Nintendo Wii U controller thoughts

[Dervacumen]

It's pretty much what I expected, so no surprises there.  I sure hope there's typical controller as an option, though.  I can see where this thing could really enhance game play, for instance football games where you want to call plays and don't want your opponent to see them and maybe a couple other things, but forcing every game to utilize this when a regular controller would suffice is just brutal.  Look at all the Wii games that were forced to use motion control thereby hampering an otherwise decent experience.

[Howard_Casto]

Check out my e3 thread I just posted.

[Donkbaca]

its WAY too big.  They are not targeting the hardcore gamer, if they are, they totally missed the mark.  If there is a 6.2 inch screen in it that means the controller is what, 8 inches across by 5 inches high?  Its too big to play for an extended period of time.  That screen on it will suck power like nobody's business, meaning you will get what, 4- 5 hours of gameplay before it needs to be charged?  Not to mention the cost.  This might be the first 100 dollar controller, I imagine the system will be 300 bucks, another hundred for the controller, too expensive.

[Ginsu Victim]

This might be the first 100 dollar controller, I imagine the system will be 300 bucks, another hundred for the controller, too expensive.

That was the first thing I thought when I saw the controller. I hope this thing flops hard. Unfortunately, it won't.

[Howard_Casto]

This might be the first 100 dollar controller, I imagine the system will be 300 bucks, another hundred for the controller, too expensive.

That was the first thing I thought when I saw the controller. I hope this thing flops hard. Unfortunately, it won't.

Ditto.  I mean a 360/ps3 controller is around 50 now right?  The wiimote/nunchuck combo is around 60.  So I can only think that a controller with a excessivley huge lcd screen, two cameras and a gyroscope is going to cost some serious change. 

Then again if it DOESN'T cost a lot then it could be a runaway success like the wii.  Although I'm not fond of the tablet controller at all (as you both said, too damn big) it is an impressive piece of hardware and I do like the idea of being able to play my games without a tv... I just can't see myself playing a traditional "multi console port" on that thing. 

Also while we are on the subject... I almost laughed ---my bottom--- off when they showed the new wii zapper.  It really empahsizes the problem with the controller, namely the large screen.  If the controller would have had a dreamcast, vmu sized screen that would have been the coolest idea ever, but as-is it looked like those poorly crafted fps hacks you see on slashdot all the time.

Which brings up the point.... do you think there will be third party controllers for this thing?  Like maybe a version with a sanely-sized screen?  A 4-inch screen I think might work better.

[Donkbaca]

I doubt it, too much going on with that controller. I see a flop with this thing, it's GOING to be expensive, Nintendos philosophy is to make money on consoles. I am thinking at LEAST 300 bucks for console, one controller and a game. Another hundred bucks for the controller, that is 400 bucks right there, to play what?   Legos?  They need to launch with a zelda or Mario game, otherwise there is no reason for anyone to drop that kind of coin on something like this

[Howard_Casto]

400 bucks right there, to play what?   Legos?  They need to launch with a zelda or Mario game, otherwise there is no reason for anyone to drop that kind of coin on something like this

Well I think that's a given.  Remember the first teaser for the Wii?  We had Mr. M and a bunch of bad actors flailing around with a wiimote and nothing else... no demos or nothing.  When it finally came out the launch lineup was pretty great, including TP and the sleeper hit Wii Sports.  I'm sure that they will release at least one of the key titles at launch time.  My guess is a mario game considering the last few mario titles have been built on existing engines and thus didn't take much time to develop.  If they were smart they would launch with a GOOD metroid title though.  If metroid was in HD, had the superior MP3 motion control option (enhanced with motion plus) and had a decent multiplayer campaign it would blow Halo out of the water easily, and that would win over the fps crowd.

Then again the fact that Mr. M and others have essentially stated that they haven't started development on Wii U titles yet worries me.  Doesn't it take 2-3 years to make a Mario or a Zelda?  Metroid typically takes even longer.

[Corbo]

I too worry about the cost of the controllers.  But it does open up a whole world of augmented reality party games using the cameras and screen on the controller.

It has the potential to be massive with its audience off the back of the Wii, but also to turn out to be an overpriced gimmick trying to compensate for an underpowered console.  I'll watch with interest.

[danny_galaga]

I doubt it, too much going on with that controller. I see a flop with this thing, it's GOING to be expensive, Nintendos philosophy is to make money on consoles. I am thinking at LEAST 300 bucks for console, one controller and a game. Another hundred bucks for the controller, that is 400 bucks right there, to play what?   Legos?  They need to launch with a zelda or Mario game, otherwise there is no reason for anyone to drop that kind of coin on something like this

That HAS been true, but seeing this controller makes me think Nintendo are now willing to sell systems at cost. And you can be sure they will launch with something compelling, like they have for the last 20 years or so...

[Dervacumen]

Interesting that the Wii U seems to have more in common with tablet computing than really being a solitary console system.
Imagine a not too distant future where I have a tablet computer, not a laptop.  I also have a smartphone and a console gaming system.  Not too far off, right?  Aren't some of us there now?

Nintendo's future:
I have a Nintendo tablet computer - the Wii U controller.
I have a Nintendo smartphone - not announced, but just imagine how quickly they could get to market with one.
I have a Nintendo gaming console - The Wii U base system.

The games and applications are all cross-compatible, with each piece of hardware having particular features that make it a core part of the entire experience.  For instance you want to have the smartphone for transportability.  You need to tablet for typical computer tasks and you can take it with you to class, vacation, work, whatever.  You need the gaming system for the high def augmented reality game experience.
Take your casual game with you all over the place.  Plug it in to your friend's base system and take your avatar or credentials to compete on the game field.  Play Second Life, like, all the time and video chat with your parent (or kid) while you're in the next room or on the other side of the couch.  You don't even need to interact with people anymore.  You can just ping them via video chat, text, phone, email, whatever.

I dunno.  It all seems reasonable, so I wonder if this is Nintendo jumping in and creating that space.  If not, they or someone else should and probably will.  Nintendo just seems to be positioned at least as well as Microsoft or Sony to pull it off.

[Howard_Casto]

It has the potential to be massive with its audience off the back of the Wii, but also to turn out to be an overpriced gimmick trying to compensate for an underpowered console.  I'll watch with interest.

Wii U is not underpowered.  It has already been confirmed by a few third party developers that the Wii U is significantly more powerflul than the ps3.  And before you mention it, M$ and Sony aren't in a position to release a new console anytime soon.  M$ keeps making revisions of the 360 and that costs money and boht M$ and Sony have invested a lot of time and money on their motion controllers.  To release a console within the next year or even the next two or three years would essentially kill any sales they are making off of their new accessories.

[Necro]

Unlike the Wii, I don't see this as a 'get on day 1' type of console...more a wait and see thing.  For the controllers, my impression is you only use a maximum of ONE of those things at a time...so...it's a single purchase. 

I'm very VERY on the fence with this.  I like the Wii, but feel Nintendo dropped the ball and there's a complete lack of good games recently...they also dropped the ball on internet gameplay potential.

I guess I'll just wait and see overall.  Nothing really grabs me, console wise, at this point. 

[DaveMMR]

I skimmed through the news this morning on the Wii U's controller and saw something mentioned that you will be unable to buy more of those tablet controllers as it only supports one (everything else is controlled by the same Wiimotes, etc. that currently exist).   I can't cite any references right now, but if true, it would definitely save me money on peripherals (having to buy three additional controllers every time I get a new system). 

I apologize in advance if I misread; again I only skimmed through the announcements this morning before work.

[elkameleon]

I dunno, the trouser mouse isn't stirring on anything this generation and that's a sad commentary.   

Battlefield 3, F**K YEAH!

[Corbo]

It has the potential to be massive with its audience off the back of the Wii, but also to turn out to be an overpriced gimmick trying to compensate for an underpowered console.  I'll watch with interest.

Wii U is not underpowered.

Not underpowered compared to the current generation, but this is next gen.  Nintendo may get to the party first but Sony and MS won't be far behind (and maybe Sega if old rumours are true).  And when they do, they will be much more powerful than Nintendo's offerings.  N64, GC, Wii, all under powered compared to the same gen competition, I don't see this trend changing.

[Bootay]

I highly doubt any rumors of Sega hopping back on the console hardware wagon again are true. If they do it would be interesting. But I highly doubt we will see that again.

[Corbo]

True, the rumours are pretty old now, I think any chance of it happening has probably passed.

[Donkbaca]

I hate to take a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- on your roses, but the thought of this being some sort of tablet pc for a controller is just got to be wrong for the following reasons:
1) Nintendo is always a 1 trick pony when it comes to gimmicks. When the wii was coming out we all thought it was going to be a Xb 360 with motion controls. Turns out it was a game cube with subpar motion controls. There is no media center, it's next to impossible to play online and the wii ware turned out to be mostly a venue for them to resell copies of old games.  People are thinking tablet pc, I am thinking this is a rehash of the game cube connecting to the gameboy advance, except now the GBA is touchscreen and connects wirelessly.
2) find me a tablet pc with gyro controls, two cameras and a nice screen for anything less than 200 bucks. Anyone willing to shell out that kind of dough for a white one that says Nintendo on it?  

Nintendo is just not that ambitious, especially the last several iterations of their hardware, which have been essentially, previous generation +1: wii is game cube plus motion control; all the iterations of the Ds, the 3rd is just the Ds with crappy 3d. Given all these, I just don't expect Nintendo to do something that is ground up revolutionary. Honestly I think it's just going to be an hd wii with a touchscreen on the controller. I am not expecting
1 - a cloud based system
2- portable gaming; if the controller is q standalone portable, it would kill the 3ds a year after it's launch
3- any sort of xboxnlive experience

That is what I think

[Dervacumen]

Unlike the Wii, I don't see this as a 'get on day 1' type of console...more a wait and see thing.

At this point, I see it as a "never gonna get it" kinda thing.  And I really enjoy my Wii and use it often.

I hate to take a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- on your roses, but the thought of this being some sort of tablet pc for a controller is just got to be wrong for the following reasons:

I don't have roses and I don't care if Nintendo succeeds or fails with this.  But if some enterprising company isn't considering this approach (hey Microsoft, you're essentially there now, wink wink) I would be surprised.  This just seems to be a good way to put a toe in the water to check the temperature.
IMO we're not ready to embrace that concept yet, but we will get there.

Anyway, I enjoy my Wii and 3DS and unless the price is right for this new thing (which I can't imagine it will be), I'm not interested. 

[Donkbaca]

I actually also think the concept of a tablet controller is a bad one. I think in general, most people woul agree that what makes a good controller is one that is comfortable to hold for long periods of time, and is intuitive to use.  The problem with a touchscreen on a controller is that you have to look at it to use it, and that means you aren't lookin at the screen you are playing on. People hate interacting with devices without tactile feedback, and it's impossible to do so without looking at the device.  Sure it would be cool to have a private screen to call plays on in madden, but thats one of only a few situations where thy would make sense. The whole "it would be cool o have a screen for inventory in RPGs/action adventure games" doesn't make sense to me.  Since you have to look at the screen to interface with it, you are going to have to pause the game, and if you are pausing the game anyway, what difference does it make if you are pulling your backpack up on your big screen or your hand held screen?

It's like they are combining the crappy aspects of portable gaming - small screen, uncomfortable controls, without the advantage of portability

[shmokes]

N64, GC, Wii, all under powered compared to the same gen competition, I don't see this trend changing.

That's simply not true.  The N64 was superior to the PlayStation in a number of ways, and inferior in others (especially storage).  The Gamecube was superior to the Playstation 2 in almost every way, but slightly inferior to the Xbox.  The Wii, well . . . it's clearly inferior to all its competition.

Frankly, I'm not all that on board with most of what I've been hearing here.  I think that there are all kinds of great things that could be done with a big touch screen on the controller, and anyone who has picked up a Kindle (or has read any hands-on impressions of the Wii U controller) should know that a 6" screen is not heavy, and certainly not heavy enough to matter in a two-handed gamepad.  Where I think this device utterly fails is its use of resistive touch technology instead of capacitive.  Clearly Nintendo (smartly) sees iOS and Android as major market disrupters and is positioning itself to fend off these new competitors.  But I question whether that can be done with a stylus.  Obviously the problem is one of cost, but that doesn't make the problem go away.  Apple didn't invent the tablet after all.  MS did that many years before.  Apple just made the tablet useable.  Nobody wants to use a stylus on a tablet.

[Mikezilla]

I actually also think the concept of a tablet controller is a bad one. I think in general, most people woul agree that what makes a good controller is one that is comfortable to hold for long periods of time, and is intuitive to use.  The problem with a touchscreen on a controller is that you have to look at it to use it, and that means you aren't lookin at the screen you are playing on. People hate interacting with devices without tactile feedback, and it's impossible to do so without looking at the device.  Sure it would be cool to have a private screen to call plays on in madden, but thats one of only a few situations where thy would make sense. The whole "it would be cool o have a screen for inventory in RPGs/action adventure games" doesn't make sense to me.  Since you have to look at the screen to interface with it, you are going to have to pause the game, and if you are pausing the game anyway, what difference does it make if you are pulling your backpack up on your big screen or your hand held screen?

It's like they are combining the crappy aspects of portable gaming - small screen, uncomfortable controls, without the advantage of portability

I was thinking all of the same stuff. Mostly regarding having to look at the screen in the heat of battle and then end up dying. I personally like Microsofts and Sony's stance in not releasing a new console any time soon. I hate having to shell out money every few years just to get the "next gen" in gaming because support/new games for the older systems cease to exist. I kinda want this new Nintendo thing to fail just for that reason. I paid good money for those consoles, and I want them to last a little longer. Besides, what other games besides mario, zelda, and metroid are even worth playing anymore on Nintendo?

[versapak]

N64, GC, Wii, all under powered compared to the same gen competition, I don't see this trend changing.

That's simply not true.  The N64 was superior to the PlayStation in a number of ways, and inferior in others (especially storage).  The Gamecube was superior to the Playstation 2 in almost every way, but slightly inferior to the Xbox.  The Wii, well . . . it's clearly inferior to all its competition.

Frankly, I'm not all that on board with most of what I've been hearing here.  I think that there are all kinds of great things that could be done with a big touch screen on the controller, and anyone who has picked up a Kindle (or has read any hands-on impressions of the Wii U controller) should know that a 6" screen is not heavy, and certainly not heavy enough to matter in a two-handed gamepad.  Where I think this device utterly fails is its use of resistive touch technology instead of capacitive.  Clearly Nintendo (smartly) sees iOS and Android as major market disrupters and is positioning itself to fend off these new competitors.  But I question whether that can be done with a stylus.  Obviously the problem is one of cost, but that doesn't make the problem go away.  Apple didn't invent the tablet after all.  MS did that many years before.  Apple just made the tablet useable.  Nobody wants to use a stylus on a tablet.

Does it not do both?

I have seen video it being used with fingers and video of it being used with a stylus.

For the record I very much do use a stylus on a tablet. My iPad is an essential part of my school kit, and I do all my note taking on it with a stylus.

The Wii-U at least doesn't have to use the big fat tipped stylus that I have to use on the iPad though. Not that it is going to be at all as useful as the iPad either, but that is a different subject.



I am looking forward to the unique gaming experiences it will bring, and will definitely be buying one. I will most definitely ---smurfette--- about how little it is used later, but that is just how it goes with any Nintendo console anymore.

[shmokes]

Yeah, resistive touch screens can be used with a finger.  They're just not very responsive.  The DS screen is a good example.  I know that some people want to use a stylus with their tablet.  When I said "nobody" I meant it colloquially, not literally.  In the context of a gaming device, capacitive is much better.  Again, the DS is a good example.  Just compare what its touch screen can do gaming-wise with an i-phone.  Essentially, nobody wants to take notes on their Wii U controller.   

[Donkbaca]

Pick up a ruler. You figure with a six inch screen and controls
That thing is at least 8 inches wide by about 5 inches tall. That is ginormous. A big controller has always been a negative in console sales.  The thickness doesn't bother me, it should be a couple of inches thick for it to be comfortable to hold. That is one of the things I hate about the psp. It's too thin to play comfortably for any period of time.

Base on what we know of Nintendo it's not going to be any sort of tablet, unless Rey think people will shell out 200 bucks for a controller. In reality it's a big touch screen GBA that doesn't play games on it's own

[versapak]

Yeah, resistive touch screens can be used with a finger.  They're just not very responsive.  The DS screen is a good example.  I know that some people want to use a stylus with their tablet.  When I said "nobody" I meant it colloquially, not literally.  In the context of a gaming device, capacitive is much better.  Again, the DS is a good example.  Just compare what its touch screen can do gaming-wise with an i-phone.  Essentially, nobody wants to take notes on their Wii U controller.   

Yeah, I hear ya.

I am a big fan of gaming on my iPad, and the screen is definitely a million times better to touch than the DS screen. I figure some of the games they are doing for this Wii-U could also be done on an iPad 2 with HDMI out. Maybe it'll get some ports, and I won't have to buy the Wii-U. heh

[DaveMMR]

Finally watched the videos, read the reports, etc.  I can't deny that I am intrigued at the possibilities but I'm not terribly excited about it either.   Will games do a lot with it - enough that you'll miss it when you're playing a different console?  Will it be a needless gimmick added to games?  I haven't seen enough to make up my mind just yet. 

[AtomSmasher]

After holding it in my hands I was surprised that it was lighter then expected, and the button placement does feel really good, although this was just from holding it for a moment, not playing any games with it (didn't want to wait 3 hours to do so).  Easily the worst part of the controller is the slide/analog nub things.  They feel really cheap and are worse then the ones on the 3DS.  I hope they buckle under some criticism and change them for real analog sticks.

Also, the graphics on the video they were showing seemed to look slightly worse then current gen PS3.  Granted I'm sure they are in very early stage development and are first gen titles, but it seems it's not head and shoulders over current gen systems since they can't make amazing tech demos.

[Howard_Casto]

It has the potential to be massive with its audience off the back of the Wii, but also to turn out to be an overpriced gimmick trying to compensate for an underpowered console.  I'll watch with interest.

Wii U is not underpowered.

Not underpowered compared to the current generation, but this is next gen.  Nintendo may get to the party first but Sony and MS won't be far behind (and maybe Sega if old rumours are true).  And when they do, they will be much more powerful than Nintendo's offerings.  N64, GC, Wii, all under powered compared to the same gen competition, I don't see this trend changing.

Well that's not a problem.... the first console out of the gate is always the one that gets the "main" port with all of the others being slightly adapated.  Can you honestly say that the average ps3 game looks significantly better than the average 360 game?  Especially on cross-platform ports. 

People keep thinking of this as Nintendo's console that was late to release this gen, but they've got it backwards, it's the first console to be released of the next gen. 

Alo read what I said about possible new console releases... M$ and Sony most likely WILL be far behind. They have too much new tech invested in this gen to jump ship yet.  I'm thinking 2 to 3 years for a new M$ console and maybe more for a new Sony one.  And let me tell you, 2 to 3 years stuck on a aging console is going to get people to flock to nintendo's new one, even if they aren't nintendo fans. 

The console itself will be successful, I just have fears about the new controller and it's usefulness.

Read what schmokes said about the previous nintendo consoles btw... you are dead wrong on those, the only issues the GC and n64 had were storage, and many people (myself included) think that the carts on the n64 merely saved us from the crappy fmv games on the psx. 

[Howard_Casto]

I skimmed through the news this morning on the Wii U's controller and saw something mentioned that you will be unable to buy more of those tablet controllers as it only supports one (everything else is controlled by the same Wiimotes, etc. that currently exist).   I can't cite any references right now, but if true, it would definitely save me money on peripherals (having to buy three additional controllers every time I get a new system). 

I apologize in advance if I misread; again I only skimmed through the announcements this morning before work.

Well that's correct and incorrect.  In terms of transferring the game to the tablet controller that is one player only.  AFAIK though using multiple tablets at once with the main game on the big screen works.  The reason is fairly obvious... it would take a ton of horsepower, even on a next gen system, to display full "game graphics" on 4  independant displays.  Then again these are the specs right now.  From what I understand the current model is slightly in flux.... for example they haven't decided if it'll have a ethernet port, or just wifi. 


Also a couple of misconceptions we might as well clear up while we are at it (this stuff comes straight from blogs and press conferences).

The controller isn't a game system by itself.  The wii u wirelessly streams the video to the screen (although I'm sure there is a buffer or something).  Without the wii u powered up it can't play anything... or at least nothing complex. 

This is undoubtedly to keep the cost down.  This is why I've said the wii u *could* end up being a lot cheap than it is, and if that is the case then it will be another runaway hit.

In a recent "Iwata Asks"  Miyamoto inferred that they are still working on the design of the controller.  Many of his collegues want to make the thing slimmer and lighter, he wants to make it more modular.  +1 for Mr. M!  If they would make the device as a stand-alone touchscreen with bolt on control modules then I could see it becomeing infinately more useful.  It already has an accessory port btw. 


So my "ugh this is horrible" has slowly, over the course of the week, turned into a "I'm still confused and I need more info"


The slider sticks definately need to go though.  I'm not sure how they would fix that problem without a major re-design though as the classic controller taught me that analog sticks on a flat controller are VERY akward to use as well.

[lcddream]

I think the controller will open up many many possibilities, and I'm pretty damn excited about it 

[Dervacumen]

You know what would really open up the industry in terms of accessibility?  I wish my controller understood voice commands, so I could just yell at the damn thing and see it perform.  "Jump!  Jump far!  Watch out!  Land on it!  Get it, shoot!"  Much easier than fighting these tired reflexes.

[DaveMMR]

One thing I'm hating about controllers lately: they're getting too expensive/fragile to throw in anger anymore.  I won't be throwing the Wii U's pad any time soon...

[hypernova]

The console itself will be successful, I just have fears about the new controller and it's usefulness.

I'm actually a bit skeptical about this.

There's the basic main reason that the Wii was such a runaway hit.  EVERYONE had to have one.  Even non-gamers.  It brought families, including parents and even grandparents into the gaming fold.

My questions are as such:  What is this console going to bring to the table for all of these people to have to have it again?  Just as importantly, what are they going to offer to all of those people (more hardcore style gamers) who rushed out to buy the Wii, only to express buyer's remorse shortly thereafter, who've either sold it or acknowledges it has gathered an inch of dust?  Surely they feel jilted from that experience, and will be more hesitant this time around.  I know some of you have tread this path.  And I'm definitely seeing some apprehension so far in here.  Though it looks like the feeling is starting to wane just a bit.

[shmokes]

It does seem a bit hard to imagine the lighting striking twice.  Everyone bought the Wii and eventually became totally disenchanted with it.  It seems . . . risky to bring out a Wii 1.5.  I see what they're doing.  It's the Wii U because the Wii was a casual platform that made games accessible to everyone, but often forgot the individual gamer looking for hardcore experiences.  Now it's still the Wii, but can do the U stuff too.  It's got a full-fledged controller with dual analog, 4 face and 4 shoulder buttons.  But all that does is finally put it on a technical par with PS3 and Xbox 360.  But par isn't nearly good enough because those systems have enormous libraries of compelling software to go along with their hardware.

So they added the touch screen which can maybe add a little depth and also allow it to fend off the iPad (as well as get ports from it), but that's botched too for a couple of reasons.  They used a resistive screen, so games are not going to play nearly as well.  Not even close.  But, more importantly, it can't begin to be an iPad replacement because the iPad is a full-fledged computer in its own right.  So while the Wii U controller is vastly underperforming the iPad, chances are most Wii U owners will probably also have an iPad in the house.  So why would someone choose to play a game on an underperforming 6" resistive screen when they already have a 10" capacitive screen to play the game on - especially considering the fact that the iPad game probably cost $3 while the Wii U version was $30-60?

I can't help but think that Microsoft is going to wipe the floor with the 360 successor.  They've laid a potentially great groundwork with the Kinect.  Their next system will (presumably) have a higher-res Kinect with on-board processing to get rid of lag, and controllers that can be properly used in conjunction with the camera.  Plus they're gonna have Windows 8 tablets out by then.  They'll probably have Windows 8 tablet integration with the next Xbox that makes the Wii U controllers seem like toys.  

The more I think about it, the less impressed I am.  As always with things like this, hopefully I'm wrong.  I've got a soft spot in my heart for Nintendo.

[Howard_Casto]

Well let's put thing into perspective a bit guys.  Nintendo has only had one flop in it's history.  (Virtual Boy)  So could the system not be the dominate brand this go around?  Or course..... there's always that chance.  Could it be a legitmate flop?  Impossible.  If the GameCube (which imho and according to sales figures was their weakest outing) has taught me anything, it's that all nintedo has to do is release one Mario game and one Zelda game to break even.  Release a Metroid or another one of their key franchises and they make a profit. 

If the controller is a complete dud and the sales of the console begin to fall, all they have to do is release a wii sports-like title on it and it'll sell enough copies to save the thing.  Mind you we will all swarp and and complain about how they've went all "casual" again and stuff, but it doesn't matter.  Big sellers anymore are "lighter" games like wii sports, nintendogs and ect....

So again,  I have serious issues in terms of the controller, but the console itself will do just fine. 

The fact that Ubi has pledged to do an AC game on the thing helps tremendously.  EA (blah!!) and Ubi are the two major third party developers at this point.  If they actually release HD games on the system then that will bring enough of the "core" demo back even if some of the "casual" ones decide not to upgrade to the wii u.

[danny_galaga]

Investors hate it, the stock is tanking.
 

Shares go up, shares go down 

World wide, markets are pretty soft, so people are jumpier than usual. Now would be a good time to buy Nintendo shares it would seem. you can bet they'll surge on launch day. Before then, they most likely will slowly climb as the lemmings decide it's safe after all...

It does seem a bit hard to imagine the lighting striking twice.  Everyone bought the Wii and eventually became totally disenchanted with it.  It seems . . . risky to bring out a Wii 1.5.  I see what they're doing.  It's the Wii U because the Wii was a casual platform that made games accessible to everyone, but often forgot the individual gamer looking for hardcore experiences.  Now it's still the Wii, but can do the U stuff too.  It's got a full-fledged controller with dual analog, 4 face and 4 shoulder buttons.  But all that does is finally put it on a technical par with PS3 and Xbox 360.  But par isn't nearly good enough because those systems have enormous libraries of compelling software to go along with their hardware.

So they added the touch screen which can maybe add a little depth and also allow it to fend off the iPad (as well as get ports from it), but that's botched too for a couple of reasons.  They used a resistive screen, so games are not going to play nearly as well.  Not even close.  But, more importantly, it can't begin to be an iPad replacement because the iPad is a full-fledged computer in its own right.  So while the Wii U controller is vastly underperforming the iPad, chances are most Wii U owners will probably also have an iPad in the house.  So why would someone choose to play a game on an underperforming 6" resistive screen when they already have a 10" capacitive screen to play the game on - especially considering the fact that the iPad game probably cost $3 while the Wii U version was $30-60?

I can't help but think that Microsoft is going to wipe the floor with the 360 successor.  They've laid a potentially great groundwork with the Kinect.  Their next system will (presumably) have a higher-res Kinect with on-board processing to get rid of lag, and controllers that can be properly used in conjunction with the camera.  Plus they're gonna have Windows 8 tablets out by then.  They'll probably have Windows 8 tablet integration with the next Xbox that makes the Wii U controllers seem like toys.  

The more I think about it, the less impressed I am.  As always with things like this, hopefully I'm wrong.  I've got a soft spot in my heart for Nintendo.

1) Why a Wii U over an iPad? How much power does an iPad have? Can you play a game on an iPad where your friends are, for example, soldiers on a battle field on the TV, while you fly overhead of them, viewing them on your controller?

2) As a couple of people have pointed out, WiiU (is that name really going to stay? I hope not) more than likely will have a head start of a couple of years for the next gen. First in, best dressed and all that. Didn't work for Dreamcast mind you, but then Sega was broke. I figure first year or so, it will sell on the strength of a good pack in game. Next year or so, I reckon some great 3rd party games will come along and sell more consoles.

I won't be buying one myself, I'm still happy with my Wii and the 5 other classic consoles I have. But it sounds like Nintendo have a good plan...

[Malenko]

Well, I'll ignore all the crystal ball predictions and just say this:

I don't like it, it looks really awkward. I didn't like the Wii but after enough begging from my girlfriend we finally broke down and got one. And we played it for umm... a week? Waste of time and money. I wont let lightning strike my wallet again, I'm lookin at you Wii and GameCube

[Corbo]

N64, GC, Wii, all under powered compared to the same gen competition, I don't see this trend changing.

That's simply not true.  The N64 was superior to the PlayStation in a number of ways, and inferior in others (especially storage).  The Gamecube was superior to the Playstation 2 in almost every way, but slightly inferior to the Xbox.  The Wii, well . . . it's clearly inferior to all its competition.
 

I did a bit of reading and I’m quite surprised at how good the specs are, you’re right.  Perhaps the lack of FMV on the N64 and the 3rd party developer restrictions Nintendo are famous for gave the perception that the console was inferior technically.  To me anyway.

The N64 was superior to the PlayStation in a number of ways, and inferior in others

It arrived 2 years after the Playstation, it should have been superior in every way.

The Gamecube was superior to the Playstation 2 in almost every way, but slightly inferior to the Xbox

GC arrived 1.5 years after the PS2 and nearly a year after the Xbox, again too little too late.
Nintendo will be the first to the party this time around, will that be on their side, or will we have another Sega Saturn/Playstation situation.  Yeah the Wii U is nice, but look what Sony and Microsoft have coming out soon *swoon*.

[Donkbaca]

Nobody will buy it unless there is a compelling reason too. They are saying next gen, but nobody will care about unless it offers up something you can't get on the PS3/360.  Right now there is nothing that compelling about it to me

[Bootay]

Well, I'll ignore all the crystal ball predictions and just say this:

I don't like it, it looks really awkward. I didn't like the Wii but after enough begging from my girlfriend we finally broke down and got one. And we played it for umm... a week? Waste of time and money. I wont let lightning strike my wallet again, I'm lookin at you Wii and GameCube

Funny. I had the same thing happen. Had no interest in the Wii. The wife wanted one. She kept bugging me about it. She wanted it to work out with Wii Fit. So we broke down and bought one. She played Wii Fit like 2 times, my son and I played Wii Sports and the only game on it worth playing was bowling. So we played that for like a week tops before we were bored of it. I modded the Wii and grabbed about 100 games for it. Out of the 100 I can count on 2 hands how many are actually good. And the ones that are good aren't good enough to make me want to turn the thing on. I actually prefer Gamecube games to most Wii titles.

EDIT: Sorry, I edited out a sentence that I just noticed didn't make any sense.

[shmokes]

[N64] arrived 2 years after the Playstation, it should have been superior in every way. . . .

GC arrived 1.5 years after the PS2 and nearly a year after the Xbox, again too little too late.
Nintendo will be the first to the party this time around, will that be on their side, or will we have another Sega Saturn/Playstation situation.  Yeah the Wii U is nice, but look what Sony and Microsoft have coming out soon *swoon*.

As far as you're concerned N64 and Gamecube were both released almost exactly one year after their Sony counterparts (assuming you live in the US, anyway).  A year isn't enough time to make one system light-years better than the other kids on the block.  In any case, the Playstation only had a substantial edge in storage capacity over the N64, but that was a conscious decision on Nintendo's part.  They thought people wouldn't stand for load times (and probably didn't want to give up their lucrative cartridge manufacturing business).  For a lot of people, Nintendo was spot on when it came to load time revulsion.  Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated the patience of gamers in general.  But whether cartridges or CD-ROMS were superior depended on each users individual priorities.  As for the Gamecube, I don't see how it coming out a year later is too little too late.  Was the PS3 too little too late?  Cos the Xbox 360 had more than a year lead on it, IIRC.  The Xbox 360 had a similar release advantage over the Wii, but it didn't take Nintendo very long to outsell them.  Similarly, the Sega Genesis had a full two-year head start on the SNES, but in the end the Nintendo sold like 25% more systems than Sega.

I think what it boils down to is that you just don't like Nintendo anymore.  And that's totally okay.  There are some good reasons for a lot of people to dislike Nintendo.  They haven't really matured well with their audience over time.  I wouldn't be surprised if your perception of underpowered hardware actually stems from the disproportionate number of games that are appropriate for small-children.

[Corbo]

As far as you're concerned N64 and Gamecube were both released almost exactly one year after their Sony counterparts (assuming you live in the US, anyway). 

I don't live in the US.

I think what it boils down to is that you just don't like Nintendo anymore
.  And that's totally okay.  There are some good reasons for a lot of people to dislike Nintendo. 

I think Nintendo have a clear strategy which is certainly geared towards the more casual or younger gamer, but then a good game transcends all generations.  Nintendo do this well, if infrequently.  Hopefully they will stick to this strategy and continue to inject innovation into the market. Anything but more FPS’s!

I’m not in any camp when it comes to consoles.  I was weaned on Amstrads, Amiga’s and PC’s.  I’ve always watched the console market with interest though, as I’m sure we both will with the next round of consoles.  I’m glad the next generation is on its way it has been an especially long wait for this round.

[Mikezilla]

I’m glad the next generation is on its way it has been an especially long wait for this round.

Any particular reason? As I have stated before, Im glad this generation has stuck around. Im not a fan of having my hardware become obsolete every 5 years, and have to shell out more money to stay up to date. Aside from peripherals, how much better can things get? I already have a PS3 with a big HDTV 1080 screen, so even if something comes out with better resolution, I would have to buy a new TV, which Im not going to do.

From what I have been reading, the Wii U just doesnt seem compelling enough to change the game, or really be considered "next gen" because graphically, its the same as the competetion, which has been around already.

I also just dont get the controller. Its like a half ass DS that doesnt play games on its own, that only one can be used at a time right? Its a controller with a small screen, even though I want to look at a bigger, better screen. 

[hypernova]

I also just dont get the controller. Its like a half ass DS that doesnt play games on its own, that only one can be used at a time right?

I'm a bit confused by this.  Is this right?  How exactly then does the multiplayer work when players are choosing plays in Madden or whatever?  I'm thinking it HAS to support more than one at a time.

[Dervacumen]

Well, I'll ignore all the crystal ball predictions and just say this:

I don't like it, it looks really awkward. I didn't like the Wii but after enough begging from my girlfriend we finally broke down and got one. And we played it for umm... a week? Waste of time and money. I wont let lightning strike my wallet again, I'm lookin at you Wii and GameCube

Funny. I had the same thing happen. Had no interest in the Wii. The wife wanted one. She kept bugging me about it. She wanted it to work out with Wii Fit. So we broke down and bought one. She played Wii Fit like 2 times, my son and I played Wii Sports and the only game on it worth playing was bowling. So we played that for like a week tops before we were bored of it. I modded the Wii and grabbed about 100 games for it. Out of the 100 I can count on 2 hands how many are actually good. And the ones that are good aren't good enough to make me want to turn the thing on. I actually prefer Gamecube games to most Wii titles.

EDIT: Sorry, I edited out a sentence that I just noticed didn't make any sense.

I don't want to pull too far off topic, but I must be in the minority here.  I play the Wii frequently, and probably about 25 games or so in my core rotation.
Since I play the top tier shooters and RPGs on the computer, I didn't want the Wii for outstanding graphics.  I wanted it to enjoy with my kid, and we do.  Doesn't anyone here just enjoy the console for the family time you can extract from it?  I dunno.

Now back to the WiiU controller.  My sister said today she is really interested in it.  And her reason?  So when someone is playing a game and she wants to watch TV, she gets an immediate win.  I think that's what's going to carry this.  The parents are going to buy a console for their kids, and if they get the WiiU they'll always have an ace in the hole when it comes to monopolizing game time.

[Corbo]

Any particular reason? As I have stated before, Im glad this generation has stuck around. Im not a fan of having my hardware become obsolete every 5 years

It's probably because I don't tend to buy consoles.  So I'm looking at it from a "what can they do next" point of view.  I would probably feel the same as you if I had a current gen console. 

How much better can things get?

Better than any of us can imagine.  Progress and technology will march on and when you look back in 1,2 or 3 generations you'll probably be saying the same about that generation of machines 

[Howard_Casto]

I also just dont get the controller. Its like a half ass DS that doesnt play games on its own, that only one can be used at a time right?

I'm a bit confused by this.  Is this right?  How exactly then does the multiplayer work when players are choosing plays in Madden or whatever?  I'm thinking it HAS to support more than one at a time.

I addressed this in the other thread (in which people started yelling and being stupid).  The Wii U can display graphics on up to 4 tablet controllers no problem.  That being said, at least for now, the feature where you can turn off the tv and play the game on the controller is limited to one player.  It all comes down to bandwidth and processing power.  It takes very little to display 4 menu-like displays or something similar, but it takes far more to display a full fledged game.  Right now the FIRST PARTY games are focusing on one tablet per game, but third-party developers have already shown demos where they are trying to use multiple controllers.

Also keep in mind the wii u's hardware (and thus software direction) isn't finalized yet.  We won't really know how it works for a while. 

That being said, nitnedo has expressed interest in serious online multiplayer this go around.  Even if it is one tablet per console, that doesn't mean one tablet per player considering your friends could play you in an online match.  That isn't my cup of tea... I prefer real live humans in the room with me, but it is the popular thing to do. 

[danny_galaga]

Aside from peripherals, how much better can things get?

 

[ChadTower]

It arrived 2 years after the Playstation, it should have been superior in every way.

The only way it was not superior was media size.  All that did was force them to write better real time games that were not crapped up with prerendered garbage.

The cartridge in the N64 was a total win in my eyes.  Zero load times vs loading up a PS game and going for a soda is huge.

[Howard_Casto]

It arrived 2 years after the Playstation, it should have been superior in every way.

The only way it was not superior was media size.  All that did was force them to write better real time games that were not crapped up with prerendered garbage.

The cartridge in the N64 was a total win in my eyes.  Zero load times vs loading up a PS game and going for a soda is huge.

Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to.    N64 3d looked WAAAAAY better than psx 3d.  Heck, even 2d looked better (see the psx version of MKT, vs the n64 version).  And also imho any of the first gen cd-based systems were complete crap based on load times alone.  Nintendo had the foresight to understand that x1 cdroms were NOT ready for prime-time.  Unfortunately for them, the idiot consumer only saw "ooo purdy videos in mah gamez" and bought inferior titles with huge load times. 

For the record, the GC disc size decision was based on two things:

1.  Specially sized discs would prevent piracy, which had been a huge issue with the previous generation of disc-based consoles.

2.  At the time developers were barely filling 50% of a game disc so the storage capacity didn't really matter.  Of course by the time the gc was at the end of it's life cycle it did tend to hurt them a litte bit, but it was at the end of the cycle, so it wasn't that big a deal.    I'm pretty sure that nintendo pressed the discs themselves as well, giving them a source of revenue, which is good for the consumer in the long run.

I hear tons of people complaining about this, when in this generation m$ decided to use a regular dvd disc and sony decided to use blu-ray, which hold far more data.  It is EXACTLY THE SAME THING!  And guess what?  Just like last gen m$'s decision to use regular dvds hasn't hurt them a bit because, just like last gen, most games don't even fill a full dvd, much less a huge blu-ray disc.  Sure there have been a few (castlevania, ect) but not enough to effect sales or the quality of the games.

[ChadTower]

Sounds like someone is forgetting that those N64 games just kept getting more and more expensive until Sega buzz killed it for everyone and locked Saturn games down to $50.

Gamestop was at its most useful by far during the N64 era.  Cartridges almost never fail and are easy to clean.  Near zero risk of buying a bad cartridge at a used game store.  That $65 game was $35 a few months later.

N64 sports games tended to suck because the lead time was so great on the cartridges and they were out of date upon release.  I had a Z64 when that system was in its prime and in some cases I was running retail games at least six months prior to release.  I never saw anything more than perhaps 2-3 weeks on anything else.

There are a lot of gamers, myself included, who don't care about sports games.  I haven't played Madden since it was 16 bit.  Even then I didn't care about the rosters.  The game plays just as well with last year's roster as it does with this year's roster.

[Bootay]

It arrived 2 years after the Playstation, it should have been superior in every way.

The only way it was not superior was media size.  All that did was force them to write better real time games that were not crapped up with prerendered garbage.

The cartridge in the N64 was a total win in my eyes.  Zero load times vs loading up a PS game and going for a soda is huge.

Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to.    N64 3d looked WAAAAAY better than psx 3d.  Heck, even 2d looked better (see the psx version of MKT, vs the n64 version).  And also imho any of the first gen cd-based systems were complete crap based on load times alone.  Nintendo had the foresight to understand that x1 cdroms were NOT ready for prime-time.  Unfortunately for them, the idiot consumer only saw "ooo purdy videos in mah gamez" and bought inferior titles with huge load times. 

For the record, the GC disc size decision was based on two things:

1.  Specially sized discs would prevent piracy, which had been a huge issue with the previous generation of disc-based consoles.

2.  At the time developers were barely filling 50% of a game disc so the storage capacity didn't really matter.  Of course by the time the gc was at the end of it's life cycle it did tend to hurt them a litte bit, but it was at the end of the cycle, so it wasn't that big a deal.    I'm pretty sure that nintendo pressed the discs themselves as well, giving them a source of revenue, which is good for the consumer in the long run.

I hear tons of people complaining about this, when in this generation m$ decided to use a regular dvd disc and sony decided to use blu-ray, which hold far more data.  It is EXACTLY THE SAME THING!  And guess what?  Just like last gen m$'s decision to use regular dvds hasn't hurt them a bit because, just like last gen, most games don't even fill a full dvd, much less a huge blu-ray disc.  Sure there have been a few (castlevania, ect) but not enough to effect sales or the quality of the games.

I agree that the N64's 3D was superior and the 0 load times were great. But PS1 had better titles in my opinion. N64 had a few winners like GoldenEye and the Nintendo flagship titles. But some of my favorite games of that era were on PS1. Metal Gear: Solid, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Final Fantasy 7, Resident Evil 1-3 to name just a few. Just my opinion though. And sure there were a lot of stinkers too especially in the beginning. I had a modded PS1 back then and my friend had a N64 with a Z64. So I was able to see the comparison on games first hand. The graphics were always a little more polished on N64 but the lack of speech and sound was kind of dull for some titles. Others I welcomed it...because lets face it, sometimes speech in games is repetitive and annoying. Sports games always felt bland without the commentary.

[Bootay]

Gamestop was at its most useful by far during the N64 era.  Cartridges almost never fail and are easy to clean.  Near zero risk of buying a bad cartridge at a used game store.  That $65 game was $35 a few months later.

This was another plus for N64. Disc based media sucks. It always gets scratched or fingerprinted up. Especially in a house with kids. Carts can be thrown across a room and still work for the most part. heh

[Donkbaca]

People, by and large, don't care about hardware, they care about software and the gaming experience.  So it really doesn't matter if it was superior in some ways, in my mind the N64 had three major problems:
1) sports games were out of date, and the lack of audio made them an inferior experience.  You don't play sports games, that's fine, but if it weren't for sports games, EA would have gone belly up years ago and 2K developers wouldn't exist.
2) the controller was inferior to the playstation.  It was too big and broke all the time.
3) The advantages of speed with a cartridge are way outweighed by the disadvantage of storage space.  The load times really weren't THAT bad, and the advantages with regards to sound and video and all that stuff are huge.  Think about one of the flagship games in the playstation library: FF7. Its a first gen disc, and the N64 could never have a RPG that was that long, with that many bells and whistles.

So basically the N4 sucked for a lot of things:
Sucked for sports
Sucked for RPGs
Sucked for fighters due to the lousy controller.

[shmokes]

The N64 had a superior D-pad and 6 face buttons.  How does that suck for fighters? 

[Malenko]

The N64 had a superior D-pad and 6 face buttons.  How does that suck for fighters? 

the official controller had 4 buttons smaller then the other 2? I know KIGold and MKT were a bit awkward on it

[Mikezilla]

I particularly liked the N64 controller. At first I was a little put off by it, but I got used to it. I am not a fan of the stupid D-pad on all the generations of PS controllers. Why does it have to be 4 seperate buttons anyway?

[ChadTower]

FF7. Its a first gen disc, and the N64 could never have a RPG that was that long, with that many bells and whistles.

I had FF7.  I hated that game.  It wasn't even a game.  It was a movie with some controller interaction involved.  What I remember most about FF7 was putting down the controller for minutes at a time during prerendered scenes.  That isn't a game to me.

So basically the N4 sucked for a lot of things:
Sucked for sports
Sucked for RPGs
Sucked for fighters due to the lousy controller.

I don't play any of those.  I like platformers and action games.  It's a preference, thing, really.  

[Donkbaca]

The N64 sucked for fighters because the controller was awkward for its size and shape and because there basically no good fighting games released for it, other than the MKs, neither of which, really, are all that great.  Whatever advantage 6 face buttons gives you is outweighed by the fact that no Capcom fighters were released for the N64, which are pretty much the best fighters that use 6 buttons.

Also, no Tekken, soul Caliber, Snk fighters.....

[Bootay]

I personally loved FF7. But I am a fan of turn based RPGs. I will agree that some of the spells were soooo long and overdrawn just to show you pretty graphics. But there was more to it than that. Yes when an FMV started you needed to be prepare to watch for a while. I had fun with it though.

I am not going to hate on the N64 because I thought it was a decent console, I just thought PS1 had a better selection of quality titles. But since the library was so huge it also had a large selection of stinky ones...and FMV games too (which are also quite stinky). Especially in the beginning.

I remember I bought my PS1 for $300 back when it first came out. And the only selections for games were MK3, Battle Arena Toshinden, and a few other 3DO ports such as Road Rash, Gex, Total Eclipse, Novastorm, etc. Sure, the PS1 versions of the 3DO games looked better than the 3DO versions, but they weren't good games to begin with. So I mainly found myself playing MK3 and Battle Arena Toshinden until the library expanded beyond porting. By the time Resident Evil and Tomb Raider came out though, a good amount of the games released were quality titles.

Honestly, aside from Nintendo flagship games Goldeneye, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, and Perfect Dark are the only titles that come to mind that I liked on N64. Oh and the Banjo Kazooie games were alright too. There might be more...I don't recall off the top of my head. Someone remind me.

[ChadTower]

Without mentioning the first party games...

...Conker's Bad Fur Day is a great game.   

[shmokes]

N64 was Rare's heyday.  They did Blast Corps, Diddy Kong Racing, Banjoe Kazooie, Conker, Donkey Kong.  Did they do Star Fox?  Cos that was a great game on N64.

Then there was Turok, Top Gear, Tetrisphere (seriously . . . it's awesome), Mario Tennis and Golf were made by Camelot Games or something, I think.  And there were some really good sports titles for the system.  International Super Star Soccer was much better than the FIFA series.  And there was a great baseball game for the system, made by Acclaim IIRC.

But, obviously, as with any Nintendo console, the cream of the crop was 9 times out of 10 made by Nintendo.

[Vigo]

N64 was the party machine. Nobody would get together for PS1 or PS2 games. It was all about the 64 when friends were over.

But yeah, most the best games were by nintendo. One of the few systems that would be worth owning for the first party games alone. Here are the games that I remember liking for the 64:

Battletanx (both 1 and 2)
The Cruisn' games
Goldeneye
Perfect Dark
WCW/NWO Revenge
Dr. Mario
F-Zero
Wayne Gretzky 3d hockey
Gauntlet Legends
Diddy Kong Racing
Smash Bros
Harvest Moon 64
Jet Force Gemini
The Zelda Games
The Mario games: cart, party, tennis, paper mario etc.
MK4, MK trilogy
NFL Blitz games
Ogre Battle
Pilotwings
Wave race
Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Racer, Shadows of the empire
Quake
Rampage World Tour
Snowboard Kids 1 & 2
Star Fox
Blast Corps
Tony Hawk games - i think the psx versions might have been better though.
Turok Games

[ChadTower]

The N64 had the best wrestling games ever.  Better than before, better than now, just better. 

Until Acclaim got their hands on the WWF license, that is.

[Donkbaca]

I agree, the best multiplayer games were N64.  I would say N64 had best wrestling games; FPS; and platformers.  Everything else I would have to give to PS

Better SHMUPS
Better BMUPS
Better RPGS
Better Fighting Games
Better Baseball/Football/Basketball games

[Corbo]

Agreed on the multiplayer, I have great memories of 4 player Golden Eye and Mario Kart sessions.

[Bootay]

N64 was Rare's heyday.  They did Blast Corps, Diddy Kong Racing, Banjoe Kazooie, Conker, Donkey Kong.  Did they do Star Fox?  Cos that was a great game on N64.

Then there was Turok, Top Gear, Tetrisphere (seriously . . . it's awesome), Mario Tennis and Golf were made by Camelot Games or something, I think.  And there were some really good sports titles for the system.  International Super Star Soccer was much better than the FIFA series.  And there was a great baseball game for the system, made by Acclaim IIRC.

But, obviously, as with any Nintendo console, the cream of the crop was 9 times out of 10 made by Nintendo.

Most of those games I considered Nintendo games because they are Nintendo characters. Out of the ones that aren't Nintendo characters, Turok was good for its day and Tetrisphrere was good too. Not a fan of the soccer games.

N64 was the party machine. Nobody would get together for PS1 or PS2 games. It was all about the 64 when friends were over.

But yeah, most the best games were by nintendo. One of the few systems that would be worth owning for the first party games alone. Here are the games that I remember liking for the 64:

Battletanx (both 1 and 2)
The Cruisn' games
Goldeneye
Perfect Dark
WCW/NWO Revenge
Dr. Mario
F-Zero
Wayne Gretzky 3d hockey
Gauntlet Legends
Diddy Kong Racing
Smash Bros
Harvest Moon 64
Jet Force Gemini
The Zelda Games
The Mario games: cart, party, tennis, paper mario etc.
MK4, MK trilogy
NFL Blitz games
Ogre Battle
Pilotwings
Wave race
Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Racer, Shadows of the empire
Quake
Rampage World Tour
Snowboard Kids 1 & 2
Star Fox
Blast Corps
Tony Hawk games - i think the psx versions might have been better though.
Turok Games

Some of those were also on PS1 and were either better or the same, but you reminded me of the wrestling games. Yes N64 had the best wrestling games. WCW/NWO Revenge was great. And you know what...looking back I think N64 has as many good flagship titles as NES and SNES so yes it would be worth owning for those alone. (I already own a N64 though). The Mario Sports games are fun and the Mario Party games are great for when friends are over. Pretty much all of the Nintendo games are great on N64. It's been a little while since I dusted the N64 off. This thread has inspired me to do so.  
 

[shmokes]

I seem to remember the N64 being good for racers too.  Only Top Gear Rally (which was awesome) comes to mind at the moment though.  I mean, there were also Mario Kart and F-Zero X and Waverace and 1080, I guess, which were all great, but those were also all Nintendo.  It seems like third parties did well on the system, but maybe I'm misremembering that.  I know there was a good Ridge Racer game, but that came out way earlier on the Playstation.


p.s.  I didn't forget the Cruis'n games.  I think they suck, and I thought so when they were released too.

[Mikezilla]

Without mentioning the first party games...

...Conker's Bad Fur Day is a great game.   

I LOVE that game. LOVE. Its sells pretty well on Ebay/CL. As for RPG's go, Ogre Battle 64 was an amazing, overlooked game. I logged more hours on this iteration of Nintendo probably more than any other, just because of Goldeneye(replay value) and Ocarina of time. I never once broke a controller either.

[Bootay]

Oddly enough, Beetle Adventure Racing was a hell of a lot of fun on that system if you could get over the stupid theme.

 

Yea I liked that game too. Although this is the first time I ever admitted it in public. 

[DaveMMR]

Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to.    N64 3d looked WAAAAAY better than psx 3d.  Heck, even 2d looked better (see the psx version of MKT, vs the n64 version).  And also imho any of the first gen cd-based systems were complete crap based on load times alone.  Nintendo had the foresight to understand that x1 cdroms were NOT ready for prime-time.  Unfortunately for them, the idiot consumer only saw "ooo purdy videos in mah gamez" and bought inferior titles with huge load times. 

I agree with your points but let's not blame the consumer on the downfall of the cartridge.  It was all about media cost and NOT having to pay Nintendo all these fees to manufacture them.  They were able to do bigger games for cheaper (well, in theory; the added costs of rendering cut-scenes, hiring voice actors and musicians, etc. negated the savings - but at least it's going for a better gaming experience, not for manufacturing).  Consumers simply went where the games were - and Nintendo lost some big players with their cartridge-based system.  And that's where we are.

Otherwise, I agree.  Cartridges always seemed better from a collectors standpoint.  They are easily identifiable and seem overall more reliable.  There were some rumblings that the industry was thinking of switching BACK to the cartridge for home consoles (with the price of storage going down while space goes up - see: your thumb drive) as a possible solution to piracy; assuming they don't just go right to a download-only delivery method.   I actually wouldn't mind it.

[shmokes]

That would be cool.  I don't see it happening, though.  Wii U is disk-based.  If PS4 or 360 use physical media I think it'll be the last time.  Both will, I think, but I think it'll be the last time.  There are just so many reasons to go all digital-delivery.  Nintendo is the retailer for EVERY game sold through WiiWare.  Why cut Wal-Mart or Gamestop in if you don't have to?  Plus, no second-hand market or, worse, lending games.  Once you buy a game, it's yours and nobody else's forever.  Bad for consumer, but great for publisher.  It's gonna happen.  Soon.

[Donkbaca]

Maybe, maybe not. All digital delivery was a disaster for the psp go

[shmokes]

Apple seems to do okay with it.  Music and apps.  It's coming.

[Howard_Casto]

Apple seems to do okay with it.  Music and apps.  It's coming.

Well it's already here.  But games *proper* will never be released to direct-download.  What we have right now (on the 360/ps3 side) is that a few weeks to a couple of months after the physical media is released, the game is available for direct download at a slighlty reduced price.  The physical copy is still the primary distro though and it will remain that way. 

For the music industry, btw, it is the same way.  Sure you can generally get music downloads on release day BUT if you go into a music store or your local S-Mart you'll still find those old fashioned Cds to buy.  And thank god for that because I prefer to own something and be able to do whatever I damn well please with it rather than merely owning the lease to some ip and a bit of vapor.

This is just common sense business practice.  Most media (cds/videos/games/ect) can be played without an internet connection.  If you go a direct-download only route, said games can only be played with an internet connection and thus you have instantly cut off access to some of your consumer base.  Yes, I know it sounds insaine, but even in this day and age owners of video game consoles might have slow internet access or even no access at all! The managers of the VC/xbl/psn really need to take note of this as well.  It would be nice to have periodic disc-based releases of the online stores available.  I know that every title would be impossible, but perhaps they could release volumes every quarter or so?

That being said, I think the return to solid-state might be a possibility.  Back in the day ss was a very specilized tech and rarely used for anything outside of military tech and video games.  Now with flash drives and ss harddrives it is very common, very generic, and thus quite cheap.  If given an appropriate package I wouldn't have a bit of a problem buying ss games, in fact I would welcome it as games like MK9 wouldn't have a crippled shang tsung due to poor load times on dvds. 

That was pretty much my reason not to get a psx back in the day btw.... on the snes/n64 shang could morph into any of the characters.  On the psx you had to choose in the options which group of characters he could morph into and even then in certain circumstances the game would grind to a halt when he morphed.  It was really the defining moment that made me realize that disc media was not for me.

[Corbo]

Sure you can generally get music downloads on release day BUT if you go into a music store or your local S-Mart you'll still find those old fashioned Cds to buy

I would if there was a music store open in a 50 mile radius of me, they have all closed down.

I fully agree with your points, but the industry is going in the direction of digital distribution and micro payments.  If not this generation then next.

[Malenko]

That was pretty much my reason not to get a psx back in the day btw.... on the snes/n64 shang could morph into any of the characters.  On the psx you had to choose in the options which group of characters he could morph into and even then in certain circumstances the game would grind to a halt when he morphed.  It was really the defining moment that made me realize that disc media was not for me.

I see you post this every time the PSX/N64 discussion comes up. The only downfall to this? Shag Tsung sucked and no one ever picked him, and if they did, they'd always morph into scorpion and sub zero. If you think the PSX version has load times, play the Saturn Version of MKII or MKT, the supreme demonstration takes roughly 38 minutes to watch on the saturn (yes I own MKII and MKT on saturn)

[versapak]

Apple seems to do okay with it.  Music and apps.  It's coming.

It works for apple, because everything is dirt cheap. If games on the iOS app store were even remotely close to $60, then they wouldn't sell at all.

[Donkbaca]

It is already here, it's nit coming. The go was a failure and you can buy full games in xbox live. It's completely different from music and apps for a few reasons, mostly price.
If they had 99 cent ges I would believe it, but they won't

[ChadTower]

Antipiracy doesn't mean much here, IMO.  All downloaded content?  Doesn't matter.  Ripped off a disc or off a hard drive or off a download stream, someone will figure out how to do it, and it will all end up in torrents.  There are too many excellent minds who want it and not enough employed by the game companies to stop it.  That's just how the new world works.  Piracy is as much open challenge as it is desire for content.  You can't challenge the whole world and expect to succeed forever.

[shmokes]

Apple seems to do okay with it.  Music and apps.  It's coming.

It works for apple, because everything is dirt cheap. If games on the iOS app store were even remotely close to $60, then they wouldn't sell at all.

Someone should tell that to Steam.

[versapak]

Apple seems to do okay with it.  Music and apps.  It's coming.

It works for apple, because everything is dirt cheap. If games on the iOS app store were even remotely close to $60, then they wouldn't sell at all.

Someone should tell that to Steam.

Someone should maybe tell you that games on Steam aren't $60 either.


If games are priced like PC games (PS games have been regularly about $20 cheaper, even on physical media for years), and there are regular sales, then I could see it more likely to work, but then they will lose a pretty substantial part of the market. Sad as it is, there are still a LOT of people without broadband, and even many of those that do have broadband have to deal with bandwidth caps.


That being said...

I do not see an end to physical media completely in the immediate future.

[shmokes]

Yes, I know it sounds insaine, but even in this day and age owners of video game consoles might have slow internet access or even no access at all!

These people will always exist, or at least will for a long time, but every day they become increasingly hypothetical.  Soon their numbers will shrink to the point that servicing them is no longer profitable because economies of scale are lost.  

You have to realize that businesses act more-or-less purely based on profit-motive.  Even when going all digital alienates a chunk of potential customers, this has to be weighed against the fact that you no longer have to split profits with retailers.  You no longer have to deal with physical distribution costs like storage, shipping, manufacturing, printing, etc.   So your products can be more profitable, or the price can be reduced, bringing in more customers to replace the lost ones.  You also get to leave a failure-prone mechanical component out of your system, saving all kinds of warranty costs.

The number of people who lack broadband is dwindling rapidly.  Playstation 5 is probably close to ten years away.  Think of how tiny the broadband-free population of people will be in 2020.  You really think Sony and MS and Nintendo are going to give up all the money on the table represented by the all-digital business model just to make sure a handful of tweakers in the Ozarks can get their hands on the latest Grand Theft Auto?

It's coming.  Physical media has, at most, one generation left beyond Wii/PS3/360.

[versapak]

Yes, I know it sounds insaine, but even in this day and age owners of video game consoles might have slow internet access or even no access at all!

These people will always exist, or at least will for a long time, but every day they become increasingly hypothetical.  Soon their numbers will shrink to the point that servicing them is no longer profitable because economies of scale are lost. 

You have to realize that businesses act more-or-less purely based on profit-motive.  Even when going all digital alienates a chunk of potential customers, this has to be weighed against the fact that you no longer have to split profits with retailers.  You no longer have to deal with physical distribution costs like storage, shipping, manufacturing, printing, etc.   So your products can be more profitable, or the price can be reduced, bringing in more customers to replace the lost ones.  You also get to leave a failure-prone mechanical component out of your system, saving all kinds of warranty costs.

The number of people who lack broadband is dwindling rapidly.  Playstation 5 is probably close to ten years away.  Think of how tiny the broadband-free population of people will be in 2020.  You really think Sony and MS and Nintendo are going to give up all the money on the table represented by the all-digital business model just to make sure a handful of tweakers in the Ozarks can get their hands on the latest Grand Theft Auto?

It's coming.  Physical media has, at most, one generation left beyond Wii/PS3/360.

It isn't just the people that do not have broadband though.

...but again...

Even those, that do have broadband, in many cases have caps in place.

Heck, an all digital download strategy effectively removes Canada from your sales plans altogether.

[shmokes]

Someone should maybe tell you that games on Steam aren't $60 either.

Largely because they don't have to be.  Huge cost savings come with digital distribution.  But more importantly it's just cos PC games are on an open platform (royalty free).  But these are the same games as their $60 console counterparts.  And for the most part they're priced in-line with the same PC games sold in retail boxes.  Steam proves that people will buy full-priced, mega-budget games via digital download.  Millions and millions of people.

As for bandwidth caps, that doesn't concern me.  The market will take care of that.  As bandwidth becomes more important ISPs are going to have to compete on bandwidth just like they do on everything else.  Bandwidth caps only really work as a business model if they only target the people on the fringes.  It's good business to drive away the users who suck up way more bandwidth than most.  But if the ISPs aren't providing enough bandwidth to meet the needs of basic users they'll go out of business.  Data caps have to allow for normal use of Netflix and videogame consoles or they will lead to a mass exodus of customers to an ISP that understands this.

[Mikezilla]

Well, since Shmokes is gazing through his crystal ball and telling us how its gonna be, I for one will stop playing video games if it boils down to all digitial distrubution. When I pay for something, I like having something tangible showing that I made the purchase, I like to read the booklet it came with, and have a collection to show off, and if a friend wants to borrow a game, I can let him. How the hell would that work if it was solely stored on the HDD on the console? Not only that, what if the harddrive craps out, or information is lost, how will that be handled?

To address the Steam thing, the only game I have ever bought on steam was a version of Xcom for 2 bucks. Besides, you can still buy the games from Valve in the store on actual media, then have access through it from steam. Its not their sole method of distribution.

Besides, nobody downloads games off of XBLA or PSN that are current gen games. Cmon. Games like Limbo and Super Meat boy are awesome games, but they are only 5 bucks. You get what you pay for, its a great experience, but both games only require a run through, there isnt any multiplayer(for limbo at least) and it only takes about 5 hours to beat. I dunno, if it seriously went that route, I wouldnt buy it. The only reason I buy stuff off of Wii is because the old cartridges batteries are dead (Chrono Trigger) or I never had a PSX to play Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. How old are those? over 20 years old?

[Vigo]

I'm big on tangible assets as well. Even though I don't use CD's as much as I used to, I will still buy them above a download 100% of the time. I will just rip the cd, and put it on my mp3 player. Then put the cd in my carousel cd player. If I ever lose my music, I always have a physical backup.

I have a buddy who went 100% digital with his music. Ripped his old music and tossed the CDs, and started buying mp3s online. He had major hard drive failure, and lost everything. He then went out and bought over $1000 in itunes cards to replenish his music supply. He didn't even come close to restocking his collection. 

[Mikezilla]

I'm big on tangible assets as well. Even though I don't use CD's as much as I used to, I will still buy them above a download 100% of the time. I will just rip the cd, and put it on my mp3 player. Then put the cd in my carousel cd player. If I ever lose my music, I always have a physical backup.

I have a buddy who went 100% digital with his music. Ripped his old music and tossed the CDs, and started buying mp3s online. He had major hard drive failure, and lost everything. He then went out and bought over $1000 in itunes cards to replenish his music supply. He didn't even come close to restocking his collection. 

I like buying CD's because I feel like Im collecting something. I like reading the lyrics, who the band thanks etc, but I do the same thing. Its easier to have 1000 songs on my ipod, and plug it into the auxillary port in my car. Better than having to change the CD's out everytime, and if my ipod gets stolen, thats the only thing I have to replace. I like to listen to a bunch of obscure metal that I have to import from other countries, or go to the shows and buy the CD's when they are in town, which is usually rare. I learned my lesson after leaving my CD case in my truck, then having my truck getting broken into. I lost a lot of stuff. 

[shmokes]

Besides, nobody downloads games off of XBLA or PSN that are current gen games.

Have another look at PSN.  More and more current gen games are becoming available for digital distribution there.  I dunno about Live cos I don't have a 360.

Also, keep in mind that the views of people on this forum are probably not quite representative of the population in general.  We are, after all, a group of nutters who build and restore monstrous arcade cabinets on which to play decades-old games.  Normal people aren't nearly so averse to technological advances and don't hold onto ridiculous ancient artifacts like CD collections.  

[Donkbaca]

Man Xcom is a great game!  I hope someone brings that back in some form in the future!

I am mostly in Shmokes' boat, but things have to change for digital distribution to take off.  First of all the prices have to come WAY down.  The app store and itunes music are so successful because of the fact that the prices are so cheap, they cater to that impulse buy.  Digital distribution is working for apps and smartphoen games because they are so cheap and easy to interface. Its working for books because, frankly, bookstores are dying out, and a lot of people are buying books online anyway, and so if you are buying a book online, it makes sense to just download it instead of waiting for it to ship. Books are also a little cheaper, when you consider a new hardback is like 25 bucks and you can get the nook/kindle version for like 15.  

The challenge with games is the secondary market.  Games don't just compete with new games, they compete with used games, and 2 months after a game comes out, you can usually find it used for way cheaper, and the further out it goes, the cheaper they get.  I bought Tekken 6 off of ebay for 5 dollars.  The problem with the digital distribution for consoles is that you are locked into all-new pricing, plus you can't "trade in" games.  That being said there are ways that all of this could work.

When I pay for something, I like having something tangible showing that I made the purchase, I like to read the booklet it came with, and have a collection to show off

There will always be these types, personally I hate tangible goods, they create clutter.  I would love it if I just had harddrives full of games, and I think the experience from music, and now movies shows that a lot of people don't really care as much about the physical object.

if a friend wants to borrow a game, I can let him

You can do this pretty easily.  Barnes and Noble has a "lend me" feature on their e-books.  The way it works is that you have the book on your system and can "lend it" to a limited number of people.  If the console is a constantly connected system, you could set it up so that each download has two licenses and you could keep one and "lend out" the other for a limited number of times, or for x-amount of times.  They could even sell these "lend me" licenses if they wanted to to basically compete with game rental places.

You wouldn't have to worry about your hard drive crashing, you could just recover your data and re-download it.

Mostly though, they would have to get cheaper, and the game devs could STILL make a profit if the games were 30 bucks if you consider that there would be no packaging, manufacturing, or distribution costs, plus instead of sharing a cut of the profits with a brick and mortar store, the devs could sell straight through a proprietary online store, like XBL and the console maker could just up their license fees a little bit.  

The biggest problem is that the industry doesn't see things this way.  The way they see it is that the public has been conditioned to pay 60 bucks plus for a game, and so that is what they price direct download games at.  The way you make money on digital distributions is by possibly upping your margins, but mainly from upping your volume.  I think the industry just looks at it as a way to up margins, when really the money is to be made by upping volume.  

Basically, it needs to be cheaper, and it needs to have some means of license transfers to "share" games.

[Mikezilla]

Besides, nobody downloads games off of XBLA or PSN that are current gen games.

Also, keep in mind that the views of people on this forum are probably not quite representative of the population in general.  We are, after all, a group of nutters who build and restore monstrous arcade cabinets on which to play decades-old games.  Normal people aren't nearly so averse to technological advances and don't hold onto ridiculous ancient artifacts like CD collections.  

You do have a point there.  I sometimes think that I am an old man that grew up in the 50's trapped in a 28 year olds body. I dont like change. 

[Mikezilla]

@Donk: THey are supposed to be making a new Xcom, but its a ---goshdarn--- FPS. A FPS!!! Thats blasphemy. 

As for the other points you made... Yes, it all boils down to price. Like you said, the margin has to be different. I havent done any research or anything, but does anyone know how much a profit a distributor makes of the sale of one 60 dollar game? I have a friend who works at Rockstar, and he gets RIDICULOUS bonuses when a game does well, and he isnt even that high on the food chain.

Youre right, they are successful because they satiate that impulse feeling and you actually get to listen to a chunk of the song before you download it. I suppose it would be nice to be able to play a demo of a game before you buy it, but I still dont like the fact of paying for something and not actually owning anything. Its like renting the IP.

Bookstores are dying out? Frankly, the only bookstore I can think of is Barnes and Noble. I dont even want to get into the ebook vs regular book debate...

You didnt say how they could get over the trade in game aspect, and the all new pricing. 

[Vigo]

Eventually, I am sure that physical media will be phased out, whether or not the consumer wants it to begin with. It will be an industry demand.

While it could be a great thing for ease of use and cost wise, this is a bad thing for the consumer as far as property ownership goes. The games we own are already being challenged by the industry as far as what we can do with our games. The whole "intellectual property" thing.

We will be departing from physical media because it is currently acting as an anchor proving that we physically own the property and can personally use it however we want, Buy from whomever, sell to whomever, trade with whomever. In the future when you buy a game, there will be a number of securities aimed at taking down used game sales and uncontrolled sharing, since that is a piece of the pie that the VG industry does not make any money from. Expect that anything you buy will have an identifier tying you to your purchase and rendering the game useless to any other user.

[Dartful Dodger]

Well, since Shmokes is gazing through his crystal ball and telling us how its gonna be, I for one will stop playing video games if it boils down to all digitial distrubution. When I pay for something, I like having something tangible showing that I made the purchase, I like to read the booklet it came with, and have a collection to show off, and if a friend wants to borrow a game, I can let him.

Most people avoid clutter. The box the games come in, the instruction booklets, those are as useful as junk mail. the reason there are fewer booklets from old games is because the majority of people didn't care to enough about them to keep them.


I still remember when people were saying that CDs would never replace records because music is art and people who want music will always want the larger covers that came with vinyl.

Apples to oranges you say, how about apples to apples:

When was the last time you bought a music CD?

I already know you're going to say that you only buy CDs and you never download music off of iTunes, but you're in the minority. Tell the music stores that have gone out of business or the shrinking music sections in the department stores that people won't be buying digital.




You don't like digital products, that's cool, I don't like cheese products. The gaming industry will get along without you as easily as the dairy industry has been getting along without me.

[Donkbaca]

Well you can't really compare video games and music.  For one, portability is huge for music folks, they listen to it in their car, at the gym, it really isn't the same with games.  Yeah there are portable game systems, but its not the system where we buy one game and expect to be able to enjoy the same game over multiple platforms.  Second, music is way cheaper than games.  Third, the business model is all very different.  A lot of artists don't care about music sales, they care more about going on tour, and they view cd's and such a way to basically promote their live shows.  Look at all the money Bon Jovi made last year.  Their is no such analogue in the video game world.

I do think it will go to digital distribution, but it will take time, or maybe a major developer that decides to go that route.

[Vigo]

When was the last time you bought a music CD?

Yesterday. I know I am in the minority. 

You know, it's my humble opinion that a lot of the CD sales decline has to do with a decline in quality music from major labels. Not a lack of quality music in general, but it seems that just about everything pushed out from major labels more and more becoming recycled garbage. Most Albums are not album worthy, so most people just download a track or two from what they like and save the 8-13 bucks on a crappy album.

Plus there is now so much out there when it comes to finding great music that is not "popular" - smaller labels, indie bands and foreign groups have much more exposure than 5-10 years ago. Many of these groups do not even release runs of physical CD's. You can get more promotional value from posting on youtube than you can get from signing on with EMI. The good artists are jumping ship one by one.

It is no wonder nobody wants to go to the store and buy CD's. Everything on the shelf is either "Greatest Hits" compilations, or the prefab crap from the major music labels. Record labels are dying and nobody wants to buy from them.

Of course convenience plays a big part in the shift too, as Donkbaca points out, portability is everything with music.

[DaveMMR]

*DELETED*  Pointless babble I added - easier to erase than fix.   Sorry.

[Malenko]

I dont think I'll ever spent $60 on a digital download if I can get the same thing on a $60 disc.  Now if I can get the $60 disc as a $40 download, you'd have my interest.

[Mikezilla]

Well, since Shmokes is gazing through his crystal ball and telling us how its gonna be, I for one will stop playing video games if it boils down to all digitial distrubution. When I pay for something, I like having something tangible showing that I made the purchase, I like to read the booklet it came with, and have a collection to show off, and if a friend wants to borrow a game, I can let him.

Most people avoid clutter. The box the games come in, the instruction booklets, those are as useful as junk mail. the reason there are fewer booklets from old games is because the majority of people didn't care to enough about them to keep them.


I still remember when people were saying that CDs would never replace records because music is art and people who want music will always want the larger covers that came with vinyl.

Apples to oranges you say, how about apples to apples:

When was the last time you bought a music CD?

I already know you're going to say that you only buy CDs and you never download music off of iTunes, but you're in the minority. Tell the music stores that have gone out of business or the shrinking music sections in the department stores that people won't be buying digital.




You don't like digital products, that's cool, I don't like cheese products. The gaming industry will get along without you as easily as the dairy industry has been getting along without me.

Youre right, I am in the minority, but what I like isnt popular. Not in the USA at least. I cant even find the stuff I like on itunes, most of the time anyway. Hell, a lot of the bands I like dont even use jewel cases anymore, they use those stupid cardboard sleeves.

And to what Vigo said, he is absolutely right, the major labels are cranking out garbage, and what people like nowadays is just recycled crap. I cant stand hip hop, rap, or the mainstream crap. They download the catch one note song, and thats it. The rest of the album is just filler. I laughed at my GF cause she bought the Kesha album (shut up) and AH! Surprise! The whole CD sucked except for that one "popular" song.

Another thing too, regarding the record labels, is that everyone knows the prices of CD's now a days. You can buy 100 of them for around 10 bucks. I bet if prices dropped, to like, 5-10 bucks a CD, everyone would be buying em again.  

[Mikezilla]

I dont think I'll ever spent $60 on a digital download if I can get the same thing on a $60 disc.  Now if I can get the $60 disc as a $40 download, you'd have my interest.

That too. Except if the disc is selling for 60 bucks, a digital download should be around 20. Or, if they want to charge more, they should market it by how long it takes the average person to complete a game, not to exceed the disc version. Something like that. I just dont see paying that kind of money just to have access to the damn IP.

[Donkbaca]

People pay that kind of money, and way more to play WoW, and you have to subscribe to it to play.

[Dartful Dodger]

Anyone over 30 has already seen and lived through the changes of media, several times.
Every reason you are giving me for the future media (digital) not replacing the current media (CD/DVD) I’ve already heard when the current media replaced the obsolete forms of media.

There is little difference in the prices of books that are in print and books that are digital, yet people are still buying them. I don’t understand it. Why would anyone buy a digital copy of a book for the same price as a printed? Who wants to read off of a screen while relaxing at the beach? I don’t know, but I also don’t have to.


I have a box of games I’ll never play again. I also downloaded my first 2+gig game through Sony’s welcome back program. I never thought I would want to own a digital game.  When I get bored of inFamous I’ll delete it. If I want to play it again I’ll just download it again.  It’s all quite simple and painless.

Ignorance of the change that’s happening or trying to rationalize against it, isn’t going to stop it.

[shmokes]

I don't like cheese products.

Mother of god . . . You poor, poor bastard. 

[shmokes]

I dont think I'll ever spent $60 on a digital download if I can get the same thing on a $60 disc. 

But you won't be able to.  There will be no physical media release.

[Malenko]

But you won't be able to.  There will be no physical media release.

No physical media release wouldn't apply to what I stated. I'm sure by the time "no physical media" rolls around I wont be gaming much anyway, my play time has dramatically dropped off now that I'm focusing on my career and paying for a house.

You seem to think that if there is no physical media, I'd have no choice but to buy it that way, when in fact I still have the choice not to buy it at all.

I laughed at my GF cause she bought the Kesha album (shut up) and AH! Surprise! The whole CD sucked except for that one "popular" song.

fix't

[Mikezilla]

People pay that kind of money, and way more to play WoW, and you have to subscribe to it to play.

Thats different though. That ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- never ends.

[Mikezilla]

But you won't be able to.  There will be no physical media release.

No physical media release wouldn't apply to what I stated. I'm sure by the time "no physical media" rolls around I wont be gaming much anyway, my play time has dramatically dropped off now that I'm focusing on my career and paying for a house.

You seem to think that if there is no physical media, I'd have no choice but to buy it that way, when in fact I still have the choice not to buy it at all.

I laughed at my GF cause she bought the Kesha album (shut up) and AH! Surprise! The whole CD sucked except for that one "popular" song.

fix't

Im kinda in the same boat, by the time that happens (which is WAYY off) I probably wont even care about media at all, because the bands I like will be dead, and I wont have time for games cause Ill be too old, or not care. Movies will be lame too, so I wont care about that. 

Haha thanks for fixing that for me! 

[shmokes]

If by a long way off you mean PS5 and Xbox 4.

[Mikezilla]

If by a long way off you mean PS5 and Xbox 4.

I doubt media will be completely gone in the next 10 or so years.

[Donkbaca]

Back on topic:

"While Nintendo has thus far focused heavily on the Wii U controller, there is another part to the system: a console that plugs into your TV, just as the Wii does today. It has high-definition graphics, as you've probably heard, but is otherwise unremarkable. And Iwata says that's why the focus was put on the controller.
"If you ask me what's so special about this hardware, I will say this contains everything you are expecting," he tells Yahoo! Games. "It's nothing special. We wanted something really special - and that happened to be the controller. If there's something I should have emphasized about the hardware, [it's this]: For those concerns people have about the Wii system, we have solved all the issues."

Unremarkable, this is from the global president of Nintendo.  Basically its an HD wii with a new controller.

while the company promised high-definition graphics from Wii U, it used gameplay footage from the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 when showcasing third-party titles that will be a part of the system.

So basically, the WiiU games will look just like the current gen PS3/XB 360

How many of those glorious controllers would the system support? Could two people transfer a game of Super Smash Bros. to two separate controllers and keep playing while someone else watches TV?
It took a couple days, but the answer turns out to be "no." The Wii U will only support one of the new controllers at a time.

So the best things about this new system is the controller, which only supports 1 player. 

[shmokes]

while the company promised high-definition graphics from Wii U, it used gameplay footage from the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 when showcasing third-party titles that will be a part of the system.

So basically, the WiiU games will look just like the current gen PS3/XB 360

We're talking about a system set for release in a year and a half.  They aren't going to have their own gameplay footage.  It doesn't exist yet.  I don't agree with using PS3/360 footage without being clear about it up front, but it doesn't necessarily mean that games will look just like that.

Remember when Sony was showing off the PS3 at E3 before launch they showed supposed screen shots of Resistance that were actually rendered.  They took a lot of flak for that, but in the end the game held up pretty well against the faked screenshots, sometimes even surpassing them (though more often falling just slightly short).

For what it's worth, technical details are emerging.  The Wii U has a one-generation old ATI processor inside it.  That's not spectacular (especially considering how far off the release date is), but the 360's ATI chip is more than five years old[/i].  So it's probably safe to say that the Wii U is more powerful than the PS3 or 360.

[Mikezilla]

They sure are plugging the "if someone else wants to use the TV, then you can still play on your controller" gimmick. Is this a marketing strategy aimed at kids? Of course it is. Nintendo needs to knock it off. Every interview post blog whatever has reiterated this 100 times. Its stupid. HD graphics and a half ass DS isnt going to sell games. Have they even mentioned a price tag?

[shmokes]

Don't get too worked up.  It won't hit shelves till the end of 2012.  Releasing pricing info at this point would be a crazy bad business move.  Don't expect to hear a price tag until at least next E3, though likely not even until the following Tokyo Game Show.  Also, this switch-to-the gamepad screen thing is a fairly major feature of the device (whether it appeals to you or not) and, in particular, it's one that can be easily conceptualized and conveyed verbally.  It's way too early for them to show you any actual games.  The tech demos they had at the show represent the extent of software development so far.  Have a little patience.  I assure you that there will be A LOT to see at next year's E3, at which time we will still be six months away from release. 

By the way, I think that TV/Controller switching thing definitely appeals to more than just kids.  It appeals to parents.  It appeals to husbands whose wives don't want to sit and watch their husbands play videogames (that is, almost all husbands).  It appeals to their wives, of course, too.

I mean . . . I dunno if it'll end up being that useful or cool.  Or if it'll screw things up cos if developers really make use of both screens like a giant DS, they can hardly support switching to using just the handheld device cos then you wouldn't have two screens anymore.  But certainly I can see how this could potentially have broader appeal than you think.  I'm not convinced it will, but it's at least a bit early to write off.

[Donkbaca]

no, they won't tell what the price is, or the release date.  Yeah its probably more powerful, but is it that big of an improvement over the current gen of games and will it be a big enough improvement to justify the expense?  

The head honcho said himself that the insides are nothing special, that what will make it stand apart from the PS3/XB360 is the controller.  I think that is a big mistake.  The wii was a big hit because it changed the way people interact with games, I guess they are hoping to catch lightning in a bottle twice with this new interactive tablet.  Here is the main problem though, the thing only supports one controller, the reason why the wii was so great is not just because it changed the way we interacted with games, but also changed the way we interacted with each other.  Grandmas played wii bowling not just because they liked the interface, but because it allowed them to play games and interact with their grandkids and with other grandmas in a new way.  Nintendo is missing the boat with this interface for that very reason.  It could be bad assed awesome, but the communal nature of video games is something that is sadly underrated and under appreciated.  Look on this forum, a main driver behind building a MAME machine is to recapture that old arcade feel and playing games with other people as much as anything else.

I think the whole wife wants to watch tv thing is kind of silly.  People do so much more than watch tv, they read books on their kindle, surf the web, play angry birds on their iphone,  plus we have 3 tv's in our house.  If I am playing games and the wife wants to watch TV, she can just go watch TV

[Donkbaca]

So it won't play regular media. Another minus.

[Mikezilla]

Don't get too worked up.  It won't hit shelves till the end of 2012.  Releasing pricing info at this point would be a crazy bad business move.  Don't expect to hear a price tag until at least next E3, though likely not even until the following Tokyo Game Show.  Also, this switch-to-the gamepad screen thing is a fairly major feature of the device (whether it appeals to you or not) and, in particular, it's one that can be easily conceptualized and conveyed verbally.  It's way too early for them to show you any actual games.  The tech demos they had at the show represent the extent of software development so far.  Have a little patience.  I assure you that there will be A LOT to see at next year's E3, at which time we will still be six months away from release. 

By the way, I think that TV/Controller switching thing definitely appeals to more than just kids.  It appeals to parents.  It appeals to husbands whose wives don't want to sit and watch their husbands play videogames (that is, almost all husbands).  It appeals to their wives, of course, too.

I mean . . . I dunno if it'll end up being that useful or cool.  Or if it'll screw things up cos if developers really make use of both screens like a giant DS, they can hardly support switching to using just the handheld device cos then you wouldn't have two screens anymore.  But certainly I can see how this could potentially have broader appeal than you think.  I'm not convinced it will, but it's at least a bit early to write off.

I suppose youre right. Ill have to wait and see. As a Wii owner, Im a little pturbed that the only title they have to release is Skyward Sword. I was hoping for at least a couple other decent titles for the rest of the year. Especially since SS wont come out until december.

I guess it could have broader appeal, but to me, it just seems kinda...meh. Not really innovative, nor useful. It just doesnt seem like enough of a reason to think "why would I want to buy this"? kind of a thing.  I guess time will tell. Im glad the graphics wont be any better than current gen though, so its not exactly going to light a fire under Sony or Microsofts ass. Like I said, I dont want the next gen to come out for awhile, I dont like having my stuff be obsolete.

Obviously, considering this is the only forum I ever frequent. 

[ChadTower]

What regular media do people play in the Wii now?  A modded Wii is barely useful as a DVD player and it won't read much of anything else.

[Mikezilla]

So it won't play regular media. Another minus.

Are there even any pro's?  

[Donkbaca]

Well everyone ripped on the wi when it came out:  Stupid name, horrible controllers, bad graphics, and it made a killing.  Really all the plusses are in the controller, that is pretty much what Nintendo's head honcho has said.  yeah the graphics chips and such are newer, but it remains to be seen as to whether they are more powerful, and if that additional power makes a difference.

Nintendo is betting the farm on the controller.  I think its a loser, because the controller can only be used by one person at a time, and what really saved the wii was a robust new multiplayer experience.

I think the no dvd player is a big deal.  Yeah we all already have them, but I think that consoles are moving more towards HTPC territory - a place where you play games, surf the web, watch netflix.  That is where MS and Sony are positioning their devices, the only difference is MS is concentrating on streaming content, Sony is concentrating on Blu Ray.  If Nintendo does not have a robust internet service, I see this as a PS3 with move controllers and no blu ray, with a huge one player touchscreen pad.

[Mikezilla]

Well everyone ripped on the wi when it came out:  Stupid name, horrible controllers, bad graphics, and it made a killing.  Really all the plusses are in the controller, that is pretty much what Nintendo's head honcho has said.  yeah the graphics chips and such are newer, but it remains to be seen as to whether they are more powerful, and if that additional power makes a difference.

Nintendo is betting the farm on the controller.  I think its a loser, because the controller can only be used by one person at a time, and what really saved the wii was a robust new multiplayer experience.

I think the no dvd player is a big deal.  Yeah we all already have them, but I think that consoles are moving more towards HTPC territory - a place where you play games, surf the web, watch netflix.  That is where MS and Sony are positioning their devices, the only difference is MS is concentrating on streaming content, Sony is concentrating on Blu Ray.  If Nintendo does not have a robust internet service, I see this as a PS3 with move controllers and no blu ray, with a huge one player touchscreen pad.

All valid points. See, I didnt think the controller was all that bad. Granted, I didnt get a Wii till about 2 years ago, but I mainly wanted it for all the first party titles, and I was bummed about Super Mario Galaxy cause it made me want to barf. Everyone said it was an amazing game, despite the graphics, controllers, etc.

But like you said, what made the wii successful was not only the multiplayer, but the controller. Vigo mentioned it before that his grandma can play it with her other grandma friends. It made a killing because it had a broader demographic.

I just dont see this thing working, because its too complicated for the grandma's, but the touchscreen and only being able to have one isnt going to appeal to the "hardcore", so who is left? The kids.  And who are we kidding, thats been Nintendos primary target anyway. Its like I want to be excited, but Im not. 

[ChadTower]

So since Sony and Microsoft are focusing on being media stations... and Sony and Microsoft are massively larger corporations than Nintendo will ever be... what sense would it make to position themselves as direct competitors to Sony and Microsoft?  Nintendo used its video game expertise to position itself squarely in the blindspot of the larger companies and won.  There is a lot to be said for being more creative than hardware designers.

[shmokes]

I think the lack of film DVD/Blu-Ray support is fine.  That's such a dying industry.  The Wii can stream through Netflix and it's pretty damned safe to say that the Wii-U will have this too.  Hulu's probably on the table as well.  And Nintendo can have their own rental service too, if they want.  There's not a person alive who doesn't have a DVD player, and Blu-ray players are getting to be the same (for all the people who have any interest at all in Blu-Rays, anyway).  I'd rather pay $20 less for the thing than have to pay a royalty for a feature that I already have in other devices, and that I don't use anyway because I download or stream all my movies.

As for the controller, I think it's not all bad news.  There are some spectacular (and diabolical) things that can be done with one person on the tablet controller and four others on standard controllers.  Plenty that can be done there, I think.  Probably spectacular stuff could be done with four people all with tablet controllers, but then you'd have the fantastic cost issue to deal with.  

And don't forget about the internet.  TONS of great current multiplayer is online only.  Look at Uncharted or Grand Theft Auto or Crackdown, etc..  That means that in multiplayer on those PS3/Xbox games you can ONLY use one controller.

Basically, I think what Nintendo is doing here is saying, "Okay, the Wii is all about We.  And it was a runaway success because it got all these people casual gaming together.  But we gotta admit, what's biting us in the ass now, is that we sort of short-changed the hardcore gamers this time around.  We gave them a controller that, like it or not, is just not well suited to deep, complex games.  We need to put the You (or U, as it happens) back in the Wii."  So they've basically taken the Wii and added only what it was missing to give a great single-player experience that can go toe-to-toe with what their competitors are doing.  And, of course, they added a giant new feature to set themselves apart (the screen, obviously).  Anyway, it seems to me that it's called the Wii U for a reason.  The Wii's major deficiency is the single-player experience, and that's what they've apparently set out to correct here.

Frankly, as much as it may be nice to be able to reuse all your old controllers, I wish they'd have updated them too.  It'd be nice at the least to have full Motion Plus in the nunchuck, a speaker that isn't retarded, a pointer that isn't so easily confused and so sensitive to distance from the TV.  The Wii remotes represent a decidedly first-gen technology.  It seems a bit crazy not to polish them up a bit.

[Donkbaca]

Because they are competitors.  They are more or less competing for the same dollars.  If they decide to bow out and cater to a niche market; i.e. grandmas then they face the challenge of convincing third parties to develop titles for grandmas.

I think coming up to par with the graphics is a potential huge advantage for nintendo.  It will allow third parties to more easily port their games to wiiu; seeing as how MOST great games are cross platform this COULD be a huge win for nintendo, since they have the best exclusive content.  As good as GOW and Halo are, for the XB360, and as good as God of War, Infamous and Little Big Planet are for the PS, nintendo's lot of DK, Mario, Metroid, Zelda easily trump them.  Imagine a game system that would play Red Dead Redemption; the latest Call of Duty; La Noire AND the latest Mario and Zelda titles.  Its a slam dunk.  

The PROBLEM is that Nintendo should have done this with the wii.  Then they could have sold it as "we have 90% of the same games as the XB and PS have, and we are better because we have the nintendo IP and motion controls."    Since then MS has come out with the Kinect, and Sony came out with MOVE which steal all of the thunder from the wii.  The kinect is the fastest selling home appliance ever; it has driven XB sales.  According to NPD, 360 sales have increased each month on a year over year basis since the kinect has been launched, and the wiii has seen sales decline, with the PS3 more or less treading water with a very slight uptick.  

The big challenge is going to be whether people will ditch their XBs and PS3s to play the wiiu.  The big questions are going to be whether the controller is a "gotta have it" function.  I personally don't think it is, and the secondary question will be this;  A game comes out for PS3, XB260 and WiiU, why should I buy the wiiU version?  Right now, I prefer XB versions for most games because of the robust nature of Xbox Live.  

[shmokes]

I more or less agree.  I'm not very excited for the Wii U (at this point anyway).  But to play devil's advocate, because the Wii U is the most powerful of the three systems (so will have best graphics and highest framerate, etc) and the Wii U version of the game has some cool extra touch-screen features.  Of course this presumes that you have a Wii U.  Nintendo will presumably have a couple of amazing pieces of software showcasing the new system (think Mario 64, Pilotwings and Waverace).  So they'll try to drum up a bunch of buzz around the great first-party releases to initially move hardware.  I imagine the fact that all the existing Wii peripherals are compatible will make it an easier sell.  And then once you have it, that's the system you'll buy games for because it's the best.

This strategy has a few major problems, I think.  One is that for a lot of games (Call of Duty, for example), the best system to play on is not the one with the best graphics, but the one that all your friends have.  Additionally, it seems to me that even if this system is an initial success, Nintendo is setting themselves up for a major crash a couple years down the road.  As much as I haven't entirely written off the Wii U's present potential, I just can't imagine how it will stand up against an Xbox 3 with a built-in Kinect successor.  When Microsoft and Sony hit back it's going to be with systems that make the Wii U and it's use of original Wii controllers seem utterly primitive.  If you think the Wii has seen a sharp decline in sales in the past year or two, just wait till you see the cliff the Wii U is aiming for.

[Donkbaca]

Yeah, or they might have a port of some third party game as its flagship software, like SF4 was for the 3ds



This is true, and of the Big 3, Nintendo has, by far the WORST online multiplayer experience.  It would be a lot expecting them to go from worst to best. 

[shmokes]

Yeah, or they might have a port of some third party game as its flagship software, like SF4 was for the 3ds



This is true, and of the Big 3, Nintendo has, by far the WORST online multiplayer experience.  It would be a lot expecting them to go from worst to best. 

Btw, you seem to be using a strange combination of image tags, quote tags and url tags.  So your quotes aren't showing up.  You did it in an earlier post too.

[Dervacumen]

I think the whole wife wants to watch tv thing is kind of silly.  People do so much more than watch tv, they read books on their kindle, surf the web, play angry birds on their iphone,  plus we have 3 tv's in our house.  If I am playing games and the wife wants to watch TV, she can just go watch TV

I don't know the last time my wife watched live TV, everything is recorded.  And in our house recorded shows are only playable on the main TV because that's where the Directv box is.  Anyway, why in the hell would I want to go to another room to watch TV on a smaller screen in less comfortable surroundings so my kid could play a game?  Maybe if I want to be nice or I'm not that invested in watching TV at that moment.  But for moments when I want to watch the TV I paid for, in the room that I pay for, at the time I want: The WiiU has an answer.

[Donkbaca]

Anyway, why in the hell would I want to go to another room to watch TV on a smaller screen in less comfortable surroundings so my kid could play a game?

You don't have to.  The kid plays the xbox on the tv in his/her room.  With how cheap tv's are now, and how easy it is to network houses, I have 2 sets of cat 5 and coax cables, I can pipe TV into any room I want to.  I don't think there is a whole lot of TV sharing going around...  maybe my household is just different

[Bootay]

I'm with Donk on this. I have a TV in the front room, my son's room, my daughter's room and the basement mancave. The kids play games in their own rooms. I don't allow it in the front room. They also have the choice of playing in the basement where all the other games are.

And if you are cheap you can just get the kids CRT TVs. That's what I did...then when we upgraded the front room TV from a 32 inch LCD to a 42 inch, I upgraded my older son's CRT with the 32 inch LCD and upgraded the daughters smaller CRT with the son's discarded larger one.

I do the same with the computer parts. If I upgrade my video card, I move my old one into my son's computer and put my son's into my daughter's computer. My daughter is only 4 years old so she isn't so worried about getting the older tech.

[Dervacumen]

So you would have to buy multiple consoles for each room, and on top of that give the kids yet another reason to isolate themselves.  Unless I miss how to stream the console to multiple locations.
I guess I could rewire my whole house to modern standards, but considering that most people are in older houses or are not able or willing to rewire the house I still say kicking the kids off the TV is a benefit.
There are a lot of people that aren't cheap; they're poor.  Buying one console and a game every three or four months is a treat.  Do your kids unhook the Wii, sensor bar, power supply, etc. just to move it to a new location when they want to play?  Wow.  That's asking for lost broken stuff if you ask me.  Not to mention trying to get it hooked up without my help.

[Donkbaca]

How often is sharing a tv a problem in your household? Its not a problem for most people I know. Yeah, a lot of people are poor and a lot of poor people h e more than one tv. Also, I don't think Nintendo is targeting the walmart crowd with this

[shmokes]

To be fair, I think Wal-mart is the biggest game retailer in America.  They sell more games than Gamestop.  And Nintendo is certainly targeting all of their customers.  Wal-mart will, afterall, carry the Wii U.

[danny_galaga]

I more or less agree.  I'm not very excited for the Wii U (at this point anyway).  But to play devil's advocate, because the Wii U is the most powerful of the three systems (so will have best graphics and highest framerate, etc) and the Wii U version of the game has some cool extra touch-screen features.  Of course this presumes that you have a Wii U.  Nintendo will presumably have a couple of amazing pieces of software showcasing the new system (think Mario 64, Pilotwings and Waverace).  So they'll try to drum up a bunch of buzz around the great first-party releases to initially move hardware.  I imagine the fact that all the existing Wii peripherals are compatible will make it an easier sell.  And then once you have it, that's the system you'll buy games for because it's the best.

This strategy has a few major problems, I think.  One is that for a lot of games (Call of Duty, for example), the best system to play on is not the one with the best graphics, but the one that all your friends have.  Additionally, it seems to me that even if this system is an initial success, Nintendo is setting themselves up for a major crash a couple years down the road.  As much as I haven't entirely written off the Wii U's present potential, I just can't imagine how it will stand up against an Xbox 3 with a built-in Kinect successor.  When Microsoft and Sony hit back it's going to be with systems that make the Wii U and it's use of original Wii controllers seem utterly primitive.  If you think the Wii has seen a sharp decline in sales in the past year or two, just wait till you see the cliff the Wii U is aiming for.

Of course, who is to say Nintendo don't bring out an even more amazing 'kinect' type peripheral in a couple of years...

[ChadTower]

How often is sharing a tv a problem in your household? Its not a problem for most people I know. Yeah, a lot of people are poor and a lot of poor people h e more than one tv. Also, I don't think Nintendo is targeting the walmart crowd with this

I am strongly considering getting rid of every TV in my house but one.  I hate when we have people using a TV in three separate rooms.

[ChadTower]

Yeah, it sucks when people have to learn to sit in the same room with each other and compromise once in a while.  It might lead to an actual conversation of more than 5 or 6 words.  That would be terrible!

[Dartful Dodger]

The PS3 controller is a PS1 controller with two analog thumb sticks. They didn’t have to redesign it, all they needed was to tweak what they already had. Anyone who is remotely interested in buying the next generation console owns a Wii. The wiimote is comfortable to use and we are all use to it.

I while back somebody posted a rant about how easy it would be for the wiimote to be more precise and the only reason it wasn’t ws that Nintendo didn’t want to spend the extra pennies so the console could do it.

Kinects is a great gimmick and you have preteen girls in your house those dance games will get a lot of play, but I’m not going to spend hours running and jumping in place to play Call of Duty(...and I know you fat slobs aren’t either) .

If the Wii2 has better graphics and speed than the PS3 with dead on accurate wiimotes, it will hold its own. Add a gimmicky controller (even if it only works with two or three fun games) and Sony and MS don’t have a chance.

[Corbo]

Anyone who is remotely interested in buying the next generation console ownED a Wii, realised the Wii-mote was useless for all genres other than pet stroking and cookery simulations, and sold their Wii's while they still had a market value in the "obese and looking for a way to get fit without getting dressed" demographic.

Fixed 

[Dartful Dodger]

You’re right, if your only reason for owning a system is to play cooking and virtual pets games the Wii is no longer your only option.

After seeing that interactive kitten in the Kinects trailer, you must have wet yourself.

[Dervacumen]

How often is sharing a tv a problem in your household? Its not a problem for most people I know. Yeah, a lot of people are poor and a lot of poor people h e more than one tv. Also, I don't think Nintendo is targeting the walmart crowd with this

Every day it's an issue and a tradeoff.

[Howard_Casto]

How often is sharing a tv a problem in your household? Its not a problem for most people I know. Yeah, a lot of people are poor and a lot of poor people h e more than one tv. Also, I don't think Nintendo is targeting the walmart crowd with this

Every day it's an issue and a tradeoff.

Agreed. 

I don't like the "Walmart Crowd" comment either.  Walmart has quality products at reasonable prices.  If you don't shop at Walmart then you are simply hurting yourself.  Also I'm pretty sure that Walmart is the #2 seller of games and game consoles in the united states, so the majority of gamers are "the Walmart crowd" if you want to get technical.


We have flat planel tvs in every room of the house BUT  the largest is in the living room so all the consoles (except for the retro ones) are hooked up there.  And of course the living room is whre most people want to watch tv.  Now yes I could unhook the console from the living room and hook it up on one of the other tvs whenever the living room is occupied but constantly hooking/unhooking systems can lead to damage and wear, not to mention the fact that to do it efficiently you pretty much need extra cables and an extra power supply for every tv you want to use it on. 

So while the Wii U doesn't have me sold yet, the ability to play games with the console off is a MAJOR selling piont for me and many others.

[versapak]

Agreed. 

I don't like the "Walmart Crowd" comment either.  Walmart has quality products at reasonable prices.  If you don't shop at Walmart then you are simply hurting yourself.  Also I'm pretty sure that Walmart is the #2 seller of games and game consoles in the united states, so the majority of gamers are "the Walmart crowd" if you want to get technical.


We have flat planel tvs in every room of the house BUT  the largest is in the living room so all the consoles (except for the retro ones) are hooked up there.  And of course the living room is whre most people want to watch tv.  Now yes I could unhook the console from the living room and hook it up on one of the other tvs whenever the living room is occupied but constantly hooking/unhooking systems can lead to damage and wear, not to mention the fact that to do it efficiently you pretty much need extra cables and an extra power supply for every tv you want to use it on. 

So while the Wii U doesn't have me sold yet, the ability to play games with the console off is a MAJOR selling piont for me and many others.

Yeah, find myself gaming quite often on my iPad while the family is watching something on the main TV. It would be great if I was able to do that with full console games, so I think Nintendo has got something with that feature.

[ChadTower]

Of course, NEC did that with the TG16 and the TurboExpress a long time ago.

And Sega with the Nomad. 

Sure, it wasn't a system controller, but you could still play your full games at probably something like what that controller will cost.

[Bootay]

Of course, NEC did that with the TG16 and the TurboExpress a long time ago.

And Sega with the Nomad. 

Sure, it wasn't a system controller, but you could still play your full games at probably something like what that controller will cost.

Yea but the difference is the Wii-U will allow you to switch mid-game. You can be in the middle of a game and switch over to the hand held without interrupting your game. I think it is a great idea especially if you have kids and only one TV..or have the console hooked up to the main TV. It wouldn't apply to me though just because I have a game room with a TV that is the same size as my main, and that's where all my games go. My 13 year old has his own 360 in his room. But I think to most families it will be useful. Not saying the Wii-U has me sold by any means, but that particular idea is a good idea and I am actually surprised someone hasn't come up with it earlier.

[Donkbaca]

Here is what I find funny: 
- I want to play my console on the BIG tv
- With this, I will be able to have my console hooked up to the big tv YET, I will be playing on a dinky 6 inch screen, which is the smallest screen in the house.

This is WORSE than just hooking your console up to the smaller tv in the other room, in my opinion.  So, instead of hooking the xbox up to the 32 incher in the bedroom, and playing that all the time on the 32 inch screen, you are cool with playing part time on the big screen and part time on a dinky 6 inch screen?

It would be cheaper to just move the xbox.  A video cable and a power brick will set you back what, 50 bucks?  Don't see how unplugging two cables, moving the xbox 40 feet down the hall and plugging in two extra cables will result in excess wear....  Heck you can get a MS certified refurb x box for 99 bucks, about what the cost of the controller for the wiiu would be and just put that sucker in the other room....

Plus isn't the point of the controller that it will allow all new control features and let you interact with 2 screens? If that is the case, it won't even be the same experience on the controller than it would be on the console.  Its like you would get a cool console game, and a watered down ds version to play....

I think this solves a problem nobody has anymore: a household that has a single TV that is shared.  If you DO have a household with only one TV, that for goodness sake get another TV before you get a $400 console

[Donkbaca]

You want to play the console on a big tv?  Here you go:
http://www.walmart.com/ip/TCL-The-Creative-Life-LE40FHDP21TA/16115032

at walmart, 400 bucks, 40 inches.  buy, game on a big screen full time in 1080p glory, or, you know, get a wiiu and game on a 6 inch screen when the wife wants to watch Grays Anatomy on the big tv....

[versapak]

Here is what I find funny: 
- I want to play my console on the BIG tv
- With this, I will be able to have my console hooked up to the big tv YET, I will be playing on a dinky 6 inch screen, which is the smallest screen in the house.

This is WORSE than just hooking your console up to the smaller tv in the other room, in my opinion.  So, instead of hooking the xbox up to the 32 incher in the bedroom, and playing that all the time on the 32 inch screen, you are cool with playing part time on the big screen and part time on a dinky 6 inch screen?

It would be cheaper to just move the xbox.  A video cable and a power brick will set you back what, 50 bucks?  Don't see how unplugging two cables, moving the xbox 40 feet down the hall and plugging in two extra cables will result in excess wear....  Heck you can get a MS certified refurb x box for 99 bucks, about what the cost of the controller for the wiiu would be and just put that sucker in the other room....

Plus isn't the point of the controller that it will allow all new control features and let you interact with 2 screens? If that is the case, it won't even be the same experience on the controller than it would be on the console.  Its like you would get a cool console game, and a watered down ds version to play....

I think this solves a problem nobody has anymore: a household that has a single TV that is shared.  If you DO have a household with only one TV, that for goodness sake get another TV before you get a $400 console

Yeah...

It makes much more sense to move everything to a different less optimum room for half an hour so I can game without my family anywhere around. 

If I am ready to do some gaming, and my family is watching something, then I can begin the experience on the controller and then seamlessly switch to the main screen when it becomes available. It isn't like it would be the primary screen, and it is far more convenient than moving everything to another room.


I don't think it is a feature that will sell the console, but it is a feature that I know will use. Like I said previously, I already do game on my iPad in the same sort of way.

[Vigo]

If you dont want to leave the room, you can always just buy a $50 travel lcd screen and get video line switch box to switch between screens. 

[Donkbaca]

It makes much more sense to move everything to a different less optimum room for half an hour so I can game without my family anywhere around. 

Dude how big is your house? How is your family all of a sudden not around by switching rooms? Plus, how is having your nose buried in a tiny screen playing a video game by yourself quality family time?

Its pretty much one of the two things that sets the wiiu apart.  I think its pointless, but hey to each his own.

[Bootay]

Donk: The point I was making was from the perspective of a child, not myself. If my child was playing the Wii-U and then I decided I wanted to watch a movie, I could kick him off without forcing him off the game. Or like versapak said...if I am watching something and he wishes to play a game he can play it on the controller until I am done with the tv. I think it's a great idea for a child. For me or most other adults? No probably not. It doesn't apply to me anyway because if I did buy a Wii-U it would just go in the gameroom with the rest of the games.

[versapak]

If you dont want to leave the room, you can always just buy a $50 travel lcd screen and get video line switch box to switch between screens.  

Or I could just game on the controller that offers the feature of doing so


Why would I purchase anything extra to do what the Wii-U will do on its own? It isn't like I am saying that the Wii-U has this feature so I am buying it. I will be buying it anyway regardless, and I just think that it is a feature that will be useful for me.

As for the size of my house...

It isn't a big house at all, but my main room, with the big TV and the primary place of my gaming, is downstairs. All of our other TVs are in rooms upstairs. Moving my consoles to one of those other rooms for a half an hour or so of gaming seems stupid.

There is never a time where gaming is such a necessity that I have to kick people off of the TV to accommodate it or even move to another room, but the ability to game/kill time while others are occupying the main screen is a welcome feature.

[Vigo]

If you dont want to leave the room, you can always just buy a $50 travel lcd screen and get video line switch box to switch between screens.  

Or I could just game on the controller that offers the feature of doing so


Why would I purchase anything extra to do what the Wii-U will do on its own?

Because then you would have to buy a Wii-U.  

Seriously though, I think that Playstation could top this feature in a heatbeat. The PSP already links up to the ps3 and a number of things are accessable with remote play, natual progression will blur the lines between their handheld and console even more. I don't see why a future playstation wouldn't be able to stream all games to the Vita the same way the Wii-U would. Plus you could take your handheld on a roadtrip and continue playing your game...heck, they might be able to allow multiple portables connected to the playstation at the same time.

The Wii-U sounds more like a defunct handheld to me.

[versapak]

Because then you would have to buy a Wii-U. 

Seriously though, I think that Playstation could top this feature in a heatbeat. The PSP already links up to the ps3 and a number of things are accessable with remote play, natual progression will blur the lines between their handheld and console even more. I don't see why a future playstation wouldn't be able to stream all games to the Vita the same way the Wii-U would. Plus you could take your handheld on a roadtrip and continue playing your game...heck, they might be able to allow multiple portables connected to the playstation at the same time.

The Wii-U sounds more like a defunct handheld to me.

Except that we are only talking about the controller here.

I am sure that the Wii-U will be just like any other Nintendo system from the last 3 generations. It will be the place to go for Nintendo games.

I have always had all of the main systems, and nothing will change next generation.

[Vigo]

Because then you would have to buy a Wii-U.  

Seriously though, I think that Playstation could top this feature in a heatbeat. The PSP already links up to the ps3 and a number of things are accessable with remote play, natual progression will blur the lines between their handheld and console even more. I don't see why a future playstation wouldn't be able to stream all games to the Vita the same way the Wii-U would. Plus you could take your handheld on a roadtrip and continue playing your game...heck, they might be able to allow multiple portables connected to the playstation at the same time.

The Wii-U sounds more like a defunct handheld to me.

Except that we are only talking about the controller here.

That's exactly that problem. The thing is only a controller, utterly useless away from it's console. It much less than their handhelds can do, except for the fact that it will link to the console like their handhelds should do. Since their console is not going to be any better performing than an Xbox, the whole thing sits incredibly backwards.

An Xbox is at the price point of $200, Nintendo should be able to match that. That should leave $200 for the controller cost. The 3DS is at the price point of $250 and is expected to go down, Nintendo would have no problem bundling a game console and a fully functional handheld together for around $400. If they did that, my revised version of the Wii-U controller would be able to play games on the go. If you lost or broke your controller, it would be easy to buy a new one. Your friends could bring over their controllers and be able to use their save data at your house and then you can have some crazy pokemon battle or custom robot war with each other. With a few revisions like this, it would actually sound like a cool system to have. 

This is the kind of innovation I expect to see from Nintendo, not some controller that makes a coffee table conversation piece.

[Donkbaca]

Seriously though, I think that Playstation could top this feature in a heatbeat. The PSP already links up to the ps3 and a number of things are accessable with remote play, natual progression will blur the lines between their handheld and console even more. I don't see why a future playstation wouldn't be able to stream all games to the Vita the same way the Wii-U would. Plus you could take your handheld on a roadtrip and continue playing your game...heck, they might be able to allow multiple portables connected to the playstation at the same time.

The Wii-U sounds more like a defunct handheld to me.

Despite the fact that Vigo insists centipede is worth playing, he does make a good point from time to time.  This whole "connect to the console" feature has been done before:
Sega - The Nomad was a portable genesis/megadrive, let one player use the screen and the second player use the TV
NEC - had the Turbo express, similar to the nomad
Nintendo - let you plug the GBA in
Sony - let you connect the PSP to the PS3

So yeah, the whole plug a handheld into a console and take the game with you bit has been tried but different companies over different generations, and at a time when more household probably had one TV, so that feature was probably a bigger selling point, and all of these concepts have failed.  The Wiiu isn't even its own handheld, so its actually a step backwards from these other concepts.  I just don't know why people think this is some sort of revolutionary concept.

Furthermore, Nintendo is touting the controller as a new way to interface with the game.  They are saying that games will have the player utilize both the image on the screen and the image on controller.  If this is the case, then its in direct conflict to the previously described notion of playing the game without the tv, because in this instance, the whole point it to have 2 screens, so how could you turn off the tv and play without it?

[ChadTower]

It's probably time for people to accept that there is a point in their day when they need to turn off the screen and go amuse themselves for a while.  It's bad enough now that there are 3 screens available in every room to a kid (TV, PC, Phone, iPod, uPod, gayPod, PodPod, *Pod).  Now they need a way to seamlessly transition a game in progress from the console to a standalone without even pausing the game?  What is next?  Holding the game in the controller like a burning ember and transferring it to a console in the other room?  Holding it in the controller and riding in on a bike like the Olympic torch to a different kid's house? 

This is starting to feel like freakin Jurassic Park.  Everybody is so hot on what we can do that nobody is stopping to ask whether or not we should.

[versapak]

I am not sure why you guys are hung up on the feature of playing the main console on the controller's screen. It is simply one of the features, and if it isn't one you would use, then so be it.

The examples of Nomad and Turbo Express aren't relevant. They are not second screens, and one of them came out long after the systems prime. Just because one of the features of the Wii-U controller is the ability to play the Wii-U games directly on its screen doesn't mean it is the sole purpose or even a primary one.

Who knows how well the second screen will be utilized, but this will indeed be the first time one was included with a console as a primary feature. Not counting the Dreamcast of course, because we are talking a completely different kind of screen here.

It's probably time for people to accept that there is a point in their day when they need to turn off the screen and go amuse themselves for a while.  It's bad enough now that there are 3 screens available in every room to a kid (TV, PC, Phone, iPod, uPod, gayPod, PodPod, *Pod).  Now they need a way to seamlessly transition a game in progress from the console to a standalone without even pausing the game?  What is next?  Holding the game in the controller like a burning ember and transferring it to a console in the other room?  Holding it in the controller and riding in on a bike like the Olympic torch to a different kid's house? 

This is starting to feel like freakin Jurassic Park.  Everybody is so hot on what we can do that nobody is stopping to ask whether or not we should.

Huh? 

[Donkbaca]

I balme the Nomad

[Vigo]

It's probably time for people to accept that there is a point in their day when they need to turn off the screen and go amuse themselves for a while.  It's bad enough now that there are 3 screens available in every room to a kid (TV, PC, Phone, iPod, uPod, gayPod, PodPod, *Pod).  Now they need a way to seamlessly transition a game in progress from the console to a standalone without even pausing the game?  What is next?  Holding the game in the controller like a burning ember and transferring it to a console in the other room?  Holding it in the controller and riding in on a bike like the Olympic torch to a different kid's house?  

This is starting to feel like freakin Jurassic Park.  Everybody is so hot on what we can do that nobody is stopping to ask whether or not we should.

Huh?  

I don't quite get it either, but this is what I think he means:

[Howard_Casto]

I am not sure why you guys are hung up on the feature of playing the main console on the controller's screen. It is simply one of the features, and if it isn't one you would use, then so be it.

The examples of Nomad and Turbo Express aren't relevant. They are not second screens, and one of them came out long after the systems prime. Just because one of the features of the Wii-U controller is the ability to play the Wii-U games directly on its screen doesn't mean it is the sole purpose or even a primary one.

Who knows how well the second screen will be utilized, but this will indeed be the first time one was included with a console as a primary feature. Not counting the Dreamcast of course, because we are talking a completely different kind of screen here.

It's probably time for people to accept that there is a point in their day when they need to turn off the screen and go amuse themselves for a while.  It's bad enough now that there are 3 screens available in every room to a kid (TV, PC, Phone, iPod, uPod, gayPod, PodPod, *Pod).  Now they need a way to seamlessly transition a game in progress from the console to a standalone without even pausing the game?  What is next?  Holding the game in the controller like a burning ember and transferring it to a console in the other room?  Holding it in the controller and riding in on a bike like the Olympic torch to a different kid's house? 

This is starting to feel like freakin Jurassic Park.  Everybody is so hot on what we can do that nobody is stopping to ask whether or not we should.

Huh? 

Agreed.  And I don't think that people are getting that it isn't the ability to play the game on a dinky screen that's the feature, it's the seamless transition from big screen, to small screen, to a portable game you can play anywhere in the house that's the feature, NOT the fact that you are playing the game on a screen on the controller. 

If I'm in the middle of a boss battle and I need to take a wicked dump, it might be nice to be able to bring the contoller with me instead of waiting 15-20 min until I'm done. 

Also if a show somebody wants to watch is coming on and I'm  5 minutes from the save point, they can go ahead and watch their show, and I can watch it with them while finishing up. 

Those kinds of situations are the feature.

Is that a feature that is going to sell me the console? NO.  Does it seem like a really cool one?  Hell yes!

I also agree about the lame, non-comparable examples people are giving.  Stuff like the sega nomad is a portable version of the home console, that is NOT the same thing.  And screens like those on the dreamcast, well those were so low res and tiny that it was laughable that any developer would be able to do anything really useful with it.  So yeah this is the first controller to have this feature, and we'll have to wait to see what's done with it.  I still have my doubts, but I'm not going as far as calling it a dumb idea. 


And in regards to the comments about sony being able to do the same thing... well, sony COULD do the same thing, and they probably will claim to do it at some point, but it won't be as good.  Why?  Because Sony won't take the risk involved. 

Nintendo, love em or hate em, has balls.  When they come out with an innovative controller design they don't say "this will be an accessory" they make it the main controller that comes with the console!!  That means that developers are pretty much forced to use it in some way and thus the unique features of the controller actually get used.  This is what they did with the wiimote and while some third party implementation's are questionable we can all agree that most wii games make use of the wiimote.  Compare that to the move.  Sure there are some games that use it, some that use it quite well, but it's a small percentage of their game library simply because it's an accessory controller and not the main one.  It does make a difference.  The only two accessory controllers in the history of games that had a wide acceptance base was the genesis 6 button and the psx dual shock.  The reason?  The original controllers were broken and couldn't play the games of the time so developers and users were FORCED to use different ones.

Now while I'm positive that we will see a select few games on the ps3 offer streaming capabilites to the vita, it will be specific to each game, awkard to use and overall not be as seamless as the wii u's version.  And if it isn't available for every single title then what is the point?

[Donkbaca]

Let me introduce you to 2011:

Agreed.  And I don't think that people are getting that it isn't the ability to play the game on a dinky screen that's the feature, it's the seamless transition from big screen, to small screen, to a portable game you can play anywhere in the house that's the feature, NOT the fact that you are playing the game on a screen on the controller

.  

Been tried before, see the Sega Nomad among others.  People don't portable game.  See the failed implementation of the Remote play on the PSP.

If I'm in the middle of a boss battle and I need to take a wicked dump, it might be nice to be able to bring the contoller with me instead of waiting 15-20 min until I'm done.  

You are willing to buy a whole new system instead of pressing pause?

Also if a show somebody wants to watch is coming on and I'm  5 minutes from the save point, they can go ahead and watch their show, and I can watch it with them while finishing up.  

Nobody watches live TV, its all streaming or DVR stuff.  5 minutes won't matter.

Those kinds of situations are the feature.

None of those features are worth buying a whole new system for.  LIke I said, this would have been GREAT in 1990 when most households had one nice TV in the living room and maybe a crappy beater TV somewhere else in the house.  Sharing TV's just isn't a problem, new tv's are so cheap, and people don't even watch all that much tv anymore.

Is that a feature that is going to sell me the console? NO.  Does it seem like a really cool one?  Hell yes!

That is what nintendo is hoping will sell the console.  The president of Nintendo himself is saying that the controller is what is going to sell the system.

I also agree about the lame, non-comparable examples people are giving.  Stuff like the sega nomad is a portable version of the home console, that is NOT the same thing. And screens like those on the dreamcast, well those were so low res and tiny that it was laughable that any developer would be able to do anything really useful with it.  So yeah this is the first controller to have this feature, and we'll have to wait to see what's done with it.  I still have my doubts, but I'm not going as far as calling it a dumb idea.

You are right, if anything the nomad was a superior iteration of it.  It allowed you to have your own 1player screen, seamlessly transition your console from tv use to handheld, but it let you play ANYWHERE whereas the wiiu controller only lets you play in an area around the console.  If the Nomad failed, and it was a superior execution of this so called "play from your couch without the TV" why do you think people will buy it this time around?  Its been tried numerous times in the past, the consumer has never cared. I'll call it worse then dumb, I'll call it a proven failure of an idea.  Why didn't people flock to connect their GBA to their gamecube?  Why didn't the Nomad catch fire?  Why did the Turbo Express fail?  Why has the remote play on the PSP gone nowhere?  Sure the wiiu remote is not exactly the same, but is surely similar enough in idea and execution that someon has to explain to me why they think the consumer will care about this now when they never cared about it in the past.

And in regards to the comments about sony being able to do the same thing... well, sony COULD do the same thing, and they probably will claim to do it at some point, but it won't be as good.  Why?  Because Sony won't take the risk involved.  

Nintendo, love em or hate em, has balls.

I COMPLETELY disagree.  Nintendo has the smallest balls of ANY of the console makers.  Look at their history post NES.  Every single console that has come out post NES has been a market lagger, they wait until some other company establishes an appetite for the next gen before they release their next gen system.  They refuse to sell early hardware at a loss in exchange for larger market share down the road like MS and Sony do, now that takes balls.  Look at their last 2 hardware offerings, the wii was just a repackaged gamecube, the hardware is almost exactly the same, the only thing different is that it has its novel motion controls, a built in hard drive and wifi.  What risk is there in that?  Look at the 3ds, its just a ds with a fancy screen.  What risk is involved in that? They haven't built a system from the ground up since the gamecube and that was released a decade ago.  Its not like the PS3 hitching their wagon to blu-ray, or the X-box hitching their wagon on the x box live experience, each of which took on a lot of risk considering the infrastructure they need to build to support those things, not to mention selling the early consoles at a loss.  Those moves took balls.  How much balls do you need using off the shelf parts to cobble together a console?  Sure the controller is a novelty, but its a controller, not nearly the risk of pinning your hopes on something that takes way more resources like say xbox live.  Hell the original playstation was a leap in going to CDs.  Nintendo has ALWAYS played it safe, never put anything on the line.  They won't even take risks with the games they release, insisting on catering to 9 and 10 year old gamers and family friendly games because that's their market, has always been their market and is easy for them to market to.  

Compare that to the move.  Sure there are some games that use it, some that use it quite well, but it's a small percentage of their game library simply because it's an accessory controller and not the main one.  It does make a difference.  The only two accessory controllers in the history of games that had a wide acceptance base was the genesis 6 button and the psx dual shock.  The reason?  The original controllers were broken and couldn't play the games of the time so developers and users were FORCED to use different ones.

The move has been out for less than a year, compare the games out for the move to the games that came out for the wii the first year.  The move is better.  Compare it to the kinect, the fastest selling home appliance EVER.  MS is printing money with that thing.

Now while I'm positive that we will see a select few games on the ps3 offer streaming capabilites to the vita, it will be specific to each game, awkard to use and overall not be as seamless as the wii u's version.  And if it isn't available for every single title then what is the point?

Right, but it won't be available for every wiiu title either.  Nintendo has said themselves that they envision the controller being used as a secondary screen to the tv, so that, for example, if you were playing a baseball game, you would see the ball get hit on the tv and then you would move your controller around to try and catch the ball on the controller screen.  Or that the controller will be used for co-op titles where one player, say, drives a space ship on the tv and the second player uses the controller screen to whirl around and fire lasers at enemies.  This application precludes it from being used on every title, and leads us to conclude that either:
1) the games that transition to the screen will not give you any benefit from having a screen while you are playing on the tv. If you turn off the TV and switch to the controller, the controller would either have to show what was on the tv, or it would be a game with completely different game play.
2) games that utilize the controller screen for gameplay will not be playable from the couch.

so really, why should I buy this again?

[versapak]

I see...

You are just bitching to ---smurfette---.

[ChadTower]

If I ever go to Howard_Casto's house I am not touching anything.  You never know what that dude might have been in the middle of when he had to crap.

[Donkbaca]

Haha I have been a little crabby

It does legitimately piss me off that controllers have gotten so expensive though.
The prospect of a 100 controller sucks. The thing is that you probably will mnever have to buy one since the console will probably come with one and the machine only supports one.

[Mikezilla]

Holy ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---. The flaming Dinosaur pick was hilarious. 

Chad's Jurassic Park quote was great too.

Im with Donk on this. It just seems pointless, and aimed at kids. Again. I disagree though, about the live TV thing. Quite a few people watch live TV, and more shockingly, I was reading about how many people still have dial up for an internet connection. That shocks and appals me! 

[Howard_Casto]

Holy ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---. The flaming Dinosaur pick was hilarious. 

Chad's Jurassic Park quote was great too.

Im with Donk on this. It just seems pointless, and aimed at kids. Again. I disagree though, about the live TV thing. Quite a few people watch live TV, and more shockingly, I was reading about how many people still have dial up for an internet connection. That shocks and appals me! 

I don't use dvr, nor will I EVER use dvr.  I use VOD and internet enabled tv channels but that's a different story. 

Why don't I use DVR? 

Sheerly out of principal.  I used to be able to record whatever I wanted on a vcr for free.  Now a dvr uses a harddrive instead of tape, but it is essentially a vcr.  So how come even if I buy the frikkin dvr I have to PAY A MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION to record my shows?  Nah I don't think so.  I would rather take the time to pull torrents of the show off of the net. 

About donka's ridiculous points:

1.  The sega nomad did NOT try this before.  You have to save your game, turn off your genesis, remove the cart, install it in the nomad, turn on the nomad, let the game boot up, and continue your save to transfer. 

On the Wii U you hit a button and you are instantly off the tv and on the controller.  HUGE DIFFERENCE.

2.  No,  I'm not.  Try reading my last three posts.  I said that while the feature isn't one I would by a console for, it is a nice feature to have and I think it's awesome.

3.  See the above post.  Btw, most people prefer live tv to dvr according to most polls.  The dvr has taken the place of the vcr in that people use it when they can't watch live tv.  Also the saturation of HD dvrs is quite low and/or proprietary to your cable satellie provider.  DVR is a pain in the ass most of the time.

4.  Sharing TVs isn't a problem, sharing the tv the console is hooked up to is.  Again read my original post, this is a VERY COMMON setup for most homes btw.

5.  Dear god the stuff you wrote about nintendo is just so wrong on so many levels I wonder if you are even a real gamer.  Nintendo is and always has been  the industry standard in terms of innovation.  The invented if not perfected nearly every controller and hardware advancement since the nes.    There's just no point in arguing with you on that because you live in a fantasy world if you can't see that.  Nintendo lagging behind for releases?  That's silly, they are so rock solid that they just release a console whenever they damn well please.  Unlike the other companies, they don't have to compete. 


Sorry man, but if you are mad at the controller take it out on the controller, not the company, not on me.  And don't grasp at straws trying to prove that the one feature for the controller that might actually be useful isn't, when indeed it is.... just not for you personally.

[Vigo]

But if this is the extent of their revolutionary thinking, it is pretty dissapointing. Kid's stuff gimmick.

1) Nintendo has always specialized in being the family system. Why are they taking that and making it into 1 person getting a "good" controller, and the rest stuck with a wiimote. The thing is aiming towards a 1 player experience.

2) I still don't see why the controller can't double as a handheld system. They can be a package deal, and then the controller isn't so useless. The controller is pretty much a 1 screen DS, so making the controller out of the DS platform is not a stretch in the least. The real reason they don't do it is because they want a bigger cut of profit by also selling their handhelds as well. What a cool marketing angle the Wii U would be if the controller was a handheld. "Get both a console and a handheld gaming system in one. Wii U, Where the game goes with U."

3) Funky controllers only push away 3rd party developers. Nobody is going to want to play Call of Duty with a lunchbox sized controller in their hands. The Wii controller with nunchuck at least actually made some sense as an all around gaming controller, and had a degree in versatility in mind. This thing is more massive than an original xbox controller, it is more along the lines of a "leapfrog: my first video game console".

[Donkbaca]

My riduclous answers to HC's ridculous notion that I am being ridiculous:

1.  The sega nomad did NOT try this before.  You have to save your game, turn off your genesis, remove the cart, install it in the nomad, turn on the nomad, let the game boot up, and continue your save to transfer.  

On the Wii U you hit a button and you are instantly off the tv and on the controller.  HUGE DIFFERENCE.

The nomad WAS a genesis that you could plug straight in to the TV, a second player controller plugged into it, first player had his own screen and second player played on the TV.  IF you were in the middle of a game, you just unplugged the AV cable.  Not much of a difference.

I said that while the feature isn't one I would by a console for, it is a nice feature to have and I think it's awesome.

Thank you.  You are proving my point, its not a feature people would pay for.  YET its one of the features that Nintendo is banking on to get people to buy their console.

3.  See the above post.  Btw, most people prefer live tv to dvr according to most polls.  The dvr has taken the place of the vcr in that people use it when they can't watch live tv.  Also the saturation of HD dvrs is quite low and/or proprietary to your cable satellie provider.  DVR is a pain in the ass most of the time.

Ughh... I HATE phatnom statistics.  What polls?  Are they polling people that play console games? Because really, that would be the relevant population group in terms of this discussion.  Sure I would say the majority of people prefer to watch TV live, but I bet that the DVR usage increases as the age group is younger, and its this younger generation that is most likely to buy a console.  So let me get this straight, you are arguing that since you personally don't like DVR's and since some unnamed source claims that the majority of people don't like DVR's that therefore nobody likes to use a DVR?  Well how's about this I know TEN people that use DVR's and prefer to watch them over live TV.  That shows you that TEN TIMES as many people prefer DVR watching over live TV.  These people are also in the 18-35 console buying demographic. Also polls will show I am right.  Where these polls are, who did them and whether or not they are scientific doesn't matter, just know that there are polls that show I am right and move on.

4.  Sharing TVs isn't a problem, sharing the tv the console is hooked up to is.  Again read my original post, this is a VERY COMMON setup for most homes btw.

I would argue, no, its not a problem.  Most people that have kids have the console hooked up in the kids room or a family room or non-main room.  Furthermore if this IS a problem, per my earlier post, this doesn't solve that problem, because you still aren't gaming on the big TV with the good sound, you are gaming on a dinky 6 inch screen with more than likely horrible sound.

Nintendo is and always has been  the industry standard in terms of innovation.

Really? How?  were they the first 8 bit system? No.  Were they the first 16 bit system? No.  Were they the first digital media (CD/DVD/Blu Ray)  no. THey consistently lag the market.  Were they the first to offer online play, no.  What exactly did they innovate in?  Motion controls and the analog joystick.  They don't even innovate with each console offering.  There was NOTHING innovative about the Gamecube, other than the GBA plugging into it (kind of like the wiiu controller) and that was a colossal flop.  Besides your original point was about RISK TAKING, not innovation, and they are the most risk averse of all the gaming companies.  Coming out with a new controller isn't some huge risk taking endeavor.  THey refuse to publish M rated games for goodness sake.  So in your mind RISK taking is equated with innovative controller design? Ha!  that is ridiculous,  if the wii controller flopped hard there was the good old game cube controller that you could plug right in.    You can always change a controller, its a damned peripheral.    

The invented if not perfected nearly every controller and hardware advancement since the nes.

This is just flat out incorrect.  Every controller they have had since the SNES one has been outright panned.  The N64 controller is a poorly engineered mess that ALWAYS wore out.  THe Gamecube controller is a mess of mismatched assymetrical buttons, the wii controller is damn near impossible to use for anything other than wii sports.  The nunchuck idea is stupid and akward.  They invented motion controls.  That's it.  Analog controls were around before, but they re-introduced them to console play.  The analog stick on the N64 is ATTROCIOUS.  It wasn't until the dual shcok came out that analog controls were anything close to perfected.  The dual shock is superior to the N64 controller in EVERY way.  Motion controls were far from perfected, that's why the kinect is blowing nintendo out of the water.  Don't believe me?  Look at the NPD sales figures.

Unlike the other companies, they don't have to compete.

Really?  That is why their market share has decreased steadily since the SNES days.  This is just not true.

I am not attacking you.  I just think that this whole thing is dumb and here are my points:
1) If Nintendo has ANY advantage over the other systems, its that it provides the best local multiplayer experience.  This console, the focus is on the single player.  The system only supports one of the new controllers at a time, and the whole, "sit by myself and play on the couch" idea is totally counter to what is giving nintendo their current edge.  

Nintendo fan boys will always buy nintendo, but let me tell you this, the nintendo fanboys are a dying breed.  If Nintendo really wants to compete they would release more content.  If you are PS3 owner, or an XBOX 360 owner, you have franchises: Gears of War, God of War; Uncharted; Halo, that come out every couple of years.  Nintendo releases one Zelda per console generation.  Nintendo content is hands down great and unique, and Nintendo does its own games well, but the third party games for it have always been garbage.  Its about content, not silly little control gimmicks, and as long as Nintendo lags in quality content, it will remain a third rate system.

[danny_galaga]

 Nintendo content is hands down great and unique, and Nintendo does its own games well, but the third party games for it have always been garbage.  Its about content, not silly little control gimmicks, and as long as Nintendo lags in quality content, it will remain a third rate system.

You never played any Rare games obviously...

[Vigo]

You know, when I was a kid playing NES and the old man needed the TV, I had to shut the thing off and go play outside.   

If this is a feature built for kids, then it probably isn't a feature most parents *want* for their kids. Not unless they want their kid to be that squirly, pale antisocial weirdo who can't stop collecting pokemon for even 5 minutes of the day.

[Donkbaca]

Rare was bought by MS and has not made a game for Nintendo home console since 2000. So yeah, I guess third parties made great games 11 Yeats ago

[shmokes]

There are still many great third party games on Nintendo systems.  The fact that the best games on Nintendo systems have always been made by Nintendo is the simple product of Nintendo having historically the best development studios on the planet.  If Nintendo developed games for Sega, Sony or Microsoft systems, the result would be that many of the best games on those systems were developed by a third party (Nintendo) rather than by first or second parties.

[Donkbaca]

Yup, so many great third party games that I can't even name 5 worth getting

[shmokes]

I can't even think of 5 movies worth seeing.  In history.  I guess that means there are fewer than 5. 

Or, try Metacritic.

[ChadTower]

You know, when I was a kid playing NES and the old man needed the TV, I had to shut the thing off and go play outside.   

If this is a feature built for kids, then it probably isn't a feature most parents *want* for their kids. Not unless they want their kid to be that squirly, pale antisocial weirdo who can't stop collecting pokemon for even 5 minutes of the day.

...and there are more of these kids in every successive generation.  It's not a coincedence.

[Hoopz]

You know, when I was a kid playing NES and the old man needed the TV, I had to shut the thing off and go play outside.   

If this is a feature built for kids, then it probably isn't a feature most parents *want* for their kids. Not unless they want their kid to be that squirly, pale antisocial weirdo who can't stop collecting pokemon for even 5 minutes of the day.

...and there are more of these kids in every successive generation.  It's not a coincedence.

I still don't understand WTF Pokemon is....

[danny_galaga]

Rare was bought by MS and has not made a game for Nintendo home console since 2000. So yeah, I guess third parties made great games 11 Yeats ago

So when you say ' the third party games for it have always been garbage.'  the always you use is different to the one I use, which means the opposite of never? Got it 

[Donkbaca]

Well Nintendo did own 49% of Rare so they weren't a true third party, but hey if it makes you feel better, I revised my statement that the third party games have been garbage for the last decade plus, spanning 2 consoles...

[Mikezilla]

You know, when I was a kid playing NES and the old man needed the TV, I had to shut the thing off and go play outside.   

If this is a feature built for kids, then it probably isn't a feature most parents *want* for their kids. Not unless they want their kid to be that squirly, pale antisocial weirdo who can't stop collecting pokemon for even 5 minutes of the day.

...and there are more of these kids in every successive generation.  It's not a coincedence.

I hate those kids.  I watched a Marvel vs Capcom 3 tournament before it came out, and the kid that won was fat slob that didnt know how to interact with people. I seriously wanted to punch him. Not because he was fat, or hygenically challenged, but because he was a little ---tallywhacker---.

---smurfing--- pokemon are still around?! Jesus. The funny thing is that Nintendo owns Pokemon. 

[Mikezilla]

You know, when I was a kid playing NES and the old man needed the TV, I had to shut the thing off and go play outside.   

If this is a feature built for kids, then it probably isn't a feature most parents *want* for their kids. Not unless they want their kid to be that squirly, pale antisocial weirdo who can't stop collecting pokemon for even 5 minutes of the day.

...and there are more of these kids in every successive generation.  It's not a coincedence.

I still don't understand WTF Pokemon is....

Some say its a card game, others say its a perfectly devised marketing ploy aimed at kids to constantly generate money for nintendo. Its sick. I thought it died years ago. Apparantly its still around. I have a seething personal hatred for it, I used to work at Toys R Us when I was 16 (29 now) and I was the poor soul that had to run the Pokemon tournaments. I had to break up fights between little nerdlings all the time... I still dont exactly know what it is. Oh, and the TV show ties into it perfectly. The theme song states: "Gotta catch em all!!!" = ---smurfing--- BUY EVERYTHING. YOU CANT LIVE WITHOUT THEM.

[Vigo]

I used to work at Toys R Us when I was 16 (29 now) and I was the poor soul that had to run the Pokemon tournaments. I had to break up fights between little nerdlings all the time.

  I think that might just be one of the layers of hell in Dante's Inferno.

[Mikezilla]

I used to work at Toys R Us when I was 16 (29 now) and I was the poor soul that had to run the Pokemon tournaments. I had to break up fights between little nerdlings all the time.

  I think that might just be one of the layers of hell in Dante's Inferno.

Yeah, its the 8th one. Nobody talks about it though because its terror knows no bounds.

[danny_galaga]

Well Nintendo did own 49% of Rare so they weren't a true third party, but hey if it makes you feel better, I revised my statement that the third party games have been garbage for the last decade plus, spanning 2 consoles...

Dunno. I think some of the stuff Capcom have done for the Wii is excellent 

[Vigo]

For Capcom, the Wii version of Resident Evil 4 is hands down the best. Great controls too, which was a problem that had always plagued the series. Heck, all the Nintendo Resident Evil re-releases were great on Nintendo.

Capcom seems to gear their games with the best system for it in mind. You won't find any Devil may Cry or new Street Fighter games on the Nintendo (except the 3DS version), yet the Phoenix Wright and Resident Evil Chronicles games are pretty much exclusive to Nintendo.

[Donkbaca]

The phoenix wright stuff is a straight port of the DS.  You can play the same phoenix wright game on your iphone.  Resident evil is not a Nintendo exclusive anymore, the last wii title wasn't even a 3d person shooter, it was a straight up light gun game and Resident Evil 5 wasn't even released on the wii.

[Vigo]

Well, Resident Evil was never a Nintendo exclusive, but the prequel and re-releases were only for the Nintendo. I'm really a fan of the resident evil lightgun shooters, it is Capcom making games groomed for the Wii, which is how most good Wii 3rd party games are. Resident Evil 5 would have looked like crap on the Wii, so it is smart that they didn't even try.

The thing is that the Wii relies on a niche. It can't compete when talking highly visual games, but has a few perks. Good lightgun games being one of them.

[Donkbaca]

Vigo speaks the truth! 

The wii is a niche product.  It will be interesting to see what niche the wiiu fills.

[ChadTower]

As of July 2011, the Wii leads the generation over the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in worldwide sales

I didn't realize a product could be both niche and the leading seller in a multibillion dollar industry.

[Vigo]

You are right, the Wii is an absolute sales phenomenon that relies heavily on niche gaming. They were brilliant enough to design a system for non-gamers, and get people to buy a video game console that never touched games in their lives. Nintendo successfully marketed to a HUGE untapped source.

We are seeing that Grandparents and parents using the Wii to have quality time with the kids, we see people buying the system as an exercise machine, we see people who haven't touched a console since the NES, and want to relive a spark of that past with a new system to play the old. People who hate new games because they are too expensive and time consuming and want a lighter gaming experience. This is also a time when the competition only offered "more of the same" gaming for a much higher price. They are getting more innovative, but their price is not.

I love the Wii, but I know it is not a "gamer's system".

[Donkbaca]

Do you actually read what you post?

The Japanese market, which tends to serve as a leading indicator for global markets, saw Wii sales drop by 47% when comparing Nintendo's fiscal year of 2008—2009, to the previous year. While analysts predicted that game console sales in general will fall in 2009, Hall argued "Nintendo's big advantages are disappearing" amid price reductions of the Xbox 360 and rumors of Sony unveiling a motion-sensing wireless controller

In April, 2011, Nintendo announced they had sold 86.01 million Wii consoles, up to that date

How can you say As of July 2011, when the latest sales information they post is as of April 2011 and none of the industry comaprison is from 2011?  Look at the sources of the article, MOST of them are from 2007!

Actually the latest in video game console sales can be found here in this article date July 11, 2011:
http://cnet.co/o1b6bq

To quote:  

The analyst said that Microsoft led the way in console sales last month, selling 355,000 Xbox 360 units in the U.S. However, that figure is down 21 percent compared to the same period last year. In Pachter's note to investors, he said that the Nintendo Wii scored the second spot in unit sales with 325,000 sold, representing a 23 percent decline compared to June 2010. Pachter believes Sony suffered a 21 percent drop in unit sales last month by selling 240,000 PlayStation 3s.
If Pachter's estimates are correct, it would keep Microsoft's sales lead streak alive. In May, Microsoft's console led the hardware market in the U.S., tallying 270,000 unit sales, according to NPD, which reports on game industry sales each month. Microsoft said at the time that its win helped it achieve the sales lead in "11 of the past 12 months in the United States."

[Rando]

You are right, the Wii is an absolute sales phenomenon that relies heavily on niche gaming. They were brilliant enough to design a system for non-gamers, and get people to buy a video game console that never touched games in their lives. Nintendo successfully marketed to a HUGE untapped source.

I love the Wii, but I know it is not a "gamer's system".

I have no feedback for the original topic, but I'm one of those "non-gamer" people that bought a Wii instead of a X-Box or PS system.  I WANT to be a gamer, but don't have the time to devote to the really pretty games on XB/PS, so although I was not historically a Nintendo person, the Wii is a much better system for me & the kids to jump into for brief periods of time.  Just got "Boom Blox Bash Party" for my birthday this weekend and look forward to playing with my soon soon.  Old 80's/90's games work for this type of gamer as well, hence my new MAME cabinet.

Having said that, I don't NEED a new system so unless there is something really cool that I can play in short spurts thats not available on the system I already have, I see no reason to buy the new Nintendo system for the controler.

[danny_galaga]

The phoenix wright stuff is a straight port of the DS.  You can play the same phoenix wright game on your iphone.  Resident evil is not a Nintendo exclusive anymore, the last wii title wasn't even a 3d person shooter, it was a straight up light gun game and Resident Evil 5 wasn't even released on the wii.

And how about Monster Hunter Tri? That is an awesome game (",)

[hypernova]

Interesting quote:

Game designer and The Sims creator Will Wright shared his thoughts on the Wii within the context of the current console generation: "The only next gen system I've seen is the Wii – the PS3 and the Xbox 360 feel like better versions of the last, but pretty much the same game with incremental improvement. But the Wii feels like a major jump – not that the graphics are more powerful, but that it hits a completely different demographic."

(Taken from the wiki page near the bottom.)

Found total sales of consoles from vgchartz.

[Donkbaca]

Yeah, spore took 4 years to develop and EA bet the farm on it, it was supposed to be this revolutionary game and it flopped. He has never made a console game.

I am just wondering how long before people forget the 3DS was even released...

[shmokes]

I don't see how hitting a different demographic makes something next-gen.  Like . . . DVD was clearly the next generation of home video formats, but I don't think it hit a different demographic than VHS.  If anything, I would think that hitting a different demographic would tend to mean that something was a totally new product rather than the next generation of an existing one.  For example, I'd call a personal media player a home video system that hits a completely different demographic than VHS, but I wouldn't use that as a basis to claim that DVD is not next-gen and PMP is.  

Don't get me wrong, the Wii isn't a totally different product--it is Ninendo's next-gen (after GC) videogame console.  But I just don't see the basis for Will Wright's comment.

[danny_galaga]

I don't see how hitting a different demographic makes something next-gen.  Like . . . DVD was clearly the next generation of home video formats, but I don't think it hit a different demographic than VHS.  If anything, I would think that hitting a different demographic would tend to mean that something was a totally new product rather than the next generation of an existing one.  For example, I'd call a personal media player a home video system that hits a completely different demographic than VHS, but I wouldn't use that as a basis to claim that DVD is not next-gen and PMP is.  

Don't get me wrong, the Wii isn't a totally different product--it is Ninendo's next-gen (after GC) videogame console.  But I just don't see the basis for Will Wright's comment.

I see what he's getting at. I think he is saying that next-gen should be a change in direction, not just 'the same, but more powerful'. That's probably never going to be the definition, but I totally see his point. Game changer. If Nintendo didn't do motion controls, would the other two have bothered? And if they did, wouldn't that company be considered the trend setter, not follower?

[Donkbaca]

I see what he's getting at. I think he is saying that next-gen should be a change in direction, not just 'the same, but more powerful'. That's probably never going to be the definition, but I totally see his point. Game changer. If Nintendo didn't do motion controls, would the other two have bothered? And if they did, wouldn't that company be considered the trend setter, not follower?

That's an interesting question.  My thought is that someone would have done it.  People have been experimenting with motion controls since the NES days with the power glove, u force, and that weird octagon thing that you stood in.  I think the Move is a direct result of the wii success, but I think the Kinect is more of a spiritual succesor to the Playstation Eye Toy.  THe Xbox dod have a video camera that you could use to play some crappy games with before the Kinect came out.  I don't know.  I think it would have happened, myabe not as soon, but I think it would have happened.

[ChadTower]

I think his point is spot on.  "A little more power than before" is not really next gen anymore.  It's just a little more power.  Moving the industry in a new direction, which is what "a little more power" used to mean, is next gen.