Personally, I think this sort of thing is ridiculous. It isn't the job of the video game publisher to decide what an audience can or can't see. The job of the various ratings systems is to look at a game, determine if there is possible objectionable content and let the consumer know. It's then up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to see whatever the game contains.

In addition, as you say, at the end of the day 'objectionable content' means different things to different people - thus, censorship will be a subjective process, subject to the cultural and personal values of the censor. This doesn't necessarily translate to how others feel, and so censorship is certainly a process fraught with apparent inconsistencies and bad decisions (from certain points of view).

Basically, I disagree with the kinds of censorship discussed in the article. I'm old enough to decide if I want to look at naked people, violence, hear strong language etc. If parents are doing their jobs, they are able to decide what their children have access to. It isn't the place of the video game publisher to make those decisions for us.

This is a broader issue than simply Nintendo, too - Australia only recently allowed R18+ games to be sold here, despite having that category in other forms of media. Several high-profile games were denied release as a result, which was of great annoyance to many Australian gamers for the reason I've given above - we should be the ones determining what we want to see/play/listen to.

What's the compatibility like with these things, though? It's a hell of a lot of work to get perfect emulation for one machine, let alone several.

Do these machines have more or less of the problems of other emulators?

@Realgamer4life: I'm sure SOMEONE confused the different Xbox and PS generations, but probably not that many...

It's much clearer to have a numeral after the name - we're used to the convention that the number signifies an improvement/sequel/successor. Hence, most people would (correctly) assume that the "Playstation 3" is the next model after "Playstation 2".

You need to remember that, as someone who visits, has an account with, and posts on a video gaming website, you are in a very small minority who is better informed about the status of the Wii U than most. To someone whose only familiarity with consoles is that they see them on store shelves and may have bought one for a family member in the past, it's not that obvious that the Wii U is a new console. It looks pretty much the same as the Wii, and so it's a hard sell on Nintendo's part to get people to spend $300 on what they see as basically a new controller.

The onus is on Nintendo to make it clear to consumers that the Wii U is a brand new console. Don't blame consumers because Nintendo's marketing department isn't doing a good enough job of that.

Nobody seems to have brought up the obvious, legitimate use for this - playing backed up games. In many places it's legal to make a backup of copyrighted media for personal use (although often breaking the copy protection IS illegal - go figure) and this would presumably allow for that.

Many people on this site seem to have a very black-and-white view of video game piracy. I don't agree with people simply wanting free games, but I acknowledge that there are a host of reasons why someone might want to play a pirated copy of a game, many of which I consider to be legitimate (although still illegal, I'm not denying that).

It's simply not a cut-and-dry question.

Phew! Thank goodness those filthy hackers have once again been thwarted by the almighty Nintendo!

It's a pity - I only picked up MH3 recently, and have not had a chance to play it online (although I was fully aware when I bought the game that the servers were going down).

It would have been nice to try out the online side of things, but never mind - apparently single player is still pretty good! Who knows, as someone said above fans may set up their own servers at some point.

@DashDG: Really? You didn't like the look of a game, so you hope it never gets released? Never mind that other people may quite enjoy it, you find the idea of a game you might want to play so offensive that you actively wish it never gets made?

Anyway, I'm not all that surprised that the funding didn't get there. It was a slick pitch, but with little substance - it wasn't made clear to me, either through the video or on the front page, what the game would involve. There were some vague concepts listed, but no information on what the minute-to-minute gameplay would involve.

Still, it seems like they had some interesting ideas buried there. Hopefully they can come back with a more descriptive campaign so it's clearer exactly what the finished product will be like.

Unfortunately, my experience with Nintendo is that outside the US (and, I assume, Japan) the services they offer are very limited.

It's a shame, as a couple of times I've wanted to order replacement parts in Australia but there isn't an online store to order from like the one in the US.

Ah, awesome! I only started playing Pokemon recently, so I missed out on all events pre-BW. This will get me 1 step closer to a full Pokedex

To people saying "just use Club Nintendo", please be aware that it's not a solution for many - Club Nintendo simply does not exist and, at least as far as I am aware, in some places that DO have it, you can't link it to digital purchases (e.g. Australia, the last time I checked which admittedly was a while ago).

It might fix the situation in the USA but I imagine Nintendo would like a single system worldwide. They will need to do something else.

I absolutely believe that an account system is necessary, though, and I simply can't get my head around why Nintendo hasn't done anything about it yet.

Aargh, I'll be disappointed to lose online functionality in my games (e.g. Metroid Prime Trilogy) as I haven't had much time over the last couple of years to really play those games.

I've got an Energizer induction charger, and it's fantastic - I don't think I'd using anything else to be honest (it's not bulky and it works without having to take off the jacket etc...)

@LuigiFan141: I really, really hope that was a joke. If not, get help...

Wait, people are arguing for FEWER games on their consoles? Even sequels to well-received ones?

That... doesn't make sense. Seriously, the fewer games that come out on Wii U, the worse off Nintendo is.

@Benjamin: It worries me seeing how critical of this you are. Do you feel threatened by Sarkeesian? It certainly seems that way.

I watched some of her new video (admittedly, only a small part) and didn't think it was particularly outstanding. However, I think it's important that the representation of women in gaming is discussed openly, and if Sarkeesian's videos are a catalyst for that then they've served an excellent purpose.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that Dead or Alive is a great victory for the portrayal of women in video games? If so, that explains a lot about your response to this.

Good to hear it's doing better. For a console that looks to have so much promise (I've only played a demo unit briefly) it was a shame to see it struggling along for so long. Hopefully this leads to elevated sales on a regular basis.

I echo the sentiments of many here - why is this on NL?

For a site that's so scared to have discussions of religion, sex and politics on it, this is a strange and out-of-character choice. Not to mention that it has nothing at all to do with video games bar the nickname.

I was late to the DS party (I got one in, I think, 2010) but it's quickly become my favourite console. Also, with my pile of shame, I'm pretty sure it will keep me going for the foreseeable future!

A fantastic little system.

@FOURSIDE_BOY: Earthbound isn't a game I've got a lot of ambition to own - partly because I have a PAL SNES, and partly because I simply can't justify forking out its asking price.

I wouldn't mind playing it at some point to see what all the fuss is about, but I've got plenty of other games to get to in the meantime!

I have a lot of fond memories of the SNES. My sister and I got the Yoshi's Island bundle for Christmas one year, and I've loved the console ever since (I still own that one - my sister turned out not to like video games nearly as much as me!).

I haven't played a huge number of SNES games, but I absolutely adore the ones I have: Yoshi's Island, F-Zero, Donkey Kong Country, Super Tennis among others.

A year or so ago I picked up a few more games that are sitting there waiting for me to play them: Link to the Past, the Super Star Wars trilogy, DKC2, Unirally, Super Metroid and Pilotwings.

Unfortunately I really only want to buy games complete with boxes and manuals, which puts many out of my price range, but I'll probably add a few more games to my collection over the next few years.

The SNES is undeniably a classic!

@1upLuigi: Very nice. I've done the same with a couple of Lites, so I've got a Black/gold one (with the Zelda logo on top), and two more using red/blue pieces (so one with red outside, blue inside, and the other vice-versa)

I know it's subjective, but I think the DSi is the best looking of the DS line. The Lite ain't bad, but I think the DSi had a few nice touches that push it over the edge.

Oh look, another developer has made a comment about the Wii U! Quick, let's write an article!

Seriously, this is entirely unnecessary.

I can't believe people are seriously defending Nintendo here.

This is a simple, basic system that should have been implemented years ago. Nintendo needs to pull their finger out and implement an account-based system.

Sweet games room. I'm hoping my wife will let me have something similar in our next house...

Hopefully she becomes available through wifi later. Keldeo was like that - an in-game event first, then a wifi event.

As an Aussie I'd like to be able to catch her!

"it's inevitable that games with healthy online components have their support taken away" - only if that game requires servers provided by the publisher/developer.

Note that many PC games don't have this issue. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that there is an alternative.

For goodness' sake. This is somebody's interpretation of Link. If you don't like it, fair enough, but did you ever think that maybe Link is 'missing' things because the artist made the conscious decision to omit them?

@Burning_Spear: Exactly.

This isn't a console that is targeted at people who comment on video game websites. This is an entry-level console for people who want a cheap, accessible means to playing Wii games, which will be available for very little money now the Wii U is around. It doesn't perform a lot of extra features by design.

If you can't wrap your head around that, please don't crap on about it being a terrible console.

Let's all complain about free stuff!

Again!

@Tsuchiya: Ah, let's all believe that the glorious Nintendo is always right, shall we?

@Tsuchiya: What I'm saying is that achievements could be the thing that sways gamers toward deciding to pick up a Wii U, if they're unsure about it.

I just don't see any valid reason for excluding achievements, but I see ones for including them.

@Tsuchiya: You're obviously not familiar with the many, many gamers who will buy versions of games based on the trophy/achievement support.

This will turn gamers away, especially when multiplatform games are available and somebody's 360 or PS3 have achievements for that game.

Whether you like it or not, achievements do affect people's buying decisions.

@Tsuchiya: Sure, but business isn't only about survival - it's about maximising profits. I don't see this decision doing that.

@0LD_SK0OL_PUNK: They could, but I believe that a large part of the appeal of achievement systems on other consoles is their unified nature.

Like them or not, omitting achievements is undeniably a bad business move for Nintendo. They're an important part of today's gaming scene, and I can't see why Nintendo would leave them out apart from just being obstinate.

I thought emulation was a no-no here?

That's good, for the countries where Nintendo has a parts store you can order from. Not quite so helpful for those that don't.

@GameLord08: Absolutely, I (deliberately) omitted R&D costs and the like, which drive up the cost to the manufacturer.

However, I don't see a good reason why consoles couldn't be made from off-the-shelf PC components. If, say, Sony partnered with AMD, they'd have ready access to CPUs and GPUs. A custom OS could take make the most of the chips (as, like you say, consoles are required to do a lot less than a PC, so the OS could remove a lot of extraneous memory usage etc.) and wring out a lot of power from them.

Having said that, I'm by no means an expert on console hardware, but it seems to me that console development is so closely tied to PC development these days that it would make sense to use off-the-shelf parts (perhaps with minor customisations) to avoid a big hit in R&D costs, which will allow for cheaper consoles (or more profit for the manufacturers).

@GameLord08: I don't think it's out of the question - building yourself a $500 PC will get you incredible graphics, so I'm sure it's feasible for MS or Sony to custom-build a system that they can sell for a reasonable price.

I think the main problem is on the game development side. We're really getting to the point of diminishing returns in terms of graphics. For example, someone might decide that an open-world game needs some birds flying past in the background. Not birds that can be interacted with, just birds for the visual effect. That means you have to pay someone to sit down and model/draw the birds, someone to animate them, and someone to add in the code in the game to make flocks of birds randomly fly by. It's not a huge effort, and it's something probably 10% of players will notice, but it means it's something you're paying people to do instead of fixing bugs, coming up with new gameplay ideas, or something else that's arguably more important to the player.

@WesCash: Exactly. It still doesn't guarantee success, though - if you look at the story of Looking Glass Studios (of "Thief" and "System Shock" fame), they were releasing games almost yearly (and different genres of games, not just 1 series - those were the days!) but still went under. Unfortunately, the model of releasing several smaller games - even if it's better than 1 huge game every 4 or 5 years - can compound your problems if you have a string of games that fail to make a profit. Looking Glass hung in there for a while, but they had several commercial failures and, just like that, one of the world's best developers was no more.

I think that the current model of blockbuster games just isn't sustainable. I remember reading a while ago that if EA didn't sell at least 5 million copies of Dead Space 3, they would consider it a failure.

Think about that for a second. 5 MILLION copies.

The constant pressure to aim for more lifelike graphics, better AI, 40+ hour games and the like is just causing game development to become too expensive. While I don't see AAA games dying out completely - there will always be franchises that will sell like crazy - I think developers may begin looking elsewhere for their sales.

Developing several middle-budget games that are solid sellers is certainly a viable way of doing business, and arguably better than selling one huge-budget one.

Many game developers have folded because they've bet everything on their next game, accumulated lots of debt and really require their next big game to sell well in order to avoid going bankrupt. All it takes is a little bad luck, or a game that isn't as good as you think it is, for sales to tank and your company being unable to pay back loans.

In contrast, if games are being released on a regular basis, and they don't cost so much to produce, it's not the end of the world if one doesn't sell that well. Hopefully the next game that comes out in a few months will be well-received, and you won't be stuck in debt for years until you can get another game out the door.

While I'll never understand the desire to browse the net on a game console, I guess this is good.

@AcesHigh: Well said. I'm glad someone pointed out that Nintendo isn't including BC out of the kindness of their hearts.

It'll be interesting to see how the trend continues, as keeping pace with the DS now doesn't necessarily mean that the 3DS will be as successful (which is a tough ask for any console - the DS sold ridiculously well).

Keep in mind that the DS didn't sell that well to begin with though, and Nintendo have expressed their disappointment that the 3DS isn't selling as well as they expected, so using the first year or so of the DS as a benchmark perhaps isn't quite the golden standard it seems. However, the 3DS is far from a failure, and it's nice to see some hard numbers.

@Sillygostly: You're forgetting that all of the money from a sale doesn't go to the devs, though. Every service through which a game is sold takes its cut - also, IIRC, Nintendo doesn't pay a dev their earnings from the Wii Shop until they've sold $5000 or so. It's entirely possible that RCR would never make a single cent profit from selling WiiWare copies in Australia.

@Schprocket: I assume you're referring to RetroGBHippie92? If so, he's in New Zealand...

That's unfortunate, but at least it's available on multiple platforms so people who really want to get their hands on it should hopefully find a way.

Until Australian legislation catches up, this is going to keep happening. I remember a figure of around $2000 being quoted in order to get a game rated, whether it's a $90 full retail release or a $5 indie game. While $2000 doesn't bother big publishers, it's a risk for devs who may not even make that money back.

@c1pher_c0mplet: because people don't seem to think before they write comments on articles like these.

As others have pointed out, the mods alone would be a huge incentive to play on PC over the Wii U.

I really don't see this working. I can't imagine there are many people out there itching to play WoW who don't already have a PC capable of handling it. In fact, I can't imagine many people out there taking up WoW for the first time, period. I don't have new subscriber numbers to back me up, but WoW is in a slow decline - I think they're probably just losing existing players for the most part and not picking up new ones.

It's still a powerhouse in the MMO space, but I can't see getting it onto the Wii U being a profitable endeavour.

He's got a point - the 360 is pretty cheap now, and obviously well-established.

I can't really think of a good reason to get a Wii U over a 360 at launch - apart from the exclusives, which hold varying amounts of sway over many people.

I think that someone who bought a Wii as a first console, and is wanting to upgrade to an HD console, would be better served by a 360 or PS3 than a Wii U, owing to the cheaper cost and extensive existing libraries of the former two. Plus, the new subscription scheme for the 360 means that it becomes a lot more affordable for people (in the short term, at least).

I know this is a Nintendo website, but don't be so quick to dismiss these comments. Matt Barlow isn't talking about die hard Nintendo fans here. He's talking about people who want cheap access to quality games.

If I was getting a new console, there's no way in hell I'd buy a Wii U before I got a 360 or PS3.

EDIT: In any case, as Aviator just said, these people are hired to say these sorts of things. It's literally their job.

EDIT2: Also, this article is clearly just here to generate page views. Yes, I've commented on it myself, but I feel a need to somewhat dampen the roar of all the Nintendo fans on here who see red at the mention of the 360.