Wheels2050

@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.

That seems really easy to defraud...

Man, I wish I had the time and money to be able to collect a whole bunch of retro systems and their standout games.

Alas, real life beckons!

Looking forward to your feature articles though, NL. I love reading about the history of various systems - I've got a Retro Gamer hardware handbook that I absolutely love reading. There's such a rich history behind many of these systems!

@Tyson: Well, I think it depends on where Nintendo goes with this. I think a 10% discount would be far more straightforward (and have the same effect), but admittedly they can't really change the final step (redeem points for credit) if they want to offer other rewards apart from points (as you may want to redeem your points for, say, a collectible).

However, I think what should be done is: buy game, points show up immediately on your eShop account directly - no external website, no code redemption. They can keep the minimum number of points business, but they could cut out a few steps.

Also, just because Gamestop does it that way (I have no experience with their program) doesn't mean it can't be done better. This is either due to ineptness, or an attempt to include extra steps in the hopes that people won't bother.

While free stuff is always good, the way you have to go about redeeming points seems far too convoluted. According to Destructoid, the process is as follows:

"Here's how it works, according to Nintendo's press release: The consumer purchases content either directly through the eShop or by way of a download code from select retail stores. After the purchase is made, the consumer is given "points" equal to 10% of the list price of their purchase (in dollars and cents; a $59.99 game is worth 599 points). The consumer can then track their accumulated points on a special website for the promotion and exchange these points in increments of 500 for codes which can be redeemed for $5 in eShop credit.

Short version: Buy games, get points, trade points for code, trade code for credit."

@Waltz: Ah cool, he seems like he'd be a good bloke to have a beer with.

I think just the fact that NL has raised this issue is excellent. Some self awareness when it comes to complicated issues like this is a great quality to show!

@WhiteKnight: With regards to the quality of reporting in games journalism, I agree to a large extent. I don't know if it's due to the fact that games reporters go online, where much of there market spends time, which in turn makes it so easy to publish articles that there is a glut of writers that leads to a lot of rubbish, or for some other reason. I certainly don't know of a "Roger Ebert" equivalent in the games world, whose opinions are considered to be very high quality and carry a lot of weight.

Having said that, it's not all bad. I think the majority of NL articles are great, and the reviews seem to be quite fair.

Do you read Kotaku AU at all? A lot of the cross-posted stuff from the US is terrible, but Mark Serrels and co. do some excellent articles on various aspects of Australian gaming. They actually do research, seek out interviews and the like (for example, regarding the price of video games in Australia) which is refreshing when compared to the amount of regurgitated news stories that seem to happen across the video game sites.

@ThomasBW84: My apologies - now you've pointed it out, and I went back and had a look, I realised that I had in fact noticed that before. I might suggest making it a little more obvious though, as the light grey shade is easy to miss

As for the Eurogamer situation, I was completely oblivious to it until now. I'll have a read into it over the weekend.

It's an important issue, and certainly not endemic to video game reviewing.

As a reader, one can never be entirely certain that a review is free from behind-the-scenes agreements, influence or other dealings. You really need to look at the reviewing/editorial history of a given site to make any sort of judgement.

Personally, I feel that any sort of personal contact with a video game company (whether that be through interviews, attending parties/functions etc.) will influence a journalist. Whether that influence is enough to significantly bias that person's articles and reviews is another question.

It's a tough thing to navigate through review sites, I find. I tend to think that smaller sites with fewer ties to industry reps will be more balanced with their reviews, but at the same time that generally means that the reviewers may not be as experienced at reviewing games - it's really hard to tell. As I said, if I stick with a site for a while I get some idea of where they're coming from.

I generally think (and it might be an idea for NL) that some sort of disclosure at the end of an article is a good idea. It doesn't have to be detailed, but just a simple statement such as "Review copy was provided by X" or "Review copy purchased by reviewer" is in the interests of readers. At the end of the day, people will make up their own minds about the validity of a given review, but in the spirit of quality journalism I think transparency is a good thing for any media source.

It's an interesting idea, and I'm surprised that there is apparently enough demand to make this viable. Particularly so since it sounds as if new stores are being opened, rather than existing Gamestop stores being rebranded - GS must expect that the additional revenue will be worth the cost of rent, employees, utilities etc.

I'll be interested to see how it goes.

That is pretty sweet. The flame on the bottom is a nice touch!

@Shiromikio: I agree that using only females for these ads is conspicuous, but Nintendo would have done their market research. I'm guessing (though anyone with stats feel free to correct me) that the ratio of male to female 3DS owners is heavily skewed toward the male demographic, and so Nintendo is attempting to rectify the situation.

Whether or not that's the best way to go about it, I'm not sure - TV ads are expensive, so you want to make sure they have as much impact as possible, but at the same time this may be doing damage to Nintendo's brand by (indirectly) perpetuating the view (whether or not it's true, I don't think it is anymore) that it's mainly males that play video games.

I still think that, gender imbalances aside, people who get upset over the "I'm not a gamer" line really need to, you know, not.

@ajcismo: But Nintendo DOES advertise to fans, just not on TV. TV is an expensive way to advertise, so it's not feasible to run a bunch of ads all the time. Thus, Nintendo chooses to advertise through TV to the audiences that they likely won't reach otherwise - that is, people who don't follow video game news.

For the fans, Nintendo can count on the fact that they are reachable through other, cheaper channels. Thus, they can put ads in the background of NintendoLife, or email Club Nintendo members, or insert booklets in their games that advertise other games. It's smarter, targeted advertising, it's just not on TV.

Also, keep in mind that appealing to 'core' gamers and 'casual' gamers (I hate using those words, but they're useful here) are not mutually exclusive. Just because Nintendo makes a couple of ads for non-gamers doesn't automatically mean that they are abandoning their existing fans - it just means they're trying to make more money. Nothing wrong with that.

Basically, I think this comes down to a lack of comprehension skills on the part of many people. I hate to sound elitist like that, but anybody with a modicum of sense wouldn't interpret this as Nintendo telling them that it's bad to be a gamer. That's f****ng stupid.

Aviator summed it up pretty well. I really don't understand the problem people have with these ads - Nintendo is just trying to say that the 3DS appeals to many different people, including those that might not normally consider the 3DS because it's a video game console, and they haven't traditionally played many video games.

I don't know what the complainers want. Do they want "I AM a gamer" ads? That would be pointless, as the whole point of this campaign is to inform new demographics about your product - gamers likely already know all about it.

@Sausimo: Thanks for the link, I'm enjoying reading through your lists now.

Please keep the other years coming!

I was quite late to the party, only getting a Wii mid-2009, and it took me a while to catch up with the games I wanted to buy. As a result, I wasn't really conscious of the ups and downs until, I guess, mid-2010 due to being preoccupied with the existing catalogue of games.

However, I don't think the last couple of years have been handled that well by Nintendo. There has been a ridiculous lack of games for a very long time, and it really feels like Nintendo didn't care about the Wii (their flagship console) beginning in 2011.

A couple of high-profile releases in the space of a year are not enough to keep interest and momentum going in a console. Even small, regularly released Nintendo-developed WiiWare games would have been something.

Not to mention (although it didn't directly affect me, being in a PAL region) the disaster surrounding Xenoblade and Last Story. Nintendo could have handled that much better, and although those games eventually got a NA release I think quite a bit of damage had been done by that stage.

Despite that negativity, I've had great fun with the Wii. I've still got a large collection of games to get to, so it'll keep me going for a while yet, but what I've played so far has been great.

I hope that, in retrospect, people will forget many of the negative experiences surrounding the Wii and will focus on the things it did right. While I'm somewhat bitter now about how Nintendo handled the last couple of years, I know that in 10 years time (if I'm not still finishing off my backlog) I won't look back and remember the sparse release schedule of 2011.

Instead, I'll remember the amazement I felt when coming across each new world in Super Mario Galaxy; the fun I had figuring out the puzzles in Zack and Wiki; smacking ghosts around with the Wii remote in Ghostbusters: The Video Game; trying not to cringe when the Wii Balance Board scolded me for a week-long absence from Wii Fit; the feeling of satisfaction when I finally unlocked that difficult achievement in SSBB, which netted me a new level to play on; waking up with an arm I can hardly move after a marathon session of Wii Sports Tennis with my mate.

Actually, you know what? The Wii was pretty good.

Good on him. Can't say I'd do that myself, but at least he's living the (his) dream!

I thought I read somewhere once that he makes his money from video game competitions or something like that. If so, I guess this counts as work...

Seems more like box ticking than a creative advertisement. It makes its point, but I think it could have had a bigger impact by taking a slightly different tack.

@dirtyplastic: Really? I'm yet to hear of copies of Wii games working on stock Wiis. It's made me quite comfortable buying Wii games online since I've always thought there is no chance of finding out down the track that I've got a copy.

I'd like to know if that's not the case.

@arrmixer: that's certainly admirable, but I'd hazard a guess and say that many others would not feel that way. Thus, volume of sales goes down, the price needs to be increased to maintain profits, meaning less people buying it etc.

People wanting better things for equal or less cash is a real problem these days. For example, there has been a lot of debate in Australia recently regarding renewable energy. You ask the population how many people think we should transition to renewable energy, and you get an overwhelming majority saying yes. However, when it turns out that one actually has to, heaven forbid, pay more for renewable energy, suddenly everybody decides that perhaps it's not such a good idea after all. Of course, making a concerted effort to use less power is completely out of the question...

@squashie: That's not how you'll get things to change.

Interesting - I didn't think Wii games really got pirated to any extent.

Glad they got him though. It's annoying as hell trying to make sure you don't buy bootleg DS games online. One less person selling them makes things (slightly) better.