said:

I don't think it will be a stop gap system. That surely would alienate many WiiU buyers. If it had an upgrade port on it as the N64 did, that would be more of a possibility in my opinion. New Nintendo system in 3 years and an upgrade plug in for those who purchased a WiiU. Since it doesn't have that, I don't think that will be the case.



LavaTwilight said:

Well I'll be honest, I didn't expect the Wii to be as immensely succesful as it was. I truly didn't. Now that I think the Wii U will be, I hope it doesn't fail! Nintendo have always stuck to a home console every 6years and I feel like if anything, the Wii was just a stopgap to the Wii U! That said, with the obvious improvement from the Wii to the Wii U in only 6years, imagine what Nintendo can do in the next 6!



mjnmixael said:

Meh. Flamebait for sure. With all we've heard from developers and how they are (mostly) excited about WiiU, the cards are in favor of the WiiU being generally successful. That said, I couldn't care a less. I enjoyed my GCN because of some pretty fun first party titles. If that's all the WiiU ends up being, I'll enjoy that too. My wife and I sit and play NSBW all the time. I'm sure the WiiU version will be just as fun, and that's all I need.

Nintendo's very likely (as in the past) not going to lose money on console sales again, so it's not like they'll go bankrupt and die anytime soon either. We'll have Big N games for many years to come. If developers continue to be excited about WiiU, we'll get more than just first party games too.

Finally.. I'll make final judgments once we see what M$ and Sony are coming up with. Though I'll bet they are keeping a sharp eye on the tablet idea. Tablets are IN right now, even if it's got an umbilical to the console. (I could see MS doing a console with a generic tablet that isn't on an umbilical, off their new Surface brand, for example.) Given how quickly these two companies tried to capitalize on the success of motion gaming because of the Wii (some more ashamedly than others.. I'm lookin at you Sony.), I'll bet they'll be wanting to make sure they have tablet like systems in the works.



Bejeeta said:

"Nintendo know this because they've tried that strategy before. The N64 had the best graphics capabilities of the generation, but the PS1 beat it."

You have a point. I'm more trusty, now.

I'm not a fanboy, I'm a normal Nintendo customer who wants to know if this new console is worth my money. And not offended at all
You are probably right, but I won't buy WiiU until I'm convinced by 100%. Again, sorry for my english.



Xilef said:

Didn't they start working on the Wii U 2008 or something? Way before the 3DS and the Wiis sales starting to decline?



HandheldGuru97 said:

If you look at the history of consoles nothing like what MCV THINKS will happen has happened, so will it happen? No.



MAB said:

Meh! I will be way too busy playing awesome games on WiiU I don't give a flying root about what other console fanboys and analysts say. If a SUPERWiiTENDO gets released of course I will buy that mofo



Zhanglot said:

I seem to agree with this perspective. To be honest, I wasn't that impressed with WiiU from the get go. The hardware is just on par with current 7th gen consoles and I'm sure it'll fall behind when Sony and Microsoft release their new systems. I know Nintendo has been focusing on 'innovative' gameplay by incorporating the gamepad as major and unique part of the WiiU experience, but, while it is cool, it's kind of gimicky. It won't be enough to last the full 8 years of a standard console lifespan. I wouldn't be surprised if 4/5 years down the road Nintendo releases their next console.



dustin_g said:

yeah its nintendo, they will keep making games forever, we already know that, they been making games since the 1800's, why would that change? I don't think you understand they are not competing against sony, microsoft,or apple. they area a true game company



Boo_Buster said:

I'll only say this: The last console generation was too long, so much so that things started to get stale (they are currently stale). Sequels and numbered releases of the generations IP's ruled, and that is not really a good thing for gaming. Like this Shiryu fella above me says, 5 or 6 years is not really a stop gap for me. I believe consoles are better off lasting only 5 or 6 years. Look at the past history of consoles and how often they came out with a new generation, and then look at this current generation. PS3 and XBOX360 have been around for nearly 10 years and IP's have suffered for it. 5 or 6 years is a long time when talking about computer technology. I'd be happy if Nintendo brought new technology to the table twice a decade, as they always know how to keep the price right for the gaming consumer. Their systems were $199.99 from the NES all the way up to the Gamecube here in America. They take the technology of the time and figure out innovative and creative ways to use that tech. That is why I love them, they are nothing like the rest of the gaming world



King_Boo said:

I think they just need to look up the definition of a generation, it's never been about specs really, the 3rd gen was the 8-bit era but I don't think gen 2 was the 4 bit era, 5th gen was both 32 and 64 bit era. We'll probably see the next box at E3 it'll look about the same as what the wii u is showing.



Chubbo1793 said:

Let's not forget Nintendo and Unity have a worldwide agreement with the Wii U. I would see no point in having an agreement that was so short-term. The Wii U will last, but probably not as long as this gen.

This article also eerily reminds me of Pachter (with the negatism). =P



Beta said:

I don't think it can easily be possible. I mean, even developers need time to fully unlock the potential of a system and 3 years wouldn't be enough, did you see how many years it took for Wii games to look awesome as it is now?



C7_ said:

That's an incredibly cynical thing to say; Sure they can do that but given the amount of time this console generation has been out I think it's much more likely Nintendo got sick of the Wii and its competitors being so far behind in comparison to the technology available.

In 2 years I think we'll all see that the PS4 and new Xbox wont actually that much more advanced than the WiiU anyway, and still carry an obscenely high price (and probably use the tablet gimmick themselves because hey, that's what they did with motion control)

Given what we know about the WiiU, it is entirely fair to say it's next gen.



SteveW said:

No, that is not their plan, Nintendo does not want to match the next $600+ microsoft or sony systems and lose money on it at the same time, they are a real game company that needs to make a profit. Unfortunately we have way too many people out there that only care about processing power instead of creativity and fun. Just because someone else is doing it doesn't mean Nintendo has to, they didn't get where they are today by being followers. iif you want quality Nintendo games you will buy their systems.



Lalivero said:

@Bejeeta Yeah, it just seemed that way because of the 'gloom and doom' coming from your posts; barely anything good came out of there(except the brief speaking of the Wii being 'cool').



Void said:

They're just mad Nintendo didn't give it to them a console early to play around with. v_v



Auracle said:

This quite obviously wrong. Unlike Microsoft and Sony, Nintendo realizes that it needs to balance ingenuity with graphical power. I believe it is doing a good job balancing the two.



soundcircus said:

Talking of stop gaps. I'm still waiting for the Super Gameboy Handheld! (not the snes/gameboy game add on)

It'll still be clamshell design, have controller button colours like the SNES, two analog sticks, no 3D, high res screen with gorilla glass and a kick arse Nvidia chip!



TheRealThanos said:

Wow, what the heck are you using?
With all due respect I hope it's anything other than actual facts.
(and befor anyone starts, I'm not a fanboy, just a multi-console owner that likes facts that are supported by reality, not by ones ideas.)
You are entitled to having your own opinion an if that means the Wii U isn't your thing, then that's fine.

However, saying it's ''just on par" with current HD consoles is total and utter BS, as already EXTENSIVELY proven and explained by seasoned industry veterans such as Randy Pitchford (Gearbox/Aliens: Colonial Marines), Eric Hirschberg (Activision CEO/Call of Duty Black Ops 2), Michel Ancel (Ubisoft/Rayman Legends) en Hideki Kamiya (Platinum Games/Bayonetta 2).

People that have ALL been very positive about the hardware and KNOW what they are talking about.
It has been said many times that the Wii U versions of multi-platform games will be the smoothest running and best looking and that is actually also a bit of an open door as Nintendo would have to go out of their way to produce hardware that is the same as 7 year old tech and funnily enough that would probably even have cost them way more than the hardware they are using now.

Running games natively in 1080p at 60fps, and with next to no lag on a second screen at the same time, effectively pushing out TWO versions of the same game at the same time, and of course the leap in onboard memory from a meager 512 Megabyte to 2 Gigabyte.
Of course Nintendo already explained that half of it will be used for the operating system, but that still means there's an increase in usable memory, and the GPU is a GP-GPU, meaning that smart programmers can use that too if they so wish.

All in all the only thing that can factually be said is that it won't be a giant leap compared to the Xbox 360/PS3, but still a considerate one and Microsoft has already stated that besides better graphics they want to focus more on improving social aspects and so on, in combination with their next version of Kinect, and Sony hasn't even announced anything tangible, other than letting vague speculations do the work for them.

So people expecting that the Wii U will be thrashed by the new Xbox/PS, will probably end up quite surprised, as the financial aspect of the whole manufacturing an 'uber-console' vs what people are willing to pay for such a device also plays a major role. So the question that will definitely come up is 'will the industry take the risk and develop such an expensive piece of kit'? because taking such a chance in the current economy or state of affairs in the business as it is, means one hell of a bet and an investment that will mean a lot of losses if it fails to meet expectations...

And like somebody way up in this list of comments already stated: PC's will always be WAY ahead in terms of graphics, so if that's your thing, buy a high end gaming PC and your settled for a while.

In case anyone is wondering: 'what the hell is this guy going on about'? I'm a Market Development Representative for a large IT company, so from a market standpoint I can relate to some aspects of the whole 'Nintendo plan', if there even is one...



AVahne said:

The people who call it a next generation console are people who grew up with gaming and actually understand the console cycle. We're not MCV, who enjoys tossing out controversial statements to get people talking and doubting what they know about gaming. Besides, if you call Wii U a stop gap because of the name, then every Playstation console was merely a stopgap to the next and the original Xbox was a stopgap to the 360. If it's about power, then everything is a stopgap to modern gaming PCs.



MYCO said:

I have said this ones o go that RTS,MMO,RPG and shooting games will use the gamepad you can check this out on the website Guild Wars 2 for the Wii U. So I think that Wii U will do very good for a very long time and thats just one game right now I see more to come like RTS games that can be very good on the Wii U gamepad have to wait and see what they are? OK



AVahne said:

What are you on about? Are you a newer gamer who joined the fray during the 6th or 7th generations? Because 8 years is not a console generation. At all. A normal console cycle is 5-6 years with some consoles (some handhelds and PS2) continuing to sell after their retirement.



Robo-goose said:

This is another statement that, after the Wii U makes billions for Nintendo, will be abandoned and denied by the one who made the statement.



AVahne said:

I assume you're in Europe or Australia or similar territories? If so, then yes, you got the Wii 4 years after Gamecube, but take note that you got the Gamecube LATE. It has a healthy console life of 5 years in Japan and the US.



cdude said:

Its nice knowing that, if i ever have a gaming site no ones heard of or cares about that all i have to do for attention is pull some crap out of my butt about nintendo to generate hits, clicks and revenue.

What really sucks is that no ones going to remember to make fun of these people when the 720 and ps4 come out and look the same as wiiu games with a few more freckles because next to no one in the industry can afford to make anything look that much better without risking bankruptcy or absorbtion.

I however do promise that ill be here to laugh at every single person thats talked crap about wiiu weakness when its revealed that ps4 has the same specs and is twice as hard to develop for and the 720 only upgrades kinect and casual game interfaces.

Those of you that think nintendo is in any danger of losing money anytime soon need to google the gonintendo chart and laugh yourselves dumber when you see that their earnings round out to have 800% more profits than sony and ms have losses (which is a big deal because niether has made a dime in the last 10 years)

To think that either ms or sony is interested in doing anything other than just BEING nintendo this gen is shortsighted.

I guess the trolls need to prepare for disappointment cuz nothing is coming thats completely outclassing the wiiu for a LONG time.

Heck, its been argued that sony hoping to settle with bridgestone out of court so they have SOMETHING ti bankroll the ps4 with cuz as it stands now, as disgusting and sad as it is, sony's less than broke and ms was never interested in gaming, they wanted a windows machine hub in your living room so they could sell you tv youre already paying for.

Check the pressreleases, investor meetings and coo interviews.



Zaphod_Beeblebrox said:

Pachter is the clown prince of insane Nintendo speculation. No one should try to dethrone him. Failing at such an endeavor is humiliating (second only to succeeding).



Burning_Spear said:

Nintendo makes most of its profits on first-party software. Barring a total fail with consumers, the company is not going to pull the plug on Wii U until it can market a Zelda game, a Metroid game, an Animal Crossing game, a Donkey Kong game and a slew of Mario games, among others. That's the game plan, and it takes time. This story is merely a product of someone's speculation.



SpaceApe said:

I have no problem with this at all. Just make sure you give me a good rebate when I turn in my Wii U for the next Nintendo console. This can only be a good thing.



Mario-Man-Child said:

This is what I think, I think that Wii U is a PS3 with a touch screen. Nintendo are desperate for innovation since the success they had with Wii and 3DS. I think its innovation for the sake of innovation. The only games that will use the touch screen will be in house Nintendo stuff plus a couple of second party software houses, (anyone remember the Wii motion plus?) it was hardly ever used.
This is something I've really noticed, with the original Wii, Nintendo were on about how original controllers were intimidating to casual gamers. Then they make the Wii U control Pad, the most intimidating control pad ever made. I don't think they know if they are coming or going, and I also don't think they know who they are even trying to sell the Wii U to. Are they after the casual market or the core market? The Wii U is not right for either of these markets.



AnarquistaLibre said:

-smh- Nintendo isn't playing catch-up. They COULD make a beastly system if they wanted to. A lot of you act like that with power also comes experience, why would they after the GameCube sales? If anything I think Microsoft and Sony are playing catch-up. Look at the Wii's success and the 3DS is on track to outsell the DS which is HUGE! If you all wanted power like you claim now you should of supported them when the GameCube was out, I did, and I bought a lot of games. Don't complain if you're not going to support what you want.



MeloMan said:

I won't say that this point isn't unfounded... it's entirely plausible. But I will say this: on the point about satisfying those that wanted more out of the Wii — this point is based on the Wii not satisfying anyone, and if that was the case, Nintendo would have rushed out a more powerful system no later than 08 after dismal Wii sales, but in reality, that didn't happen. No, the Wii didn't give what all the HD, HDD, online driven gamers wanted, BUT, most of us here and now will agree that the Wii DID have GREAT experiences to be had on it, so it's far from a failure to justify Wii U as a "stop gap" system. The other point I want to make is that Nintendo is comfy playing the 'tween' card with their systems since they are not trying to be on par with the Joneses anyway. By the point made by the article here, the Wii U will be utterly crushed by the PS4 and NeXBOX "forcing" Nintendo to come out with something keep up... it's my opinion, but I hardly think the Wii U will be "utterly" destroyed, but will likely only be eclipsed by bigger HDD's and a handful more polygons... I hardly think those are factors that will label the Wii U as a stop gap, or, "fail-safe", for Nintendo, that's not their game.



HaNks said:

rubbish. opinion piece clearly doesn't understand nintendo's strategy...



Smitherenez said:

Why can't we just look forward to one console, without starting to speculate about the upcoming successor and possible future plans? Live in today's world, not in the far unpredictable future. I think the WiiU will be an awesome console, it combines the best things of the DS with an HD home console. That sounds 'next gen' enough to me!



Rect_Pola said:

IMO, this is the half logical kind of thing you expect from conspiratorial connecting the dots. In the beginning of Wii, there was a lot of calls that Nintendo would need an upgrade a lot sooner to keep alive against "future proof" competition who had the tech to afford such a step. I think that sorta happened already with the mid-gen upgrades of Motion Plus, Kinect and Move.

Frankly I don't think so. I'm surprised they didn't factor in the stream of Marios as some sort of panic mode for easy capital. Yeah I do see the potential bailout opening, but with the incredible fortune Wii brought in and 3DS starting to do better, I don't think they're in nearly the dire straights as the story suggests. Aw well; whatever the real motivations or intentions, everything might become clear WAAAAY down the road.



Otto-Soq said:

I am happy for the next 10 years as long as i can stream Wii U games (virtual console) to my 3DS XL!



SCAR said:

@Rect_Pola I agree with the mid gen upgrade part, but Nintendo's only costed 10 extra $, versus $100 for move and $150 to start out for kinect, with little to no games to support them, and is still in the same situation pretty much. I almost bought move, and then looked at what games to buy that would I could play with it, and I saidn "nevermind". I have a kinect too, and there's not enough main games that use it too. Fruit Ninja Kinect was the best Kinect game IMHO, and $150 worth of cameras and sensors are not worth a $10 game. I saw no other games I was interested in for PS3 and XBOX 360's. Nintendo had a great idea last gen for the motion controls, and they followed through with it. Then what the competitors said was "tacked on", became their next marketing move.
All in all, I think the Wii U is being the mature adult, and saying, "Ok, you've been good, now here's those HD graphics that are finally supported with a little 50% more oomph, a Game Pad controller for you to do more with your games, and more online support with more features. Oh ya, it does everthing, but that's not our moto." If PS4, and Xbox 1080 want to "wow" me next gen, they're hgonna have to have the graphic overloads, because that's what I've come to expect, but maybe in 2 years the price will go down for their tech to a more reasonable $475(which is still expensive as f***), with Wii U dropping to $300(deluxe), and maybe a free DLC code or something.




I seriously wish Nintendo would release a new Gameboy for $99.99 that would let you download Virtual Console games as well as new games.



SCAR said:

This is a ridiculous article to say the least, and I think they put 2 and 2 together, and are still confused with the answer.

Apple marketing plan: different versions of iPod



SCAR said:

@NTELLIGENTMAN It still wouldn't work though. Internet was around when GBA was around you, and they could have done that way back then, if you think about it.



Magnet_Man018 said:

@Grubdog The Wii U itself is underestimated! People think its a Wii with a controller with a touchscreen. They're blind, but once the Wii U hits stores, they will see everything clearly. Remember kids, never underestimate Nintendo, that's how you lose the battle!

@AltDotNerd Amen, man.



Hokori said:

One of my friends thought the wii u controller was what you had to buy and it came with a FREE wii console



Discostew said:

Considering the losses Microsoft and Sony took in with the X360/PS3, I highly doubt that they'll make that mistake again. MCV will eat their words when they'll either have to say that the next Sony/MS consoles aren't next gen either, or admit that the Wii U is indeed next gen.



grumblebuzzz said:

Contrary to what all the others are saying, I can see this happening if the Wii U is a failure. I feel like they sort of did this with the 3DS since they continue to put out games for the DS and market and promote it.



Discostew said:

@grumblebuzzz Games take time to develop, and some were in mid-development when the 3DS was released, so unless they decide to cancel or move them up, they'll continue those DS projects. On a side note, didn't a PS2 game get released this year?



CanisWolfred said:


Seriously, this is obvious just coming from the tech behind it. Even if Nintendo didn't mean for it to be a stopgap, that's what it'll end up being if Ninty doesn't want to bleed money all over the place when Microsoft and Sony show off their new systems.



Stuffgamer1 said:

I think the people who wrote that article need a refresher course on how Nintendo works. I fully believe that THEY believe the Wii U will last an entire generation...whether or not it actually WILL remains to be seen, but I'm sure that's what Nintendo is gunning for.



andrea987 said:

The comments at the bottom of the article are more interesting and clever than the article itself. 'Nuff said.



HawkeyeWii said:

This surprisingly does seem pretty realistic. I could see it happening. I would be pissed 3 years from know they do come out with a another one, because I would be sticking with my Wii U and not be getting another system



cfgk24 said:

How do you improve on the ultimate gaming experience?
Once console performance hits Nirvana - i.e. the characters look completely real life so much that you can't tell if it's an HD movie or a computer game - the graphics can't be improved - so once again it will be down to ways of playing (plug an electrode into your head and think how to play the game to play it) on surreal full 3d surround vision with smellivision and psycho/physical response ( you think it really hurts when you get hit but it doesn't really).
I'm pretty damn happy with my 3ds but would like some more really serious games on it. . . .



SomeBitTripFan said:


I'll have fun with my "stopgap" system while you make controversial statements to get attention. And guess what I won't hear anything you say over my enjoyment.



C-Olimar said:

I just can't agree with this. I'm not saying that they don't have some sort of plan in the unlikely event that the Wii U bombs, but it fits in with Nintendo's current power policy. Wii was just ahead of Xbox, Wii U is just ahead of PS360. Nintendo do not intend to base their consoles on graphics.



Hokori said:

It's about the games! End of story, I mean people still obviously play SMB 3 today, and some people don't play COD MW anymore



WaveBoy said:

Whatever happened to people playing games because they're fun? rawr rawr! The Wii U isn't technically advanced graphically speaking in comparison to the upcomming PS4 and XBOX 720. News flash, the 'Wii' FELT more next gen in terms of gameplay due to the breakthrough in innovation because of those awesome revolutionary motion controls. Mean while many deemed it as not 'next gen' because of the graphical power and the fact that it wasn't HD. While the PS3/360 offered the same bloody experiences which basically could of been done on the PS2/XBOX with a new lick of HD paint. a leap in graphics has always been the case since the 80's, but it just isn't enough anymore considering how far we've come.

When graphics become life-like to the point where you can't tell the difference, than what? You'll reach a dead end where it's then all about the DIFFERENT ways you play the game. Incorperate 'SmellOvision' Virtual reality, 3D(hell 4D) ect ect. That's what i'm more interested in, the ways we play the game rather than being able to see extra detail and wrinkles in Chris Redfields forehead.



Zombie_Barioth said:

A "tacked on brand extension of a title" eh? NES>SNES, the main gameboy line, the DS line, can't just be a coincidence now can it?

Graphic don't work as a judge of console power anymore, things like draw distance and FPS are a better indicator.

Nintendo have always been really great at being consumer friendly and understand you don't need high-end tech to make great games. It isn't worth it to go broke making the most powerful console on the market, just look at the PS3 and how they where taking losses even at $600. I can't see a gap much bigger than last gen, heck Sony can't even get the Vita off the ground as it stands.



citizenerased said:

Just like when Nintendo replaced the Wii after a few years because it wasn't graphically up-to-date with the PS360, right guys?


Of course, sales are going to dictate whether this will come to pass. I seriously doubt it.



Varia01 said:

SHORT? N-no that can't be.. The Wii U is better than Xbox 360 or PS3 big time! Oh it does seem next gen all right! Anyways my family just sold the Xbox 360 today and we are soon going to give up the Wii for Wii U and now the Wii U's gonna have a short life-span? NO! Do any of you recall Metroid Prime 3's awesome graphics? How would those look in HD? Why Nintendo, why only 3 years? Xbox 360 has been sold for 7 years and PS3 has been sold for 6 years and Wii U is only half that? Nintendo already has plans for new system after Wii U? This is a whole pile of crazy!



Neram said:

No, this is the real successor. I don't think Nintendo would invest in launching a whole new console, trying to get all of the third-parties on board and everything, just to come out with a new one in three years. Granted this did happen with the Game Boy Advance, so it wouldn't be completely unheard of. Honestly though, in my opinion, I think MCV here is just formulating a believable theory based on the fact that Wii U isn't going to be on-par graphically with the next PlayStation and Xbox, but I seriously don't think Nintendo is considering battling it out with Microsoft and Sony in the horsepower race with a new console in three years.



edcomics said:

I think it's a valid point, and will likely end up being very accurate. I'm not sure the "three pillars" suggestion by McFerran will be the case, considering Nintendo has projected almost no support for the regular Wii system for 2013 (unless I've missed something). It seems to me that Nintendo has put all their eggs into the Wii U basket. It may be true that it's merely the next version of the Wii, and that a true next-gen console will be revealed by Nintendo a number of years from now. For now, though, I think the Wii U will fit comfortably into place.

The real question is whether or not Nintendo purposely limited the power and graphics of the Wii in anticipation of releasing a Wii-U-like upgrade at some point in time. Maybe Nintendo's plan is to create their own generation timeline and release new consoles with incremental advancements rather than huge leaps in technology. The Wii is kind of just an upgraded Gamecube with the addition of motion controls. The Wii U is kind of just an upgraded Wii with HD graphics and the new gamepad. Likewise, the subsequent console probably won't offer a dramatic leap in technology, but will likely feature some new "innovative" control feature.



WaxxyOne said:

In the case of the DS, Nintendo clearly issued statements before the handheld launched saying they didn't intend to end the GBA's lifespan, instead treating the DS as that third-pillar you mentioned. And they didn't. The Game Boy Micro came out after the DS and GBA games continued to be made until that system's sales fell and attention switched over the DS. Skeptics might say that Nintendo was hedging their bets there, in case the DS failed, but they have made no such announcements, or even hinted at that sentiment, at any time when marketing and discussing the Wii U. The Wii U fits cleanly into Nintendo's established console cycle, and I see no reason for them to waste the investment by dumping the console in favor of a more "beefy" console to compete with Sony's and Microsoft's next systems, which haven't been announced and, if either company is to be believed, won't be for at least a couple more years.

Nintendo has never claimed to be a part of Sony's and Microsoft's power struggle, instead preferring to release reasonbly-powerful machines that can give gaming experiences their competitors' systems can't. So far it's worked for them, and only time will tell whether that model continues. But I see zero reason to believe Nintendo has some secret conspiracy going on behind closed doors to pull a bait-and-switch and pretend like this console was only meant to be a stop-gap upgrade instead of a full successor. That's just ludicrous and the worst kind of rumor-mongering.



k8sMum said:


what's your point? that no one but you bought a gamecube and games for it?

funny, i am looking at our silver cube as i write this...



AtomicToaster said:

I think the difference is the Gameboy was a massive brand for Nintendo and the DS was an experimental, new device at the time. They wanted the OPTION to fall back on Gameboy if DS pulled a virtualboy. But the Wiiu is a sequel in the already popular Wii brand. A new console in three years would be a risky endeavour in and of itself and with the money they're pumping into Wiiu, unlikely. They said this about the Wii too. That it would be done in three years in favor of a Wii HD. The graphics race just isn't the priority for Nintendo anymore.



SethNintendo said:

What the hell is this crap? This article sounds like Pachter announcing the Wii HD console during 2009/10.



kyuubikid213 said:

This is the successor to the Wii. I don't see why this is even an issue. Naming it after the Wii doesn't mean it is a stop-gap system. Otherwise, the PS2 and 3 would be stopgap systems to "play catch up" to the GCN and Wii respectively. Using the same name is a way to hook people in. Everyone loved Wii when it came out, so they kept the Wii name.



JebbyDeringer said:

That's such BS. Nintendo little to nothing to combat the Xbox360/PS3 what makes him think this would be any different?



SCAR said:

@Void Ya I paid $10 for Fruit Ninja Kinect, and it's the 2nd best(iPad 1st), and if it makes you feel any better, it wasn't worth it, and it was the most fun Kinect game so there you go. haha. I'm a hardcore gamer remember? I'll pay for anything I think will be awesome.



SCAR said:

Does anyone here even remember the GBA slots on their DS systems? I'm sure played a part with the DS getting alot of sales. Besides you can download everything pretty much now. I had the Nintendo Power magazine that announced this "third pillar" , and I thought GBA would possibly still be around, but I AREADY knew at that point(I was 11), that the DS was going to be a better system regardless, whether the next GB came out or not. So why would we even want a GB of any sort anymore, unless you can't tell whats good based on that it is.



Vincent294 said:

@Bejeeta When you think about it, yes. Wii U may very well become a budget system in 2015, when a new next-gen (not just UI & networking wise, but tech spec as well) Nintendo console launches. Interesting, especially considering the DS' intended history.



DarkNinja9 said:

ok to me when i first about the wii u and what it could do i didnt get that full open eye effect of a new generation console sorry but then after seeing what it can do and how many games coming out and work it seems to be put it then i changed my mind

but who knows nintendo could release a new console after 1 1/2 years of sony and microsoft releasing there own new gen consoles to try to compete and all but if they did alot of ppl would be pissed depending on how wii u turns out to be i know i would hate to find out a new console was released a few years from now and pay like $300+



AVahne said:

For people using "The Third Pillar" as a reason why MCV could possibly right, stop.
Remember that the GBA was already at the end of its cycle, so DS turning from "third pillar" to successor was inevitable. Now here's MCV thinking the next Nintendo console will be out BEFORE the end of its cycle, there is no way a "third pillar" argument could work here.



Hokori said:

@Koto Yeah the DS was the 3rd pillar until about 2006 that's when it became a real deal, I still hate how the GBA technically was out for only 3 years, but I know the WiiU won't be the same



CanisWolfred said:

@Hyperstar96 Just because there's a lot of pre-orders means nothing. We don't even know the actual numbers, really. It's possible most stores didn't order much stock in the first place.

It's continuous support and sales that Nintendo will need, and I doubt they'll have that when the competition steps up. Sony just bought OnLive-like service, suggesting they have something big in the works. Microsoft has been plotting something something for years now, and certainly has the funds to put out something big.

And lets not forget that, with much of its power going to the tablet, they now have what is effectively a current gen console tech-wise, which not only meaning they now have to try to break into a market that is currently being taken up by said competition, but also helps add weight to the stopgap argument. If Nintendo was serious about this, why didn't they put out something much more unique and powerful? They've been making tons of money off the Wii and DS, so why didn't they put that money to better use...unless they're just biding time until the either the economies get better, or the tech gets cheaper. Which is what I honestly think is happening here.



AcesHigh said:

Very simply, this is NOT the same thing as the Gameboy / DS. In fact, it's the exact opposite. I'd expect a bit more knowledge on the matter and understanding of the industry to be a gaming journalist.

the fact is that Nintendo wanted the DS to NOT compete in the Gameboy space. They wanted it to co-exist. As with all technology, the older must go by the wayside eventually. But Nintendo intended for both to co-exist. With the Wii U, Nintendo has made no such claims. This is their successor to the Wii U.

Another hint is in the naming. Just like XBOX to XBOX360, this is Wii to Wii U. The Gameboy and DS were two totally different lines of products with no relation to each other other than some backwards compatibility.

As for the content of the article itself.... WHO CARES?! We ALL know that there will be another console after the Wii U. Typical cycle is 5 years. If they bring another one out in 3 - 5 years, it will be the "next gen". It just will. But who really cares?! We know nothing about it it all. It could be so radically different that it co-exists with the Wii U or it could replace it. Who cares?!

My opinion is that the Wii U is significantly different from not only the Wii but everything else on the market that it should stand as an evolution. Call it what you will. But again - to my own opinion, who cares?! This industry is just overflowing with people who like to over-analyze it and who just like to hear themselves talk. I swear, we're getting so far away from just PLAYING the damn GAMES like they were intended. Everyone thinks they know more than the people behind the products who have decades of experience themselves. If anything, these are the only people I would recognize as "industry experts". Just shut up and play thedamn games! LOL!



JayMiller1988 said:

I highly, highly doubt this will come to be true. Nintendo put enormous amounts of effort into Wii U- I don't think they could do a Wii U 2 just 2-3 years down the road, they'd tax themselves way too much for probably little gain. They're betting on Wii U to sell well. Very well.



Gamer83 said:

Seems like a pretty stupid theory to me. If Nintendo was going for a 'stop gap' system the time to do so was 2009, 2010 at the very latest. The Wii U is the next gen Nintendo console and it will be around for at least five years just like every Nintendo home console before it.



gundam00 said:

I don't see Nintendo throwing Wii U overboard if it doesn't do well. That's why the new Mario 3D U and Zelda U aren't launch titles. If the Wii U has a slow start (which it doesn't with pre-orders sold out), then they will see a spike in sales when Mario U is released, just as they did with Mario 3D Land. Also, Nintendo has put too much time into developing Wii U; they've been working on it for the past three years! Having said all that, I do see Nintendo releasing an upgraded Wii U a year or two after its initial release, like the 3DS XL, I think they will release a more powerful version in the future.



gundam00 said:

@AcesHigh I agree with your comment. The Wii U is different enough in gameplay from the Wii to be considered an evolution. And I remember Nintendo saying the DS and Gameboy were intended to be siblings in the Nintendo world. It seems a lot of people are underestimating the GamePad and what that will bring to how we play games.



Voodoo said:

This is why the Wii U cant fail... Look at the DS, now look at the 3DS, different visuals but same design... The DS is the number one selling handheld of all time for a reason... Now, Wii U... Is a DS on a much bigger scale... It cant lose



retro_player_22 said:

"This hinted that the company expected the Game Boy to continue its dominance, while the DS would offer an alternative platform for portable players. As we all know, the opposite happened - the DS became the biggest selling handheld of all time, while the Game Boy brand was put to bed not long afterwards, following dismal sales of the Game Boy Micro.

Is a similar situation happening with the Wii U, but this time without Nintendo making public its 'third pillar' aspirations? Could the Wii brand be overtaken by an entirely new console before the end of the next console cycle?"

Not necessarily, the DS and Game Boy brand were two very different product, sure they were portable but one offer a different perspective of gaming over the other and Nintendo just choose to focus on the more successful one or to their knowledge, the one that is actually seeing support. The Wii U situation is nothing like that, once Nintendo started their console run, it would run for 5-6 years before a successor would replace it. Also the continue branding of the Wii name is use so to make their current audience who started gaming with the Wii to feel at home with the console while also offering something new for the core gamers with the new controllers. It's not like the Game Boy & DS situation, it's more like the NES & Super NES situation.



AVahne said:

@BestBuck123 are proof that some people automatically revert to a child-like state when making comments on the Internet. Honest, but incredibly stupid. Must be an effect of this digital era.



kkslider5552000 said:

yeah this is pretty stupid. The only way this could happen, is if Wii U is a Vita styled sales failure (Vita's failure is still partially unfair btw). And considering the absurd amount of advertising that will inevitably go into this, plus a launch with Mario and CoD + a free game bundled with the better version that is supposed to be the Wii U's Wii Sports while simultaneously being a gigantic advertisment for a dozen of Nintendo's series...yeah, not gonna fail. If it does, Nintendo might as well be done, forget any successor.

also the article acts like a new successor that quickly wouldn't be massively expensive or anything. Yeah, they could do that no problem. Sure.



AVahne said:

Then I hope you rewrite your internal history books of Nintendo to correct the mistake in your knowledge. Gamecube had a 5 year life cycle. No Nintendo home console has had a life cycle of less than 5 years in America. In fact, the Wii is only the second Nintendo home console to live for 6 years before being replaced.



AVahne said:

Now honestly, if Nintendo were to release a new "console" 3 years after Wii U, then it won'r be your standard console at all. You would HAVE to expect it to at least be some kind of augmented and virtual reality device that gives an entirely new experience compared to a normal home console. It would also have to be capable to producing graphics higher than that of the highest end PCs of the future. It also has to be capable of frying pancakes and providing many different beverages during gameplay. If you honestly expect Nintendo to waste their time and money releasing a new console 3 years after Wii U and not at least have all those above functions, then you are an idiot.



OuijaU said:

I highly doubt this is true. As someone else mentioned, releasing "stopgap" systems was what ended up taking Sega out of the hardware business. Why would Nintendo want to follow in their footsteps? Sorry to be a bubble-burster, but I think they're serious when they say they're not trying to compete with Sony, Microsoft, or anyone else in terms of hardware horsepower.



Henmii said:

Nonsense!!! Nintendo Wii u IS Nintendo's next-gen console, and it will stay for at least 5 years (If the demand stays high enough)!

Nintendo doesn't care about the strongest graphics! Nintendo is not in the graphics-war anymore! That's just how it is!



StarDust4Ever said:

Exactly. Sega signed it's own death warrant by continuous upgrading...

1986: SMS
1990: Genesis.
Genesis+Sega CD
Saturn (5th generation - too late)
Dreamcast (6th generation - too early)
Drops out of hardware market.

Though to be fair, the Gameboy Color and DSi were kind of stopgaps. Oh, and Nintendo's original "third tier" Virtual Boy crashed like a ton of bricks!



Mandoble said:

The WiiU is just catching with the PS360, this is the fact. And effectively the risk to have a Wii/PS3 situation again with the PS4 is there. Nintendo must have a plan B in case this happens.



TheRealThanos said:


Of course it is. Now take your medicin and go back to bed...
Way to much pretending to know it all when you know nothing and obviously you're entirely wrong, because Nintendo does NOT compete, they just follow their own path, and THAT is a FACT, since they have explained this time and time again themselves in interviews and during presentations.

Besides that the hardware is (although modestly so) definitely more powerful than the current HD consoles, so there goes the 'playing catch up' comment.
Therefore there will NOT be 'another Wii/PS3 situation' since the only reason that was such a huge difference is because of the whole SD vs HD graphics issue. This time around, ALL consoles will be HD, and as far as that goes the differences will NEVER AGAIN be that great, since HD TV's can't display more than 1080p, and the new 4k format TV's will NOT be mainstream in the average home for a LONG time to come, because of the ridiculous prices, so there will be no Wii U thrashing by the next Xbox or PS, PERIOD. You must also take into account economics and risk and that is a reason to suspect that both Microsoft and Sony will not want to lose that much money again like they did now, so investing in expensive and way more powerful hardware is just not an option if you want to create a secure situation where everybody will be able to actually buy your systems, so it will be more likely that the next Xbox or PS will at the most have more memory, a better graphics card in the order of 3 to 4 times the current HD generation, better framerate and better and more graphic effects. (same as the Wii U has now compared to the current HD consoles)
Now, taking into account that (considering the newer and better hardware) the Wii U is FACTUALLY 1,5 - 2 times more powerful than the current gen, and the next Xbox/PS will be around 3 - 4 times more powerful than their current consoles, that effectively means that the 'Xbox720 and PS4' (ridiculous names by the way) will most likely only have a similar step up in power like the Wii U compared to them has now, so about 2 times more powerful. Unless holographic, real-life tech becomes really cheap REALLY fast, we're done for the time with huge graphical leaps. That was more prevalent in the past, when we first went from 2D to 3D and then to current gen HD, but if you've been paying attention all these generations, you would have noticed that steps are getting smaller and smaller and now it's all in the details and tweaks.
Why do you think that developers of engines make their software SCALABLE for ALL platforms? Because they KNOW and EXPECT this, so from now on, let's leave stating facts to the professionals, shall we?

If industry veterans tell us EXACTLY how it is, then who are internet fanboys to dispute these REAL facts?

Oh, and fix your English, it's horrible.

I agree with almost everything you've said so far.

Now if only you were serious...



Moshugan said:

Wii U surely is a continuation of the Wii brand, but to call it a stopgap is bonkers.
Actually, only the Gamecube on the home console front, and the original DS on the portable, were ''new monikers.'' Until then Nintendo was satisfied with ''tacked on brand extentions.''
Was the Super NES just a stopgap? Or the Nintendo 64? If anything, the Gamecube could be concidered stopgap, but even it wasn't intended to be such. Since Gamecube failed in a sense, they had to come up with a new brand - the Wii. Since Wii has sold a bajillion units, they just couldn't dump the brand. It would have been crazy.



Mandoble said:

@TheRealThanos: "Now, taking into account that (considering the newer and better hardware) the Wii U is FACTUALLY 1,5 - 2 times more powerful than the current gen, and the next Xbox/PS will be around 3 - 4 times more powerful than their current consoles"

Based on the solid info you have (cero), you may say also that WiiU is 10 times more powerful than current gen and that next PS will be half as powerful as PS3, or any other combination of random numbers.



grimbldoo said:

@retro_player_22 #131
put [ quote] at the beginning and [ /quote] end of your quote, it will make it easier to read. Take away the spaces between the brackets and the word "quote" though.



dimi said:

Ι like my 3ds as much as the next guy and i bought 2 DS...but after reading this article i want Gameboy 4.with full HD and quad core proccessor!



erv said:

That is just thin air. If the wiiU sells very few units, then yeah, of course there'll be something different sooner rather than later. If it is popular, nintendo will ride the gravy train.

Considering the wait and development resources gone into this, it'll probably be more than 4 uears even if sales appear to be near the low millions, if only for proper IP support and maintaining a loyal customer base.

Nothing new here, really. Will still enjoy my shiny new wiiU the coming years



duffmmann said:

I don't see why this would be the case considering how under powered the Wii was compared the 360 and PS3, and Nintendo never went about to try and compete with those systems power wise (unless you count this final year for the two competitors, which I wouldn't considering the Wii had a 6 year life span, falling within the standard for gaming consoles).



doctor_doak said:

There is no way this system is a stop gap. I think he missed the whole point that Nintendo pulled out of the graphical/processing power race 6 years ago.
It's next-gen because it is a new Nintendo console, and it does things no console before it has in terms of the controller device. Could you imagine the backlash from Wii U buyers if they pulled the plug after 3 years to release a new system?? People would just abandon Nintendo in droves. But obviously, they'd never do that. If you look at the history of their console releases, it's fairly consistent with what they've done, and i'd expect this system to last through to 2018. I think the online shop, and a focus on providing a viable platform for innovative indie titles is going to give the Wii U staying power that the Wii lacked. There will also be mid-tier developers who will find the Wii U a more attractive proposition considering that they'll have access to a large installed base, and will not have the same cost-risk associated with development, as they would if they were targeting XBox720, PS4, & PC..



kyuubikid213 said:

THe main reason why I don't believe this stopgap crap is that current TVs display up to 1080p. Trying to go higher than this would be nonsense. The PS4 and 720 will most likely be just as powerful as the Wii U or slightly more powerful as with the GameCube/PS2/Xbox era. Actually, no. I KNOW the next generation will be this way. It would be economically unsafe for Microsoft or Sony to try and make the world's most powerful system again. I think the PS4 and 720 will add in every feature that the PS3 and 360 can't get via firmware update.



TheRealThanos said:

I suspect you meant to say 'zero' instead of cero, but unfortunately for you I am an IT market professional, so in general I actually DO have at least a partial insight into economics and hardware sales vs expectations/specs, so unlike you, what I said is based on what I KNOW to be true and what (according to professionals in the console business) is very likely going to happen.
Therefore it would be very stupid of me to start mentioning the Wii U being 10 times more powerful or anything like that, because like you will also very likely know, I can assure you that this is absolutely not the case.
However, the economics vs risk point still stands and because of that expectations of the customer (which is us) should be moderate, because expecting super powerful next gen hardware is simply just not a reality.
The next Xbox and PS will definitely be more powerful than the Wii U, but not by a very big margin as some fanboys keep saying, so as long as you have realistic expectations, you will not be disappointed in a few years time when the new systems will be announced.
I respect your opinion, so I do not take any harsh comments personally, but I would like to ask you to try and take ALL of these things into account (and by that I also mean all the stuff I mentioned in my previous comment) and if you are even half as smart as I suspect you to be, you should actually come to pretty much the same conclusion if you take some time to think about it.



Kage_88 said:

Wow. I've been internet-less for three months.

Nice to see outfits like MCV proving that people are still morons 'round here.

Blah blah 'stopgap', blah blah 'Nintendoomed', blah blah blah.

I'm off to get some MGS4 Trophies.



JavierYHL said:

nothing strange nintendo consoles always have a shorter wii with x360 and ps3 and u will know...



Rapido said:


"There's also the view in some quarters that Wii U isn't starting the next-gen because of graphical capability, but I think anyone who thinks generations are defined solely by graphics is seriously missing the point."

Exactly. Those people saying Graphics is the most important factor here, they're dead wrong. Probably don't know the fulfillment of playing games when graphics is not the key (90's) and just play games for past time. Poor birches.



supermonkey117 said:

i was watching something on my 360 the other night by ign polished games have came at a price of low difficulty and short game play i can see the wii u going far just need the right games.



Mandoble said:

the first hand info you have is null, there are NDA everywhere and you can only guess based on what you can see. You have seen previews of WiiU games, and you have seem the next game engines created for nextbox/PS4/high end PCs (Epic, SEnix) so you might have some clues there about the potential difference. My personal opinion, and that's an opition, is that Nintendo has just tried to improve in the graphics area while totally missing the CPU one. Anyway their base was set by the Wii, and certainly the WiiU should be perceived as a more than enough improvement over it. But the base for MS is the 360, and not a single 360 user will pay a $ for something that the current 360 can handle (even if downgraded), same applies to Sony. They simply cannot offer something a bit over current PS3 and expect their masses to switch to the new device, they cannot rely on gimmicky devices as they already know this doesnt work with their customers (case of Move).



UnseatingKDawg said:

Who the hell are these jackasses to say that this is just a "stopgap" system? I don't see them coming out with any gaming consoles, or even making games. They're just a friggin' game thrift site from the sounds of it. Besides, they're awfully quick to forget that the Wii and GameCube did at one time share shelf space. Honestly, this is nothing new. It always takes the predecessor a couple years to finish out. This happened between the NES and SNES, the SNES and the N64, the N64 and GameCube, and as I mentioned earlier, the GameCube and Wii. So, like I said, this is nothing new. It's happened before. It's still happening with Sony right now, for cryin' out loud.



Hokori said:

@JavierYHL That's ONE generation... PSOne 1994-1999 N64 1996-2001
GCN 2001-2006 PS2 1999-2006 Xbox 2001-2005
SNES 1990-1996 Genesis 19988-1994



U3N said:

Nintenjoe64 wrote:

It's a bit of a silly way of looking at it. Was the snes just an extension of the nes brand or was it a massive advance?
If they really were releasing a 'true next gen' system so soon after the U, why has it taken them this long to release an HD console? They could've cleaned up with an HD wii when the PS3 was still expensive and struggling to gain momentum.

One problem: the non-HD Wii users would be alienated in the process.



TheRealThanos said:

I wasn't looking into graphics so much, but more into economics and what can realisticly be expected from both a company and consumer point of view.
Would you like to pay (or could you pay) around 800 or 900 for a new console?
There are quite a few heavy tech resources to find online that give you quite a detailed explanation as to why that would be the result of manufacturing a WAY more powerful console than the Wii U is.
Why I can relate to that from a professional point of view is that market wise there really isn't such a big difference in 'normal' hardware sales curve prognoses and that of consoles. Of course it's no exact science, because even though there's still a lot of financial upheaval throughout the world, that still won't stop a lot of people from buying the new console they want, even if it means they will be able to spend less money on other (probably more important) things.
Because of your last reply I can understand you a bit more and of course your opinion is your own, so no argument there.
As far as the Wii U only being upgraded on graphics instead of CPU I may have an interesting read for you, that is if you haven't read this article somewhere else already:

And another really smart guy that actually makes very objective and well argumented technical reviews is Richard Masucci from ReviewTechUSA -
Some of his stuff relevant to this article:
Wii U Hardware "On Par" with Current Gen Machines -
Wii-U Hardware Specs Explained -
The Wii U Versus The PlayStation 4 -

This guy knows his stuff and isn't afraid to call em like he sees em, even if it's not in Nintendo's (or any other company's) favor...

Try checking them out, you might like it...



GreenDream said:

MCV isn't even a moderately reputable game trade website. Visit places like,, or for some good game trade websites.

But just for arguement's sake... If anything, the current overpriced LCD-based 4K displays don't even come close to the reasonable price and higher fidelity of 1080p organic LED-based displays. So of course, affordable OLED 4K displays are several years away. Anyone who REALLY wants to pump up their tech specs beyond current 1080p standards should just get a PC instead of worrying about consoles, anyways.

Not to mention, as was previously stated in other articles, the current pricing on electronics is only as low as it is because of poor moral and ethical treatment of many Chinese workers. If the authors on MCV are expecting the general public to pay any more than $400 for a basic console setup, then they've lost touch with reality.

The Xbox360 only sold so well on release because it avoided sticker shock by partitioning useful accessories like memory storage and wifi modems apart from the console, which altogether made it MORE expensive than the $600 PS3. At the time, $500+ was the usual price for a blu-ray player, so of course the PS3 was considered a fairly good deal by the big media market players.

The PS4 and NeXtbox would probably cost around that same price in 1 or 2 years, if they had a noticeable improvement over current consoles.

Hey NintendoLife, why don't we tell MCV that the neXtBox and PS4 would just be stopgap systems if released within the next couple years! Who wants to pay $600 for just a console nowadays, anyways? Being charged that much isn't a fair deal... unless it's made with love outside of Chinese sweatshops.



GreenDream said:

@TheRealThanos In response to the Wii U vs. PS4 video...

I would think the PS4 would include a modified octo-core CPU or at least a modified hexa-core CPU, not a "measly" quad-core at this point, if it would really be a step up in specs from the PS3...

And the really good upcoming hybrid CPU/GPU chips have not been manufactured yet. If the PS4 opted for a modified version of a currently used hybrid, it would probably be bottlenecked by comparison within a year or two.

For the Wii U, I think something comparable to a Radeon 6770 might make more sense- that's a solid performing card going for a mere $100 if consumers buy it, so it would be even cheaper if bought in bulk directly by manufacturers. If the Wii Upad would be about $100, and a modified Power7 4-core CPU were $100, to match AMD $100 CPU's though... there would not be enough room for other things, by only spending $300.

Unless Nintendo switched to not making a profit off of consoles, that is...

Wow, the Radeon 4770, 4850, and even 6670 are all really low-end cards at this point. Those would be weak choices even compared to good price/performance ratio choices to complete a decent $400 custom-built PC specs optimization rig.

If the PS4 included a Radeon 7950, that would be half of the console's price right there, since its $300+. With all other amenities, it would be $600 minimum! How many people would buy a $600 PS4 at this point in time, instead of a tablet or PC, anyways?



Edwrd said:

How is this a stop-gap, just based on the "Wii" name being reused? Hey Xbox 360 was Xbox originally, so is 360 a stop gap? Who writes these things??



TheRealThanos said:

Of course those videos are not made by me, but I do think that Rich shows some real knowledge and understanding of both hardware and cost vs revenue there.
Like you already said these cards are certainly not new, but no one should ever expect consoles to have the newest hardware because then we would indeed get consoles that will cost not even $600, but more along the lines of $800 - $900. And that is mainly because of not only the card, but because of optimization that is specific to consoles only. And although I agree that if you want top of the line graphics you should just buy a high-end gaming PC, because consoles will always fall behind, I also know that there is no 1 on 1 comparison possible with consoles and PC's because of the modified hardware.

I do not think that the optional hardware for the Wii U is weak, as you seem to think, because of all that I already said in previous comments and performance-wise it's still a nice step up from current gen HD consoles.
We should also not look at them as 'PC cards' but for what they can do in a console and that is quite a bit more than what hardware in consoles is doing right now.
You have to also remember (of course) that PC's have evolved and consoles have been standing still for around 7 years, so putting in low-end, last year tech will STILL make consoles a whole lot more powerful compared to current gen.
Like me, Richard Masucci just wants to debunk a lot of nonsense being said online and in the case of the Wii U all possibilities show that whichever way it will go it's actually quite a decent console and we can finally lay the 'is on par or even weaker than' comments to rest, because that's just stupid and not backed up by any real facts or data.

As for the possible hardware in the PS4, that may be quite a bit cheaper in 2014, when it will possibly be revealed, so you never know...
I do not think that they will put in the hardware you mentioned and that is mainly based on taking into account the huge losses the console industry in general is experiencing right now. Sony especially is in quite a bad place and I don't think they can afford to make another wrong move. (no pun intended on that last word, just in case)
You might want to check out some of Rich's general console topics or 'PS4/Sony rumours' to see if you can agree with his take on that. I for one do, for the most part anyway. (and if you don't, you can even send him a request or subject to discuss)

However, console fans will always buy their system of choice, even though it might cost them quite a bit more than they are (initially) willing to pay, but I do think we can draw a line at the highest price of the original PS3. Any higher than that and no one but rich or spoiled people (kids) will be able to buy/get the next consoles...



GreenDream said:

@TheRealThanos I subscribed to his channel, and you're absolutely right on all points. Even though Nintendo likely dipped into 2010 hardware, it's still far superior to anything from 2006.



TheRealThanos said:

Thanks for your positive reactions and thoughtful input.
Even before your comments I was already of a mind to send Rich this topic to see what he thinks of the discussion, especially coupled with the newer article here on Nintendolife about Michel Ancel saying the Wii U is pretty powerful and quote:
"has no problem with texture fill rates".
The original article is even a bit more detailed, and gives away quite a few clues:

If you couple that with Rich's hardware video's then we might be able to get a bit closer to which card is actually in the Wii U...



Yee said:

Nintendo did a really smart move with Wii U, it gave the competitors a lot more time to make their new hardware and extend the life cycle of this generation by 4, or even 6 years ¿Why is that a smart move? Well, simple, there's no current technology that allows developers to create "next gen graphics" at low costs, the current polygonal technology is extremely expensive, they can't afford to put 100 dollars games in the market, so, the answer is "wait until the new technologies arrive".

Sony can't afford to put a new product in the market right now, if they do, and keep the trend of Vita and PS3 (Pooooweeerr!!), the system price will be outrageous, not a really good idea if you think of their financial situation. If they really want to stand out just in base of systems specs, as they did with two portable generations and two home-console, they'll have to wait to make it affordable.

Microsoft noticed that Kinect gave them a really big push in sales, I won't be surprised if the next "X box" is "Kinect focused", but they really need to polish the technology before making that step and it will take some time, time that Nintendo just gave them.



Moshugan said:

@Yee I kinda agree on every point. It's interesting to see what Sony and Microsoft are going to try next. Constant upgrades on tech and better graphics aren't going to last. Production costs hardware and software wise prohibit that.
We need downshifting in the video game industry!
In a way it's already happening, with cheap mobile, tablet and browser gaming, but that is the wrong way to do it. We need traditional console and PC gaming, but focus on gameplay and innovation rather than tech and power.
The Indie boom is a healthy development in my mind.



TheRealThanos said:

Some interesting points there, although you're not completely on the money...
Like I already discussed with GreenDream the current tech in consoles is so old that any hardware from around 2010 or 2011 actually IS going to be next gen console-wise, because they're now running on 6 to 7 year old hardware, to which you can actually add a couple of more years if you start talking tech-wise, because same as now, the hardware was and will always be behind if you look at it from a pure tech (aka PC) perspective.

And that right there is the trap that most people are stepping into because they are looking at what kind of hardware might be installed in the upcoming consoles and straight away comparisons are starting to fly left and right across the web and misinformed yet opinionated people start whining and complaining that consoles are too weak because according to those pillars of society they will be 'running on old or even obsolete hardware'.

If you purely look at it from a console perspective, then there is still a lot of stuff that can be improved upon graphics and performance wise compared to now, even if they use hardware that is 1 - 1,5 years old. As long as they optimize it (and they will) and make it console specific you will even get more out of it than when you would put the exact same card in a PC. So (as far as consoles are concerned) with all that in mind, it definitely IS possible for them to be next gen for an affordable price, because they will be fitted with hardware that is at least 5 years newer than what they have now, which is still quite a formidable upgrade, albeit not the one that most people will be expecting or are hoping for, but those expectations simply aren't realistic.

Personally, I find the only MAJOR downside with consoles to be that it always takes developers at least a year or two to really get to grips with the hardware, so that gives skeptics and critics ample time to make their unfounded commentaries on a new console, much like is happening with the Wii U right now, even though a number of well known people in the industry have already spoken out in favor of the console and their faith that it will perform way better than most mainstream media seem to think.

Maybe some of the ReviewTechUSA links I pointed out to GreenDream may be of interest to you as well, as they make for an interesting read and listen, but I guess you have to decide that for yourself. If you do want to find them, just scroll up the page a bit...



GreenDream said:

@TheRealThanos One thing that dedicated console-tailored hardware still outclasses PC hardware to this day upon is optimization. Most PC gaming hardware has downright AWFUL optimization. This was much more obvious back in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, when PC gaming hardware rarely matched the output performance and presentation prowess of dedicated game consoles, despite supposed mathematical bonuses.

So, the practical real-world performance of consoles continues to defy mathematical indications of hardware use. Having a closed platform has potentially good benefits! Nintendo and their 2nd parties, in particular, have always demonstrated amazing optimization of software. How else would an enormous game like Perfect Dark N64 be squeezed into a measly 40 MB, whereas many developers cannot fathom using only 40 MB for a title on WiiWare?

Few games made these days really need a whopping 25 GB to operate, so it will be interesting to see how the Wii U optical discs perform. And yeah, asking for an equivalent to a dedicated graphics card could be unrealistic, since Nintendo engineers specialize in custom modified hardware. The modders will probably work on revealing the tech of choice soon enough.



TheRealThanos said:

I totally agree. Although I sometimes still wonder about the updates on my Xbox 360 when I put in an older game I bought or a game that I haven't played for a while, which then immediately asks if I want to download an update.
I almost never buy them at release dates, so it's older games that apparently still need patches many months after release, so that is probably the only exception, the same goes (to an extend) for Playstation (from what I've heard from friends) and on the Wii patches (luckily) have been very scarce, most of the time fixing some online bug, which didn't interest me since I never played online with it.
As for Wiiware, I've always liked what Shin'en have been able to squeeze out of that 40MB...
As for the graphics card issue: I did send Rich a pm though: I was just too curious to know what he thinks.
If you're interested I'll let you know when he replies.



LeftoverLunch said:

I would of thought the whole selling Wii U at a loss would of put their argument down the toilet. Nintendo's strat with this console is to sell at a loss and slowly leach back that cash through software sales over a period of years. So if Wii U is meant to be a stop gap why would they take the risk of releasing a new console before they have paid off the Wii U?



Liquidus said:

@BestBuck123 Nintendo has never been desperate for innovation, THEY ARE INNOVATION. If it wasn't for them you would still be gaming with a one button joystick. If it wasn't for them the games you play would still be one screen using overlays for your tv. If it wasn't for them there would be no multi level games that actually had story lines, If it wasn't for them things like mario and an entire platforming genre would not exist, If it wasn't for them your favorite game would be " Gofish" or 52 card pick up,If it wasn't for them the videogame crash of 83 would have been PERMANENT, if it wasn't for them portable gaming wouldn't even exist, if it wasn't for them, there would be no competition, no other systems for you to buy; no Playstations, xboxes, or sega consoles, They spawned an ENTIRE industry around them with the moves they made sure they didn't invent videogames, because an American was the first to invent it, but they damn sure perfected it beyond the ability that anyone else was remotely capable of doing.If it wasn't for them, no one would even dare think of making a hand held console with 2 screens, which we now see implemented in the Wii U again, albeit a highly advanced version of that technology. If it wasn't for them, thewre would be no Zelda, and we all know how much that would suck. NES came out, it was copied by the SMS and spawned multiple consoles including actual controller use., NES brought controllers, the others needed to have controllers, Wii brought motion controls, then it was copied by the other 2, Wii U brings tablet, guess who else is gonna have tablets?

Nintendo will never be desperate, they re-invented video games single handedly and every one else copied all of their ideas, if anything SONY or Microsoft need to start bringing some innovation to the table instead of stealing it.



Liquidus said:

And I am going to shut down this talk of Wii U being underpowered. It may look somehwat the same, but you really dont understand how smooth everything runs at. You can't truly understand what its graphics are like till you see it in front of your face in HD, not HD videos of GT or youtube, doesn't even compare. You will be blown away when you run Zombi U on your 1080 p HD TV. It's little graphical details which make this a significant leap. You won't see it's full capability on multi platform games, they will just look polished, run smoother and faster, and incorporate a better way to play old games.

It's the exclusives that really shine. And sadly there aren't many for this launch. But still a great line up none the less. Shooting a zombie in the head and seeing his head explode and disappear in a cloud of blood before it disappears is nice. But in the Wii U spectrum, you shoot a zombi in the head and parts of his head going flying across the room and you can actually gain a real sense of dealing realistic damage, 50% more power is no joke. Of course you can wait for 100% more in 2 years but you're also going to spend $699. I'm jacked for this release tomorrow.



parcheesi said:

This explains so many things. Like how VC games aren't playable on the controller screen, which is just insane. Also, way back when people were angry about not getting Xenoblade on the Wii, I remember hearing a theory that Nintendo was actually stalling so they could release a premiere edition of the game on the Wii U; obviously that didn't happen, but it totally would have happened if Nintendo really cared about the Wii U.



BenAV said:

@DESS-M-8 Well, we don't know how long till the NX will launch and we don't even know what it is yet.
Wii U sure hasn't had great success, but I still wouldn't call it a stopgap system really.



DESS-M-8 said:

@BenAV nobody knows you're right, I'd say it will be late 2017 at the latest though. And it will be BIG.
The wii u is a stop gap system.
It is becoming more and more apparent that nintendo, with their soft launch, low investment and apprehension to really push the system that they are using it as a testing ground for ideas as they develop the NX.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...