@Dogpigfish People are really, really overestimating how much COD: Ghosts will push next-gen sales. Will it sell well on new systems? Of course, but the results this year will be the same as they have always been. The top sales for Ghosts will be on the Xbox 360 and PS3.

Call of Duty alone is not going to motivate people to go buy a Wii U, PS4, or Xbox One. Most people are going to buy Ghosts on the systems that they already own, and most people own either a PS3 or 360.

Plus, there is no gurantee Ghosts will be the top shooter this year. Battlefield 4 look poised to make a major impact, and BF3 did a good job of taking a portion of COD's market. And this might hurt Nintendo, since BF4 is skipping a Wii U port.

Even if the Wii U get Ghosts, why do you think the Wii U version will be the one that everyone has to own?

On the while Smartglass thing,

I'm not going to dismiss this as Molyneux as being an idiot since he did work art Microsoft and might have been aware of what they were working on. Smartglass could have been in development around the same time as the Wii U Gamepad, but Nintendo managed to announce their product sooner than Microsoft.

I have read reports that Sony was working on the Move around the same period that Nintendo was developing the Wiimote, and that Nintendo simply beat them to the market with the idea.

Here's the thing, unless you have full access to the R&D files of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony, its impossible to know when any of these products started development. For all we know, Smartglass could have been in development at the same time or even before Nintendo started work on the Wii U Gamepad and Nintendo was simply able to get their product out first.

None of us(Unless you worked for those companies or have access to the R&D records) will never know for sure

I just hope they fix classic mode. The one in Brawl sucked since they took out the randomness of who you fought on each level and the bonus stages.

And honestly, every character needs their own break the target levels. I hated the shared ones in Brawl. Also, the return of Board the Platforms would be awesome.

@Dark_Link Nintendo's biggest mistake was marketing the Wii U to "Hardcore Gamers." I think Nintendo will find more success if they market the Wii U to kids, retro gamers, families, casual gamers, and as a great secondary console. Trying to go after the so-called "Hardcore Market" accomplishes nothing since that market thumb their noses up at Nintendo and their games.

That was what hurt the Wii U at launch. With the Xbox and Playstation on the market, trying to cater to the "Hardcore Market" is sucide. They should have learned their lesson with the Gamecube.

With their consoles, they need to target the audience that the Xbox and Playstation ignore. They found success with the Wii by doing this, and that needs to be their focus with the Wii U.

@0SP_ZELDAiii Like them or not, Activision is one of Nintendo's top supporters. What are they doing wrong? I know people dislike Call of Duty and it's impact on the market, but the last thing anyone needs to say as a Nintendo fan is for a company that is supporting Nintendo to go screw themselves.

Activision has been one of Nintendo's best supporters over the last few generations.

@Dark_Link Because at the end of the day, it comes down to numbers. The PS3 and 360 have a much larger base in terms of sold units. It would be foolish to ignore either system at this point. As to why games never get ported to the Wii U, who knows? It could be virtually anything ranging from a small customer base, to they have a bias against Nintendo platforms.

@SkywardCrowbar Why does every one hate Rage? I thought it was a great game that saw ID do things that they never have done before. In a world where Battlefield and COD games are the norm, I'm shocked so many people did not like a Shooter like Rage that moved away from the norm.

I know the PC version had some major issues and the game's multiplayer sucked, but I'm surprised so many people hated Rage.

I played it on the Xbox 360, and I thought it was just as good, if not better then Doom 3.

@retro_player_22 What has Alex Kidd done on Nintendo systems? Barring an apperance in Sega Superstars Tennis and his Master System & Genesis titles being out on the Virtual Console, he really has made no impact on Nintendo platforms.

A far better choice would be Shinobi or Nights, given they had new games on Nintendo platforms and are fairly popular with Sega fans.

Personally, I would love to see a Shinobi character join. It would give the roster a much-needed Ninja Character:)

@Gamer83 How are they stupid? Its still coming to the Wii U. The only difference is that it is also coming to the PS3, Xbox 360, and PC. In other words, the gamers on those systems that either missed the game the first time or owned the original version will be able to play this game with out plucking down money for a Wii U.

In today's modern gaming business, console exclusives generally don't cut it anymore. It makes more sense from a business standpoint to put the game on as many systems as possible.

How are they being stupid?

Ok, if we get a Wii Fit Trainer but Little Mac does not make the cut, I will be very angry.

And I would still love to see Mike Jones from Startropics make it in:)

@WaveBoy Heh, I wish we lived in a world where Sega was still making consoles. I know some people will disagree with me, but Sega was one of the most innovative companies in the indsturdy during the 80's and 90's. I would even argue they often beat Nintendo in the regard that they would often put their name on games that were off the wall such as Seaman, Comix Zone, and countless other games.

Sega has that special place in gaming that not even Nintendo can match. They were the ones who often took bold chances, and innovated things such as 3-D fighters, Sega Channel, online play.

I wonder how different things would be if Sega had remained a major player.

I love the systems from the other companies, but there is something missing with Sega gone. And I think it was that lack of innovation that Sega brought to the table began to shape modern gaming.

And with them long gone, Nintendo is pretty much the only thing left of the old-guard.

@Trikeboy This is why Nintendo needed to do an E3 presentation. With both their competitors bringing new systems to the table, I just don't think a Nintendo Direct will get the attention it needs or is enough.

All eyes are on E3, and make no mistake Smash Brothers would have a bigger impact being shown off onstage at E3 when compared to a Nintendo direct. Plus, it's easier to build up hype at a E3 show. E3 is the big one, and I thought Nintendo's decision to skip a proper presentation was a questionable idea.

It's too late for Nintendo to change things, but they really needed a full presentation. Especially given how much Sony came out swinging.

One other thing I forgot to say, the PS4 getting Final Fantasy XV and Kingdom Hearts 3 will get alot of attention and support.

@WaveBoy The problem is, Sony can easily ride the wave of being the Next-Gen system people have waited years for. To most people, the Wii U is commonly considered a system that is equal to the Xbox 360 and PS3 in terms of power.

Sony just murdered Microsoft and Nintendo is not much better off right now. Many people on here were banking on Sony putting out a system that had restrictions on used games, horrible DRM rights, and would cost an arm and a leg to own.

Sony not only defied all the naysayers, but have put themselves in position to ride a wave of hype into the fall. The Wii U will do well, but with the deluxe model sitting at 349, it will be a hard sell for Nintendo without a price drop.

And with Microsoft making blunders all over the place, Sony can market the PS4 as the next-gen system to gamers.

Make no mistake, Sony is the clear favorite right now. Super Smash Brothers and the first party games will help, but will it really be enough? Especially when if Nintendo stays stubborn when it comes to a price drop?

How much of a value will a $349 Wii U look next to a $399 PS4?

Right now, Sony can market themselves as the true Next-gen console that is cheap and has the games that people want.

Nintendo will do well, I'm sure of it. But there is no denying the fact that Sony shocked alot of people and just buried Microsoft. Nintendo will have to truly step up their game and get the third-party support in line. The first party titles will always be there. They need the third-party games.

Either way, I see this becoming a race between Sony and Nintendo this generation. Microsoft has made blunders I have not seen since the days of Sega in the mid 90's

@NodesforNoids To be fair, Sega was the first to come up with the idea of having two screens while playing a game. Yeah, the VMU was limited by the tech at the time, but many developers did some cool things with that peice of hardware.and it was the first of an idea that would turn into the Wii U's gamepad.

Nintendo did come up with a nifty idea, but I would argue Sega was the first one to try something like this. They were just limited by the tech at that time.

I might sound really old-school when I say this, but I like 2-D platformers alot more then 3-D ones. I never got into the 3-D Mario or Sonic games in the same way that I did their 2-D counterparts. Almost all of my top platformers of all time are 2-D ones, and the only 3-D ones I would put on the list would be Super Mario 64, Sonic Adventure, Sonic Colors, and Sonic Generations.

I grew up on the Sega Genesis and I loved the platformers that were on that system. To me, 2-D platformers tend to be more focused, more action packed, and don't rely on stupid gimmicks like chasing a rabbit to beat a level.

I can see why 2-D platformers have made such a strong comeback. They are easier to get into, and tend to be more enjoyable games overall. I simply don't like most 3-D platformers, especially the ones that require you to complete goals, jump through hoops, or collect items to beat a level.

Plus, I hate how the modern Mario games require you to have a certain number of stars to advance in the game. What happened to just beating a level and fighting a boss?

I know 3-D platformers have their fans, but its not much of a surprise to see them decline while 2-D platformers have grown in popularity again.

To me, 2-D platformers will always be better:)

I would be very shocked if Castle of Illusion does not make it to the Wii U. Out of all the consoles, I would tend to think a vast majority of the audience(mostly old-school Sega fans and kids) would be on a Nintendo system.

I think Sega has simply not announced it. Or maybe it's out of Sega's hands. Disney is the owner of the characters, and they have the final say on where these games end up going. Maybe Disney for some odd reason did not want the game on the Wii U.

@ungibbed You got Outrun HD in Europe? Man, now I'm jealous.....

Of course, I'm not surprised since Europe was Sega Country back in the 80's and 90's:)

As a Sega fanboy, I'm always saddened that Sega never gets any love with these kinds of books. Sega in the 80's and 90's did just as much to push the business forward as Nintendo did.

But this is a nice selection of books. I just wish someone would cover what games like Virtua Fighter or systems like the Genesis did. I'm not bashing these book in particular, but I'm talking in general. Sega just gets treated like a footnote in gaming history while Nintendo, Sony, and pre crash games dominate these kinds of books.

By the way, I'm looking forward to the Super Mario Bros 2 book:)

@element187 I did not say a word about TLOU. For the sake of argument, I'm leaving that game out of my comments since I have not played it. And yes, I know games like Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, and Metroid cover mature themes and they do a good job at that.

But I would love to see Nintendo try their hands at "M" rated games again. I want to seem them try their hands at a game that holds nothing back. Eternal Darkness is a great example of what happens when Nintendo tries their hand at something new. The game is arguably one of the best survival horror games in its genre.

I think too many people are assuming a "mature" rated game means nothing but generic military shooters covered in blood, cursing, and tits.

Eternal Darkness and Geist were both unique games that did not really need that stuff.

If Nintendo makes a mature game, the world will not end. Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, all those franchises will exist. But my opinion remains the same as it was before.

Eternal Darkness and Geist were proof Nintendo could take a darker game concept and make it their own. There's a reason why Eternal Darkness is considered not only one of the best games on the Gamecube, but one of the best games in its genre.

That's what I would love to see more of from Nintendo. I'm not asking for NIntendo to do a soulless copy of Battlefield, Halo, TLOU, Call of Duty, or God of War. What I would love to see is them tackle games like Eternal Darkness that are more mature, but retain the innovative gameplay that Nintendo is famous for.

@BlackSpy How were those misteps? Those are the kinda games I would love to see Nintendo do more of! Eternal Darkness was a brilliant take on the survial horror genre that did not have to rip off Alone in the Dark, Resident Evil, or Silent Hill to succeed. It was a unique game, and had that Nintendo style all over it.

Geist while a flawed game, was a unique take on the FPS genre and had some fun ideas. It just had some issues that held it back. But overall, it was far from being a rip-off of Halo.

Expanding their horizons will always be a good thing for Nintendo. We already know they can do the colorful platformers and games like Zelda. What I would love to see is another game like Eternal Darkness or Geist from them. I want to see their take on the FPS genre, or an action game.

People seem to think that if Nintendo steps out of making colorful games, they will lose their soul and make a generic game. Was Eternal Darkness generic? Was Geist a generic game?

I would love to see Nintendo do another dark game that is a step away from their normal fare. All the other elements such as the Nintendo style and innovate gameplay would be there, but we would love to see how Nintendo handles a darker game.

If Eternal Darkness and Geist are any proof, Nintendo has a good chance of doing it right.

Why are people so opposed to Nintendo trying something like this?

@Melkaticox First off, I never argued that Nintendo's big titles wil, help the Wii U. In fact, the Wii U will be saved by both Smash Bros and Mario Kart with Wind Waker and a 3-D Mario doing their part. But Sony still has a chance if they play their cards right.

You are right, a price drop alone will not help the Vita. But we still don't know what is in the pipeline for the Vita. For all we know, a FF VII remake could be the big third-party title Sony is hyping. There could be other major third-party titles in the pipeline for the Vita. The fact that Japanese sales for the Vita have improved is nothing but a good thing since the vast majortiy of handheld developers are Japanese companies. My point is that the Vita does need a major kick in the back to get things started, but its not quite dead.

Plus, Sony is tying the Vita to the PS4 through remote play. Every developer for the PS4 is required to support remote play for the Vita unless they are making an Eyetoy toy. Bascially, this setup means Sony can turn the PS4 and Vita into their own version Wii U by offering similiar features and offscreen play.

Now, it's easy to dismiss this as a half-hearted attempt by Sony to copy the Wii U, but if they bundle the PS4 and Vita in a single package and market them at the right price, they could make some waves.

You said it yourself, Sony has a stronger prescence in home consoles then handhelds(Nintendo is the reverse) and if they can link the Vita to the PS4 and make it a key part of the PS4 experience, then they could sell two systems and once and strengthen their postion in both markets.

Now, I don't expect the Vita to every surpass the 3DS in sales. The 3DS still has a strong future ahead of it. But I think Sony could make the Vita a success by trying it to the PS4 and getting key games onto the system. Time that around a price drop and a major promotion for Playstation Plus, and Sony might have a chance.

Of course, this is all speculation, but nobody really knows what Sony has up their sleeve.

@dumedum Given Wii U sales, this is basically the pot calling the kettle black. I know people will play the "Wait until Mario, Smash Bros, Zelda, etc"
argument, but at this point in time, the Wii U is in the same boat as the Vita. Maybe its doing a bit better, but they are both young systems that are suffering from sluggish sales.

I hope both systems do well, but I'm getting a little tired of people saying "Wait til Nintendo's titles land!" to defend the Wii U while acting like the Vita has no future. Sony has already announced they are going to show Vita games at E3 and that a major thrid-party title is coming.to the Vita.

I want the Wii U and Vita to both do well. In my opinion, both are great systems with tons of untapped potential. Which makes it so sad that everyone dismisses the Vita so easily.

@Melkaticox And who's to say the Vita can't turn things around as well? There was a point where everyone thought the 3DS and PS3 were almost dead, and those systems turned things around. All the Vita really needs is a killer app that can push the system and a price drop in the west. Look at the boost a price drop gave the Vita in Japan. All Sony needs to figure out is how to maintain that momentum.

It may never do 3DS numbers, but if Sony can play their cards right, they could have a decent seller on their hands.

@deitypower Or they could just stick to their PS3 and Xbox 360s until the price drops on the PS4 and Xbox One. The Wii U will get a boost this holiday season, but everyone who is expecting all potental PS4 and Xbox One gamers to flock to the Wii U is fooling themselves. As long as the PS3 and Xbox 360 keep getting the games that people want to play, there's no incentive to upgrade immedality. Keep in mind, the PS2 was still selling very well and got some major titles even after the 360, PS3, and Wii launched.

Everybody assumes people will just jump to the Wii U in droves. Right now, if anyone is skeptical about next-gen, why would you jump to the Wii U? Its future is just as hazy as the other two systems.

For me personally, I'l sticking with my Wii, PS3, and 360. As long as good games come out for those systems, I see no reason to upgrade to the next-generation.

None of the next-gen systems have wowed me. Which means until things become clear in a few years in terms of price, features, and games, I'm sticking to my current system. I would imgaine there are a good number of people who are doing the same.

@KnightRider666 Bill Gates no longer runs Microsoft. In fact, he has not run the company since 2006. And how is he an idiot? Even if you don't agree with the business practices of Microsoft, no idiot can make a company that large and that powerful without knowing what they are doing.

But he has nothing to do with any of Microsoft's recent products. That includes the Xbox One and Windows 8. He retired from running Microsoft in 2006, which means anything that happens afterwards is not his fault.

For the sake of fairness, I think the PS4 would have gotten a spike in preorders had a price been announced. I think next-gen will be between the PS4 and Wii U with the Xbox One taking third place.

I think too many people are counting out Sony. Yes, this is a company that fumbled the ball with the PS3's launch and the Vita, but let's not forget how they have managed to turn the PS3 around and made it a pretty successful system.

Even more so than Nintendo, the ball is in Sony's court. If they can take advantage of the negative press against the Xbox One and go after Microsoft, then they could have a successful system on their hands.

Honestly, this is Sony's battle to lose. In many ways, Nintendo and Microsoft have practically handed them the next generation. They have the hardware, they have a positive reaction to what they have shown so far, they have the ability to get both solid first-party and major third-party support to their platform. The ball is in their court, and the questions remains wither Sony will do the right thing.

There seems to be a common belief that Sony is on its last legs, and while I'm not doubting the fact that the company as a whole has lost money over the past few years, their gaming division has been doing well. The PS3 has not only managed to catch-up to the 360, but if some sources are to be believed, it has passed the 360 in sales. Keep in mind, this is a system that was declared dead and was a joke back in 2006 and 2007.

If Sony plays their cards right, they could win the next generation. Now, I think Nintendo will finish the gen in a comfortable place as the Second Place system. The Wii U will become very successful on the strength of its first party offering and the odd third-party games that might land on the platform. Honestly, I don't think Nintendo is in any danger here.

The one that is in danger is Microsoft. While their system is impressive, the stupid stance on used games and other stuff might bite them in their behind. Plus, this is their third home console. If anyone loves curses, then its interesting to note that most companies have faltered with their third home console. Sega did it with the Saturn, Nintendo did it with the N64, and Sony did it with the PS3

Well, if this used game thing is true, than I'll be skipping the next Xbox. I buy all my systems a few years into their lifespans, and this will do nothing more than hurt me. I do that for several reasons, namely it lets me see which system is getting the best support and I can catch up on classics on the cheap by picking them up at Gamestop.

Not only is this stupid, but it creates serious problems. Suppose I want to buy an older game that had a limited print run or has dropped in price massively over the years. Will I still be paying 49.99 to active these games? Some of the games that Microsoft sells on their online store are still more expensive then the versions that you can get used or buy brand new at stores.

And I love how Microsoft thinks offering an online trade-in program solves everything. That warms my heart that rather then Gamestop cheating me out of credit, it's Microsoft. Damn, Microsoft somehow made Gamestop look good. At least Gamestop offers trade-in bonuses. I highly doubt Microsoft will offer anything.

From the looks of things, the PS4 is going to be my main console next generation alongside a Wii U that will let me play Smash and Fire Emblem. But here's the thing, Nintendo and Sony need to seize this oppurinty and crush Microsoft. I do not want Microsoft's ideas to be the future of gaming. Regardless of what some people think, Sony has been good for video games, and they have not really gone out of their way to destory the core of what gaming is.

Microsoft is treating the Xbox One like its a Windows TV Set Box and I hate that.

With the PS4, I saw a console that was built to be a video game system first, and other stuff was included as a bonus. To Microsoft, they are going out of their way to show off everything but games, and they want nothing more than control.

And if this used game thing is true, I'm done with the Xbox. I'm supporting the PS4 and Wii U. At the very least, Sony and Nintendo are not out to destory gaming with idiotic ideas and "enternainment hubs." Does the Wii U have issues? Yeah, but I have never doubted the fact that it was built for gaming. Same thing with the PS4. Almost everything Sony showed off for the PS4 was built around the idea of enhcaning they way we play games.

Sony and Nintendo are the future of gaming. They are the ones who deserve our money.

Was anyone really expecting Microsoft to show off all their games with E3 less then a month away? The main goal of this presentation was to show off the Xbox One's hardware and get the more mundane things out of the way. The games will be shown off at E3, mark my words.

Before everyone starts delcaring the Xbox One a failure with no games, keep in mind we're only a few weeks from E3. If that comes and goes and there are still no real games shown, then feel free to bash Microsoft.

But this was not going to be a showcase that had Halo 5, Fable IV, and games like that. This was to show off the Xbox One and get the hype machine going into E3.

Sony did the same thing with the PS4. While Nintendo has kinda moved away from E3 in favor of their Nintendo Directs, Microsoft, Sony, and other third-parties view E3 as a major event where they show off their games. The games will be shown at E3. Just wait for it.

This was just the prologue to the bigger show at E3.

EA must not be happy just being a two-time winner of the "Worst Company In America" award , since they are also trying to win the "Stupidest Company in America" as well. While I was willing to give EA some benefit of the doubt over this mess with Nintendo, my opinion has changed since they are handing this issue with the maturity of a small child that did not get a candy bar.

Rather then taking the high road and maybe put out a message like "While we like Nintendo and it's systems, we have no game in developments while we review our support on Nitnendo's platforms." That's all that needs to be said. make one statement and then walk away. If the time comes for EA to renew their support of Nintendo, then they can easily walk back into the fold.

But instead of taking a logical step that still keeps the doors open for both parties, EA goes on the warpath. Day after day, they flooded Twitter and the internet with another attack on Nintendo. Its not even like their hiding it. I have never seen a third-party unleash such venom against a first-party company. It's pathetic, it's childish, and its just plain stupid.

EA might have an easier time pulling this off were it not for the recent failures that were Medal of Honor: Warfighter, Crysis 3, and Dead Space 3. And this is the thing, even the support form gamers on the Playstation and Xbox are not as stable as they once were. All gamers, regardless of their given support are getting sick of EA's antics. I was looking forward to Sim City until I heard about the stupid always online requirements. I have not intention of buying it, I'll just stick to Sim City 3000.

Its EA's right to decide how they support each platform. And while the lack of support on Nintendo's platforms would suck, it might have been more understandable had EA taken the high road. But in the pettiest fashion possible, they have flooded the internet with rants, lies, and some of the most immature statements I have ever seen from a large company.

What boggles the mind is the how idiotic they are acting. Three high-profile games have all flopped on The Xbox 360, PS3, and PC, and they think burning their bridges with Nintendo is a good idea? Who is running their company, Peter Griffin?

On a personal note, they offended me with their 4th generation comment. Even if we go by the generations where EA was a major player on consoles, they are still skipping the 16-bit era. In essence, they are ignoring Sega who helped play a major role in making them the company that they are today. Of course, given their lack of support towards the Dreamcast, I suppose its intentional.

The good news is that EA is most likely the clear favorite to win their third "Worst Company in America award." If they can pull this off, they will be a triple crown winner of being the worst company when it comes to screwing their customers.

Go EA Go!!!!

@Einherjar Why is everyone assuming EA is the only one to blame? I understand EA is a bad company, but why is everyone assuming Nintendo is innocent in all this? EA at the end of the day is a company that is driven by profit. I don't think even Nintendo refusing to use Origin as the main online platform is enough to force EA to do this. Microsoft and Sony don't use Origin outside of EA games, and there's no issue there.

For all we know, Nintendo could be the ones that screwed EA over. Nintendo does not have a clean history. They did the same thing once to Sony back in the day(and before someone brings up the fact that the contract gave Sony control over all games on the SNES CD-Add on, don't forget that Nintendo signed that contract. They broke a legal agreement that they should have read carefully. Sony got screwed with that one)

I'm not saying EA is a saint, but Nintendo is not a squeaky clean company themselves. Look at thier history and you'll know what I mean.

Something deeper than EA being upset their online network is being ignored is what caused this. Even when they had their dispute with Microsoft over Xbox Live, they did not go this far. Something caused this rift, and I think both sides are guilty. Maybe one is more guilty then the other, but neither is totally innocent.

@XCWarrior Battlefield, Fifa, Madden, and several other EA titles are million sellers. You may not like EA's games or think highly of them, but don't pretend these are minor titles that only a few people care about. Battlefield 4 has the potential to dethrone Call of Duty, and the Wii U not getting it is a major blow.

Like it or not, there's a reason why EA is the largest third-party publisher and developer in the industry. And that reason is due to the fact that they have numerous franchises that are million sellers.

I love how people are just dismissing EA's lack of support as "no big deal" and "I don't care about their games." without any serious thoughts to the repercussions of what this means for overall third-party support.

We still don't know the reason why EA has turned on Nintendo. It's assumed all this is over Origin, but there's no clear answer from either side. And here's the part that should concern everyone. Other third parties will take notice that Madden and Battlefield are not coming to the Wii U, and they might get the impression that its not worth supporting or they pull back support.

Regardless of anyone's personal opinions of EA, the harsh truth is that Nintendo needs them more than EA needs Nintendo. EA can get by on the PS3, PS4, Vita, Xbox 360, Next Xbox, and the PC. Really, they have nothing to lose with this. If Nintendo keeps refusing to compormise, then they just support the other systems. If Nintendo caves and allows Origin, then EA wins. Either way, Nintendo is the only one that has something to really lose.

EA is not some small developer that a system can get by without. They are a major player in the industry, and all the denials aside, losing them is a major blow. At the very least, people who do like Madden, Fifa, Tiger Woods, NCAA Football, Star Wars, and Battlefield will take a serious second look before the buy a Wii U. And without those games, they might stick to the current platforms or jump to the PS4 and the next Xbox.

Either way, Nintendo loses a major battle.

@Dpishere I hate to say this, but Nintendo deserves some of the blame on this one. You can't really blame publishers for not jumping onboard when many of them are gearing up for the PS4 and next Xbox, and the PS3 and 360 have a much larger market share. What does not help is this stupid mindset that "Well, I don't need that third-party game because I have Mario and Zelda!"

These companies have market research, and it might be out of the question that they browse video game websites. When they see statements like that, it only renforces the notion that Nintendo owners only want Mario and Zelda.

The best way to get third-party support is to buy the titles that do arrive on the system. Vote with your wallet and companies will take notice. Even EA will overcome its "my way or the highway" beef with Nintendo if they see market potental.

There are costs to porting a game, and putting a version out that does not sell is not appealing to many publishers. The "Well, I don't need that game, I have Mario and Zelda!" mindset only leads to problems, and causes a vicious cycle.

Publishers hold back their support until things get better, and gamers cry foul since it looks like they are being screwed over. This is a cycle that has existed since the N64, and it does not look like it will improve. As I said before, if you want third-parties to take notice, but the games that do arrive on the platform. Nothing will change their tune quicker than seeing games sell.

@WiiURockz

Ok, not every game on the 360 or PS3 is a shooter with dark colors and lots of blood. The PS3 has tons of Japanese RPGs(a rare genre on Consoles currently), a good number of platformers that are aimed at the same market as Mario, and a good selection of games that cover a wide array of genres.

As for the 360, it's got a good selection of games that also cover a wide array of genres.

But tell me, how are 360 and PS3 owners not real gamers? A major problem with modern fan boys is the concept of stereotyping fans of a system. The nonsense about "360 owners only like Shooters, PS3 owners never play their over hyped exclusives, and Nintendo gamers only like kiddie cartoon crap!" really needs to stop.

The PS3 and 360 will go down as two of the greatest systems of all time, and if anyone takes even a few minutes to look over their libraries, you'll see a diverse selection of games on both platforms that cover a wide array of genres.

And no, people that play PS3 and 360 are not "jumping on the bandwagon". They bought the systems to play the favorite games. If you want to blame anyone, blame NIntendo for losing Final Fantasy, Castlevania, and other third-party franchises to Sony during the PS1 era. That is what opened the floodgates, and Nintendo's focus on doing in the opposite direction every generation does not help attract third-parties to them.

I have never been able to figure out why people deprive themselves of the games that are offered on other platforms. Are you honestly telling me that there are no games that worth buying a PS3 or Xbox 360 for? If you love Xenoblade, than what's wrong with the JRPGs that are on the PS3?

I play all systems that offer good games. This is one of the major problems with the modern video game indstrudy. People are so loyal to one platform, they will dismiss the others without a second thought.

There are PS3 and 360 games that stand up to what Nintendo puts out. And people who play those games are real gamers. Or is someone going to tell me, someone who has played games since the Sega Genesis that I'm a bandwagon hopper?

@SetupDisk

Well, LOS is my second favorite game in the series after SOTN. I just honestly feel LOS gets alot of unfair hate. It's a solid game, and it felt like a spiritual successor to the older Castelvania games.

If anything, it felt like a modern version of Castlevania II and III in terms of the areas you explore and the emphasis that you're not bound to a single castle(A major problem with many on the Metroidvania games)

@LDXD While I won't argue that LOS borrowed the core gameplay from GOW, I disagree with you on the game not feeling like Castlevania. Out of all the recent games, LOS reminded me of the older Castlevania games, especially the NES trilogy. Hell, there were a few times where I felt like I was playing a game that took some of its cues from Simon's Quest. And I have played both God of War and LOS, and there are major differences between the two games. LOS adds sub-weapons to the mix and the magic system is based more on enhancing Gabirel's stats rather than unleashing a powerful spell.

GOW also seems to focus more on juggling opponents and getting insane combos, while Castlevania tended to focus more on reading an oppoent and reacting properly. Not to mention, GOW also puts a major focus on giving Kratos new weapons as the game goes on and even features a system that allows him to switch mid-combo. GOW puts a major focus on using Kratos' weapons and spells to create insane combos in battle. LOS puts more focus on using magic to enhance Gabirel's abilities and using it to your advantage in combat.

I can understand how many people come to the conclusion that LOS is just like GOW. Both games share common elements such as rideable monsters, long-range chain weapons, and quick time events. But there are some noticeable differences between GOW and LOS.

Plus, I should note that Castlevania had already done two games that were action titles. LOI and COD were both inspired by Devil May Cry's gameplay. Now, why aren't those games bashed to no end? But that raises another question.

How can LOS have no relation to the gameplay of previous Castlevania games when there were already two Action-Genre titles in the series? In many ways, LOS plays like a more refined version of LOI.

What about Lords of Shadows was not like Castlevania? You still had a warrior by the name of Belmont who used a whip-like weapon that fought off various creatures of darkness such as vampires, werewolves, skeletons, wargs(they were in SOTN), and zombies as he explored castles, abandoned towns, ruins, forests, snowy mountains and even the land of the dead. All the while, he gains access to various relics that increase his abilities, magic, and sub weapons such as silver throwing knives and holy water.

Now, where are the elements that aren't Castlevania in what I just typed?

And if anyone's answer is the gameplay, then you're wrong. The Metroidvania's are also a step away from the core of classic Castlevania. If you want "real" Castlevania, then it needs to be the style of games that were pre-SOTN. And tell me, why is LOS suddenly not a Castlevania game and the Metroidvania games are?

And I find it funny that some people mention Curse of Darkness since that game was a train wreck from start to finish. We have a direct sequel to Castlevania III, but Trevor Belmont in reduced to a supporting role while some unknown character shows up as the hero so they can play up a brand new gameplay system. Grant, Alucard, and Slyphia are all missing from the storyline, we have some nonsense about a time traveler, and we get one of the worst villains in the series in Issac. And the gameplay was a massive stepdown from what Lament of Innocence brought to the table.. Had they done COD right and focused on Trevor and made it a true sequel to Castlevania III, they could have expanded on LOI's gameplay and expanded on Trevor Belmont's storyline. Instead, we got a poor combat system that was only barely saved by the innocent devils and a hero in Hector was was pointless in the grand scheme of things. And I just love how most of the Metroidvania games go out of their way to make the Belmont clan look stupid, useless, or incapable of stopping a threat without the help of some random hero that appears. I thought they were the clan that is destined to destroy Dracula?

As for the Metroidvania elements, I really had fun running down the same corrdors in a given area. COD was a massive stepdown from LOI

if anything, LOS is what a 3D Castlevania should be, and its closer to the old pre-SOTN games then any of the previous attempts. You finally have some real platforming over bottomless pits, the game is difficult, the chapters are divided into separate levels, and you finally have a Belmont who brandishes a whip-like weapon as the main hero. No, its not a perfect game but it felt like it was closer to the spirit of classic Castlevania then many of the recent titles. The main issue it has is the fact that it rebooted the storyline, but things became a jumbled mess anyway as the old series went on. It felt like a Dracula resurrection was just shoved into the timeline to justify a new game being made. If we count all the games(including the ones that were cut out of IGA's timeline), how many times was Dracula resurrected in the 1800s alone? I thought he was only supposed to rise every 100 years?

As for the complaints that LOS plays too much like GOW, let's keep in mind that LOI and COD were often compared to Devil May Cry when they came out. Hell, one of the common complaints about those games was the fact that they were too close in style to DMC. And let's also keep in mind the fact that SOTN were very heavily influenced by Metroid.

The sad reality is that both sides of the table are technically right. If we go by the standpoint that the Wii U is the successor to the Wii and is a new system, then everyone is right that it is a next-gen system. But if you look at it from a developer point of view, then the tech is not really that far removed from what the PS3 and 360 have been doing for years and is closer to current-gen stuff.

Much like the Wii was not from removed from what the PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox had done during the sixth generation. I know people are going up in arms about his comments, but look at it from a developer's point of view. To them, the overall tech is much closer to the 360 and PS3.

As I said before, there are two sides of the coin on this issue. If we go by the age-old rule of what defines a generation, than the Wii U is a next-gen system. But if we look at it from a tech standpoint, that it's easy to consider it a current gen system in that regard.

Which means much like the Wii before it, the Wii U somehow manages to find itself in an odd place. On one hand, it's technically a next-gen system based on it being the successor to the Wii. On the other hand, its a shiny new system that employs 7 year old tech.

Both sides have a valid argument here. And while it's easy to blast Insomniac as a developer that wants to bash Nintendo, let's keep in mind one thing. Nintendo does paint themselves into a corner with their strategy. And from a developer standpoint, its easy to understand why they view the Wii U the way that they do.

I'm not saying it's right, but let's stop thinking he's a blind fanboy who wants to bash Nintendo. To be fair, this is the path Nintendo chose when they walked down the "Older Tech with unique System Feature" path with the Wii and Wii U.

@Idiot-Pill

I can respect taking Nintendo into the future, but why can't the Playstation or Xbox be considered real gaming systems? If I had kids, I would have them play both Nintendo platforms and Sony systems at the very least. Sony is a major part of gaming, and I would have no problem with my kids having a Playstation alongside Nintendo's systems.

And the fact that Sony took some potshots at Nintendo does not bother me, since Sega and even Nintendo did the same thing back in the 90's. Its all part of competition, and I would not mind seeing Nintendo get a bit edgy again in their ads. That's why the 16-bit era is my favorite generation. It was highly competitive, and both Sega and Nintendo were constantly taking shots at each other in ads.

And Sony fanboys don't bother me, since all systems(including Nintendo) have their rabid fanboys that will drive you insane. Its all part of the game in the end.

But Sony and Microsoft are "real systems" just like Nintendo. What is it about those two that somehow don't make them real systems?

I would rather see Quackshots. I always thought that game was better than Castle of Illusion. Plus, I'm just not a fan of Mickey Mouse....

@NodesforNoids Midway and Acclaim going down has nothing to do with EA or what they have done. Midway went out of business due to them never establishing a key franchise outside of Mortal Kombat and the collapse of the arcades in the US. Arcade games were a large portion of Midway's Business, and when it collapsed, they lost a key source of business.

As for Acclaim, they deserve everything that they got. If you think EA was bad, Acclaim was 10 times worse. They happily put out crappy games, loved to ignore their customer, and were a key publisher of crappy licensed games during the 80's and 90's. Outside a few bright spots, Acclaim was a horrible company that deserved to shut down. I am just grateful Acclaim went under years before this generation. Its scary to imagine how they would have operated in an era with DLC, patches, and online.

@DePapier There is no proof that Sony or Microsoft have done anything to cause this. i know this is a Nintendo fansite, but why is there always a conspiracy theory that Sony is somehow sabotaging Nintendo and playing dirty? Where is the proof that they have every done that? Name me one time where there is clear and decisive proof that Sony was caught screwing Nintendo over in order to gain their market share with the PS1 and PS2. As far as I remember, Sony taking the #1 spot from Nintendo and taking third-party titles that were once exclusive to Nintendo platforms was due to Nintendo and Sega's mistakes in the marketplace with the N64 and Saturn.

And Nintendo has not always been a clean company themselves. They were very well-known during the NES era for bullying third-party developers, retail stores, and using unfair market advantages to keep Sega and Atari at bay.

As for the Amazon and Nintendo issue, I'm not sure what is going on. There are rumors that Amazon had issues with people who got scratches on their 3DS and wanted Nintendo to do something about it, but that's just a rumor. All that's clear is that the relationship between Nintendo and Amazon soured at somepoint.

But honestly, I don't think Sony or Microsoft have anything to do with it. Think about this, if Sony was paying an ungodly amount of money to Amazon, why aren't their systems promoted on Xbox 360 pages?

@FluttershyGuy

I really don't think its laziness on the part of the third-party developers. To be brutally honest, many third-party games have sold poorly on Nintendo platforms since the N64. During the sixth generation, Gamecube versions of third-party titles lagged behind the sales of the PS2 and Xbox versions. With the Wii, developers could not port games from the 360 and PS3 due to massive differences in power. And in general, third-party titles did not tend to sell well on the platform unless they were exercise, wii-sports type, or dancing games. How many third-party titles on the Wii have you seen dominate the charts that were not dancing or casual games?

It is better on the handhelds, but there have been some notable third-party games that have not sold well on those those platforms in a market where Nintendo is the clear winner. Its easy to blame third-party developers and call them lazy, but how many 3DS owners bought Resident Evil Revelations, Metal Gear Solid 3, Dead or Alive, Tekken, or the other major third-party titles that are on the system?

And this is my point. Its not all about third-party developers being lazy and wanting to give Nintendo gamers the middle finger. Third-party games tend to sell poorly on Nintendo platforms. Resident Evil: Revelations was a 3DS exclusive and is widely considered one of the best games in the series in years. And yet it sold poorly. Even the install base of the 3DS can't be blamed since it came out after the price drop and the strong 2011 holiday season that saw the 3DS pick up in sales.

I can understand how it feels like third-party developers are screwing Nintendo gamers over, but its a two-way street. What's the incentive to port games to Nintendo platforms when that effort won't be rewarded? The Wii got some pretty good third-party support in its first couple of years, but how many of those games were successes?

What does not help Nintendo's case is the fact that many of the recent systems have had different hardware designs than their competitors. The N64 used Carts which were more expensive and had less memory than the CDs that the PS1 and Saturn used, the Wii was much weaker than its counterparts, making straight ports nearly impossible, and the future is hazy on how the Wii U will compare and the tablet is an issue if Nintendo requires third-party developers to make use of it.

Even the Gamecube which was the closest in design to its competitors was still missing several features such as online and DVD playback.

The issue is the fact that third-party games generally tend to sell poorly on Nintendo platforms. And this creates a vicious cycle of third-party developers either not porting their games or porting a version that is missing features due to the belief that most Nintendo gamers won't buy the game, and Nintendo gamers reacting by simply buying Nintendo titles and maybe picking up another platform to play third-party games.

This is not a new trend. This has been an issue for Nintendo since the N64.
And sadly, it does not look like it will change anytime soon.

Also, I want to say that this post mostly applies to Nintendo's home consoles. I am aware of the fact that Nintendo's handhelds have all enjoyed strong third-party support. But things are also different on handhelds. Nintendo has been the king of the hill since the Gameboy, and outside the PSP has never really faced a competitor that has come close to challenging it.

Its different on consoles due to the fact that Nintendo has only really won two home console generations as the clear winner. The Genesis and SNES fought a close war, and the N64 and Gamecube were dominated by the PS1, and PS2

And even in the case of the Wii, its massive lead did not really help it secure the third-party support that previous market leaders like the NES, PS1, and PS2 enjoyed.

@FyreeTSG I'm not being insulting, but almost every single thing you typed was wrong and totally inaccurate.

(1) Nolan Bushnell had nothing to do with Tengen. He never ran the company, he never developed a single game for them, he was not involved with the company. In fact, Tengen is actually the coin-op divison of Atari that Time Warner retained when they sold the company. When they entered home development, they were unable to use the Atari name, so they were named Tengen.

(2) I don't know how many times I have to say this on here, but Nolan Bushnell was not involved in the crash of 1983. He left Atari in 1978 and signed a no-compete contract that forbid him from working in the video game industry for several years. In fact, Nolan Bushnell was not even at Atari when the 2600 took off. Time Warner and the executives they put in charge were the ones who were responsible for the crash, as were the fly by night companies that developed crap games that flooded the market.

Nolan Bushnell had as much to do with the crash of 1983 as the founder of Hostess had to do with them going bankrupt in 2012. In other words, nothing.

C)Once Again, Nolan Bushnell was not in charge of Atari when they were sold to Hasbro. Jack Tramiel was in charge of the company when they were sold to Hasbro. And this is also keeping in mind the fact that there were two Atari companies during that time. The coin-op company that was know as Atari continued to operate on its own for several years before they were bought by Midway Games in 1999.

D) This is a matter of opinion, but you're missing one major point. Pong is just as important to the history of video games as Super Mario Brothers. In fact, it could be argued that Pong is even more important since it was the game that was the commercial success in gaming and proved that Video Games were viable. Even if you dislike Pong personally, it does not erase the fact that Pong is a very important milestone in gaming.

E)As I said before, Nolan Bushnell was long gone by the time Pac-man arrived on the Atari 2600. He has nothing to do with that port. He did not create it, he did not supervise it, he contributed nothing to that game. Time Warner were the ones who were in charge of Atari at the time and they were the ones that messed up the port.

Here's the thing, I am seeing a lot of inaccurate comments on this board. Its one thing to disagree with Nolan Bushnell's opinion, and its no secert that he's had some flops over the years. But people are either making stuff up or simply lack have no clue what they are talking about.

Before you post anything about Nolan Bushnell's career, google his name. Do some research about this topic. Please, will everyone stop with the wildly inaccurate comments that are totally false? Not only does it weaken your argument, but it gives people the wrong impression on things.

@PoshSnivy

Again, he was not at Atari when the 7800, Lynx, and Jaguar was created. He was not even involved with the development of the systems. He left Atari in 1978 and the Jaguar came out in 1993! How in the hell could he have been responsible for that system? It's like saying the founder of Hostess was responsible for that company going bankrupt in 2012 when he died in 1965.

People really need to do a google search before they make statements like this. Nolan Bushnell was not responsible for the crash of 1983 and he was not responsible for the failures of the 5200 and later systems that Atari put out.

Do a quick google search, and you'll see that I'm right. Stop blaming the man for things that he had no control over. Atari was out of his hands during that time. Jack Tramiel was running Atari during the era of the 7800, Lynx, and Jaguar. If you want to blame anyone for Atari's failure, point your finger at him and Time Warner.

Nolan Bushnell had nothing to do with Atari's collapse. Hell, he was not even around when the Atari 2600 took off for several years before it crashed. He was not there when the 2600 port of Pac-Man was created. He was not there when E.T. was created.

Long story short, Nolan Bushnell was not responsible for any of the things that people claim he caused in these comments. Will everyone please do a little research before you start making up random claims that are false? Anything that happens with Atari after 1978 is not tied to Nolan Bushnell, since he was no longer in charge of the company that he created

So please, stop blaming the man for things he never did.

I

@Dogpigfish Pong is one of the most important games in the history of video games. It was the first video game that was successful commercially. It may not be a modern title, but Pong is every bit as important as Super Mario Brothers, Pac-man, Sonic the Hedgehog, Halo, or Pokemon. It was a major success in its day, and helped make video games viable for many companies(including Nintendo)

And Nolan Bushnell is a very important man to video games. I'm not saying he's 100% correct, but to simply dismiss him and his opinions is not a good idea. Could he be wrong? Hell yea, but he could also be right.

I think people are just dismissing Nolan Bushnell way too quickly.

Just because the man has retired from the industry does not mean his opinion does not hold any weight. Is he always right? Of course not, but the man has every right to question theindustry that he helped create. And in many ways, he does have a valid point. What does the Wii U bring to the table that truly moves the industry forward? The hardware is barely a step above the PS3 and 360, there are numerous design errors with the system that a company with Nintendo's experience should have caught before they let the system walk out the door, and what does the Wii U gamepad bring that truly changes gaming? if anything, it feels like the Kinect, Wiimote, and other unique controllers. Something that is cool and innovative, but not something that will become the standard.

The Wii U has felt like a system which was cobbled together and then tied to a tablet controller in an attempt to make it seem "new" and "innovative" The system is barely a week old, and several developers are already questioning the Wii U's specs for the long term. Even better, how is this system going to compete with the 720 and PS4 when they arrive?

Unlike the Wii, it does not even have the accessibility of the Wiimote to help it. Could anyone imagine some of the Wii's audience such as non-gamers going crazy about this?

One other thing I want to bring up, and this is for the sake of argument. All of you who claim that Nolan Bushnell was responsible for the crash of 1983 or led Atari into the abyss need to check your facts.

Nolan Bushnell ran Atari until 1978, when he was forced out by Time Warner who owned Atari. Time Warner and Bushnell had a dispute over the future of the Atari 2600 and the concept of the closed software strategy. Bushnell was gone from Atari before the 2600 took off and never returned to the company.

He was not responsible for the crash of 1983 or had any involvement with Video Games during that period. Time Warner alone was responsible for killing Atari. After the crash, Time Warner decided to sell Atari and cut their losses. The company was split in two between the Home Consoles/Computers division and the Arcade Division.

Warner retained the arcade division of Atari while Jack Tramiel bought the home division of Atari. Nolan Bushnell was never involved with Atari after 1978, and was not responsible for Atari's lost place in gaming, or the failed succesor systems to the 2600. Time Warner and Jack Tramiel were the ones that ran Atari during those times, and they were the ones that helped seal Atari's fate.

So, the whole idea that Nolan Bushnell killed Atari or caused the crash is inaccurate and totally wrong. Nolan Bushnell could not even work in the the video game industry due to signing a contract that forbid him from competing or starting another video game company for several years after leaving Atari.

@ouroborous

You do realize that they have offered LOZ:Majora's Mask, Super Mario Kart, Kirby's Dreamland, Dr. Mario Online RX, Mario Party 2, Mario & Donkey Kong: Mini's March again, and Fludity to Club Nintendo members. Most of those games are either titles that remain in top downloads list for their respective shops, or are fairly expensive games.

How are any of those games bad? If anything, Nintendo could have offered us Urban Champion and Game Boy Golf for our rewards and called it a day. I say getting those games that I listed is pretty sweet, especially since Nintendo has no obligation to offer anything to its customers.

Games like Majora's Mask. Dr. Mario Online RX, Super Mario Kart, and Mario Party 2 are games that have never left the top downloads list which means Nintendo is still making money off them. If they were really uncaring, there are plenty of other games they could have tossed our way.

Granted, not every game that has been offered is a AAA title but its not like Nintendo is throwing nothing but crap our way. The selection has been pretty good in my opinion.