Sony's temporary answer for the Wii U

[Vigo]

For Christmas as a kid, I was happy if I got a used Nintendo game. The only video game system I ever got for Christmas was a n64 when I was older, and I had to work an entire summer for my parents to earn it helping build a garage. I know I sound crotchety here, but if my kid ever wants anything like a new video game console, he either has to work his ass off for it or he is getting a royal "STFU, you already have an arcade machine."

[RandyT]

You can get ahold of a white one almost anywhere, but you'll actually end up paying MORE money for it so nobody wants it. 

On a side note, Randy worries me sometimes.  Charging more for a 6 year old product is never a smart move and I'm not exactly sure how a console selling out of pre-orders one week after pre-orders go on sale is in trouble

Well, that's hardly "sold-out".  If folks want one badly enough, the extra cash won't matter, correct?  But there's no need for you to be "worried" about it.

I'm not sure how selling out of said pre-orders is "a stunt nintendo pulled" either.  The 3ds is selling like hot cakes as well.  The price point was only too high to begin with but it quickly became the best-selling handheld after they lowered it. 

The 3DS is picking up where the DS left off.  Kids break the things and DS's aren't the newest and shiniest anymore.  Naturally, buyers will pony up the cost of a couple of games to get the newer handheld.  It's more the demise of the DS that is driving 3DS sales than anything else.  What's of note is that the Vita is starting to eat into it's market share in a substantial way.

Also kids frikkin love the wii, so I don't know what you are talking about.  Mind you some close-minded adults hate it, but kids... nah most of them are still playing the thing. 

I get the feeling you don't know how this holiday thing works either.  Parents don't really get a choice what to buy their children when it comes to electronics, unless they want their kids to hate them.  A kid writes down what they want, parents choose from the list... that's how it works.  Mom and dad don't go out and buy a ps3 because they feel their kids won't get as much use out of the Wii U.... heck most parents don't even know the difference between a ps3 and wii u!  Thus the list! 

Based on the games Nintendo is pushing, it doesn't seem to be aimed at the "kid" market anymore.  It's starting to tread into deeper waters.  They are finally moving into markets where 8-year-old-Billy probably shouldn't be included.  But if he is, he may also view Nintendo as a "kid's system" and be looking toward the consoles his older brother has been playing those games on.   The Wii-U looks like it's not sure what it wants to be, and the "all things to all markets" thing is getting pretty saturated.

As for what "Mom and Dad" buy, you may not have noticed, but the economy is in rough shape right now.  Mom and Dad will be watching their pennies closely, regardless of what junior is blatting about   If they feel that the value won't be there, then it probably won't happen.  The other thing to consider is that a "family" console (i.e one which gets placed in the living room for all to use) will be more attractive this year.  Mom and Dad will be looking for features which appeal to them as well.

But you are correct that a certain percentage of sales will go to the kids who have to have the latest "shiny object" and live in households with stable incomes.  But those numbers aren't what they used to be.

[pinballjim]

The problem with 3DS is any kid with the money to buy one of those can also afford a cell phone.  The games on the cell phone are pretty damn fun and a heck of a lot cheaper - and everyone's carrying a cell phone anyway.  The original price was an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Wii U may ultimately be a flop but it's going to be a huge item this christmas.  They've priced it such that you'd have to be out of your mind or desperate to buy the $300 version.  Packing in in a game and making it compatible with older controls was pure genius on Nintendo's part.  Who cares if nobody supports Wii controllers in a year?  X-Mas 2012 will be phenomenal for them.

[ChadTower]

The problem with 3DS is any kid with the money to buy one of those can also afford a cell phone.  The games on the cell phone are pretty damn fun and a heck of a lot cheaper - and everyone's carrying a cell phone anyway.  The original price was an insult to everyone's intelligence.

This is not what I see at all.  A lot of my kids' friends have a 3DS.  They're too young to bother with a cell phone.  There really aren't that many kids under 11 and under that have phones yet that I have seen.

[Vigo]

The problem with 3DS is any kid with the money to buy one of those can also afford a cell phone.  The games on the cell phone are pretty damn fun and a heck of a lot cheaper - and everyone's carrying a cell phone anyway.  The original price was an insult to everyone's intelligence.

This is not what I see at all.  A lot of my kids' friends have a 3DS.  They're too young to bother with a cell phone.  There really aren't that many kids under 11 and under that have phones yet that I have seen.

They did massively overprice the 3DS. They seem to have their ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- together now, a halfway decent library of games is forming, and they can thank their lucky stars their competition is Sony, who has no talent at undercutting the competition.

I simply don't see a smartphone as a great gaming device tho. Every time i try to find a game that is worth it's salt I come up empty handed. A whole bunch of great timewasters, but if it is not the game that blows, it is the touchscreen only controls that ruins it all.

[Mysterioii]

I simply don't see a smartphone as a great gaming device tho. Every time i try to find a game that is worth it's salt I come up empty handed. A whole bunch of great timewasters, but if it is not the game that blows, it is the touchscreen only controls that ruins it all.

Yeah I guess I'm just a cynical old bastard but touchscreen-only just doesn't click with me either.  I have an android phone and an ipad from work, and the only games I've installed on both of them are the free demo of Angry Birds, and Plants vs. Zombies when Amazon was selling it for 99 cents.  I just don't care for playing on a touchscreen.

http://www.explosm.net/comics/2906/

[pinballjim]

There's plenty of great games on smart phones and tablets.  $40 for one game vs 40 games is a no brainer.  Plus you can run the same games one everything, so there's no hardware fragmentation like you get with handheld consoles. 

Friend has a game you like?  Click click click and $1 later you own it.

Kid too young for a cell phone? $50 tablet or touch screen MP3 player will play the games, too.

Anyway, argue with clouds all you want.  The market has settled this issue.

 

[ChadTower]

Kid too young for a cell phone? $50 tablet or touch screen MP3 player will play the games, too.

A few posts ago your point was that a young kid wants new and shiny and the same thing his friends have.  Now your point is that a young kid can have a $50 tablet or iPod.

Elementary school kids want a DS.  I know kids with three of them.  They might see a tablet and think it's okay if they can watch TV on it at that moment.  Turn it into a game system and all they care about is Pokemon.  I do know some kids with an iPad too but they use it to watch TV in the car.  It's not a game system to them.  Those kids have an iPad and a DS. 

[SavannahLion]

Kid too young for a cell phone? $50 tablet or touch screen MP3 player will play the games, too.

A few posts ago your point was that a young kid wants new and shiny and the same thing his friends have.  Now your point is that a young kid can have a $50 tablet or iPod.

Elementary school kids want a DS.  I know kids with three of them.  They might see a tablet and think it's okay if they can watch TV on it at that moment.  Turn it into a game system and all they care about is Pokemon.  I do know some kids with an iPad too but they use it to watch TV in the car.  It's not a game system to them.  Those kids have an iPad and a DS.

My 5yr old son is like that. mommy's tablet plays really cool games but watching Coraline or Tangled on it is more fun. His DS has all his favorite Lego games but Daddy's big game (PS3 or 360) is alot more fun. His all time fav is the N64 but that's hardly the point.

[DarthMarino]

The 3DS is picking up where the DS left off.  Kids break the things and DS's aren't the newest and shiniest anymore.  Naturally, buyers will pony up the cost of a couple of games to get the newer handheld.  It's more the demise of the DS that is driving 3DS sales than anything else.  What's of note is that the Vita is starting to eat into it's market share in a substantial way.

What exactly are you basing this on?  The Vita came out less than a year ago and the old, crusty Wii from 2006 is still selling more units daily.  The original DS from 2004 has pretty much been neck and neck with the Vita since it's launch.  I guess you could argue that the Vita has taken about 50% of the market share from the original DS over the past year. If you want to talk about 3DS, it sells 5 for every 1 Vita.  The Vita software sales are non-existent.

Everyone loves to act like Nintendo is on the brink of closing shop, but the numbers don't lie. There isn't a more resilient console and portable game manufacturer out there.  They almost single-handedly rejuvenated the industry after the crash and since then have ALWAYS been at the forefront. They might have some missteps every once in a while but to count them out is just silly.

[RandyT]

The Vita came out less than a year ago and the old, crusty Wii from 2006 is still selling more units daily.

Handhelds <> console systems.  Different markets entirely.

The original DS from 2004 has pretty much been neck and neck with the Vita since it's launch.  I guess you could argue that the Vita has taken about 50% of the market share from the original DS over the past year. If you want to talk about 3DS, it sells 5 for every 1 Vita.  The Vita software sales are non-existent.

The Vita is targeted at a different subsection of the handheld gaming market than the DS.  Extremely few will give a Vita to a 6-year old who just lost or broke his DS.  It competes more with the 3DS, which is a "crossover" system, meaning that it is targeted toward an older crowd as well as the kids, like the Wii-U, based on the titles being promoted for it.  So only a certain percentage of those 3DS systems sold were ever purchased by consumers who might have viewed the Vita as an option.  What that percentage is, I couldn't tell you.  But if you want to speculate that 50% of the 3DS sales were to the same market segment where the Vita has positioned itself,  the market penetration of the Vita would be significant (3:1 in favor of the 3DS).  If you speculate that more than 50% of these sales were to younger kids, as is likely the case, that ratio isn't as good.

Everyone loves to act like Nintendo is on the brink of closing shop, but the numbers don't lie. There isn't a more resilient console and portable game manufacturer out there.  They almost single-handedly rejuvenated the industry after the crash and since then have ALWAYS been at the forefront. They might have some missteps every once in a while but to count them out is just silly.

I don't think anyone is "counting them out".  They have a loyal following, and the younger kids who grew up with a Nintendo handheld in their backpacks will always have a soft spot for them.  But one thing I am pretty confident of is that they won't be able to break out of the niche market they have confined themselves to for so long.  Rather than offer bleeding-edge gaming experiences demanded by the so-called "hardcore" gaming consumer, they seem to be happy trying to differentiate themselves with a new gimmick paired with dated hardware.  In some cases, like the Wii, it works incredibly well and captures the attention of a jaded consumer.  But it also has the problem of potential backlash when the gimmicks wear thin, and little is left in the way of other capabilities to fill the void.  The 3DS is still a decent handheld, for it's primary audience, even if the display gimmick is taken out of the equation.  With no-one but themselves to compete with in that market segment (younger gamers) it will likely continue to do well, based on the new, and/or potentially lower in the future,  price point.

The Wii-U is new and facing stiff competition from established players in the market it appears to be aiming for.  When you take the touchscreen control from the equation, you are left with a console which, at this point, most are unsure as to whether even has technical parity with the 6 and 7 year old systems already on the market.  It's also one which is hobbled by it's lack of storage and optical media (Blu-Ray/DVD) drive.  As I stated earlier, it's success or failure will hinge on whether there are truly compelling uses for what is an older and tried pairing of technologies.  I'm admittedly skeptical, as are Nintendo's investors, as to whether they can pull it off.  Only time will tell.

*edit*

As long as I'm typing, I might as well add some more thoughts about the PS3 offering.  Sony, like MS, put their hardware out at a net loss and rely on software proceeds to make up the difference.  They do start to make money on  the hardware, but not usually until the 2nd or 3rd revision, as prices on components fall and more of the functionality can be handled by fewer, newly designed components.  Sony may be at this tipping point where the PS3 can actually provide them with a small hardware profit, which opens up the possibility of lower costs to developers, which in turn will promote creation of more titles for the system.  This is one area where the PS3 is trailing the 360 in a substantial way, so it makes sense.  While I don't have any inside knowledge, I have heard it stated that Nintendo structures their hardware offerings to generate profit out of the gate.  This would go a long way to explain the hardware they choose for their systems, and the missing mass-storage devices and media drives.  The PS3 may be 6 years old, but there is still a lot of value in the console, at the price they set.

[DarthMarino]

That's quite a bit of speculation and the overall sales numbers are what count. Whatever demographic Vita is aimed at, it isn't hitting it. One game cracked the top 100 on the latest charts and it came in at number 98.  And it's a game aimed at young Japanese girls.  Little Big Planet is a possible system seller and it sure isn't aimed at the hardcore, adult gamer.  I think the sales will start to increase as the library of games expands and they do a price drop but there just isn't any evidence that Vita is making a dent in 3DS right now. 

Maybe the touch screen on Wii U is a gimmick. Maybe the hardware will be surpassed in a year. It doesn't change the fact that the undisputed top software publisher will be exclusive to the Wii U.  You can call that niche, but that's a heck of a niche if I've ever seen one.  I'm not sure why you are applauding Vita for succeeding failing at reaching its core demographic but are chastising Nintendo for continually succeeding at reaching theirs. Yes, the big N is trying to get that other half of the pie that they have struggled to get since the N64.  Are "hardcore" players going to migrate to Wii U to get their Call of Duty or Mass Effect fix?  Probably not.  People are used to playing those on their Xbox or Playstation. But once they see a new Zelda or Metroid or Mario, they will certainly be interested in the system. It's not going to reach the numbers that Wii did. It's not going to be the new home for Call of Duty type games.  But it will be a successful system.

[RandyT]

That's quite a bit of speculation and the overall sales numbers are what count. Whatever demographic Vita is aimed at, it isn't hitting it.

There's a lot more observation than speculation in that last post.

The execs at Sony seem to have a different opinion (but execs at video game companies always do.)  They have officially stated that the Vita is selling at levels they feel good about. Sure they would like them to be higher, but they aren't concerned at this moment in it's life.  There are a lot of PSP owners out there who don't want to give them up just yet, and the Vita is still quite a bit more expensive than a 3DS.  Several million units isn't bad for a 7-month old handheld, especially given the higher price and narrower target demographic.  If you consider that the Vita has likely pulled a good portion of those sales from the demographic Nintendo is now attempting to court, it's not hard to see the dent it's making.

Maybe the touch screen on Wii U is a gimmick. Maybe the hardware will be surpassed in a year. It doesn't change the fact that the undisputed top software publisher will be exclusive to the Wii U.  You can call that niche, but that's a heck of a niche if I've ever seen one.  I'm not sure why you are applauding Vita for succeeding failing at reaching its core demographic but are chastising Nintendo for continually succeeding at reaching theirs. Yes, the big N is trying to get that other half of the pie that they have struggled to get since the N64.  Are "hardcore" players going to migrate to Wii U to get their Call of Duty or Mass Effect fix?  Probably not.  People are used to playing those on their Xbox or Playstation. But once they see a new Zelda or Metroid or Mario, they will certainly be interested in the system. It's not going to reach the numbers that Wii did. It's not going to be the new home for Call of Duty type games.  But it will be a successful system.

Honestly, I can't wait to see how they do.  This will be Nintendo's first foray into making the types of games prevalent in this now aging generation of consoles.  You state that they are "the undisputed top software publisher", and even though I'm sure you will find quite a few folks who disagree, they are now going to get a chance to show if this is or isn't the case.  They've operated behind the curve in recent years, and their hardware has limited them to great extent.  Now that they are working with hardware that is close, or possibly even a little better than the "norm", it will be much easier to see if they can truly compete with the other big publishers.  Their franchises are a double-edged sword.  Died-in-the-wool Nintendo fans clamor for new games based on them, while those not so entrenched behind the company view it as "ehh...another mario game".  That's a tough line to walk, but I suspect that third party publishers will be called upon heavily to fill the gaps.  Hopefully for those who make the Wii-U their only system, the third party publishers won't skimp on the effort, as they have done often in the past.

[DarthMarino]

There's a lot more observation than speculation in that last post.

This will be Nintendo's first foray into making the types of games prevalent in this now aging generation of consoles. 

But are you observing what games your peers are playing or looking at actual sales figures?  I'm doing the latter.  I have plenty of friends who play Call of Duty but how popular is it on the overall sales chart for this generation of consoles? What types of games ARE prevalent this generation?  I present the top 15 games of this (7th) generation of video games:

1. Wii Sports   Wii   2006   Sports   Nintendo   
2. Mario Kart Wii   Wii   2008   Racing   Nintendo   
3. Wii Sports Resort   Wii   2009   Sports   Nintendo   
4. Wii Play   Wii   2006   Misc   Nintendo   
5. New Super Mario Bros.   DS   2006   Platform   Nintendo   
6. New Super Mario Bros. Wii   Wii   2009   Platform   Nintendo   
7. Nintendogs   DS   2005   Simulation   Nintendo   
8. Wii Fit   Wii   2007   Sports   Nintendo   
9. Mario Kart DS   DS   2005   Racing   Nintendo   
10. Wii Fit Plus
11. Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day   DS   2005   Misc   Nintendo   
12. Kinect Adventures! X360   2010   Misc   Microsoft Game Studios
13. Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day   DS   2005   Misc   Nintendo   
14. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
15. Pokémon Black / White Version   DS   2010   Role-Playing   Nintendo

So the top selling "hardcore" title comes in at number 14.  12 of the top 13 titles are published by Nintendo.  I haven't declared them the top software publisher because I have a high opinion of them, I do so because because their games are always tearing up the sales charts.  For the record, I own all 3 current consoles (and a whole lot of older ones) and even ignoring the Blu-Ray which is used every day, my PS3 has been seeing more action lately than my Wii and 3DS. I'm trying to be as objective as possible using real sales figures and not factor in my opinion or what I observe my friends playing.

[pinballjim]

It's kinda weird that you guys are so passionate about this, I thought we were all grown men and not 12.  If you've got a job, just buy them all.  That's been my strategy for years.

[SavannahLion]

Are those actual consumer sales or pre-sale numbers to merchants? There's a difference.

[DarthMarino]

I did buy them all. I have a Wii U on preorder and will keep a close eye on what Microsoft and Sony have to offer in their new systems.  I am disagreeing with some of things stated in this thread. Maybe sales figures (something I generally don't pay attention to) are childish but how else can one back up their argument with facts?

[DarthMarino]

Are those actual consumer sales or pre-sale numbers to merchants? There's a difference.

It says units sold so I don't believe it's that "units shipped" crap. Sony is the one who's pretty notorious for using that terminology so I don't think it would hurt my argument even if they are padding the numbers that way.

[RandyT]

But are you observing what games your peers are playing or looking at actual sales figures?  I'm doing the latter.  I have plenty of friends who play Call of Duty but how popular is it on the overall sales chart for this generation of consoles? What types of games ARE prevalent this generation?  I present the top 15 games of this (7th) generation of video games:

Once you remove the hardware pack ins, and the handheld titles the list looks like this:

1. Mario Kart Wii   Wii   2008   Racing   Nintendo   
2. Wii Sports Resort   Wii   2009   Sports   Nintendo   
3. Wii Play   Wii   2006   Misc   Nintendo   
4. New Super Mario Bros. Wii   Wii   2009   Platform   Nintendo   
5. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Consumers who wished to buy a piece of hardware had no choice as to the game they purchased, so it doesn't belong in the list of software sales.  Unless you really want to compare "Kinect Adventures" to "New Super Mario Bros." in the merit department.  The latter is obviously a much superior game. 

And looking at DS software sales isn't appropriate either.  It's a very different market than the one I thought we were discussing.  If you are going to include those, then you have to look at all video games from any piece of hardware currently "out there".  For example, as of March 2012, Angry birds: Space hit 700 million downloads.  Why isn't Rovio included in your list, right at the top?

The Wii sales numbers are an anomaly and underscore the importance of the Wii-U attaining high sell-through numbers.  The Wii was a massive sales success, so there are a lot of those consoles in the hands of consumers looking for something decent to play on it.  The sales numbers for Nintendo titles underscores just how poor the third party offerings were for the Wii, leading to high adoption rates for titles from the only company who put in the effort to try to make that system shine.  That's not to say that they weren't quality titles, but Nintendo was "shooting fish in a barrel".  They don't release their games for any other platforms, so seeing how they fare "head to head" with other developers on those platforms has always been an impossibility.  And thanks to the meager hardware base of the Wii, 3rd party developers had to strip their titles down, or re-engineer them completely with a "special version", so they could not shine as they did on other platforms.  Most simply did not put in the effort, or felt that stripped down versions would damage the franchise, thus the "special version" for the Wii.

It's kinda weird that you guys are so passionate about this, I thought we were all grown men and not 12.  If you've got a job, just buy them all.  That's been my strategy for years.

I have a job, and I have all the systems which appeal to me.  And, some which don't.  That includes the Wii, but not a DS of any incarnation.  My last Nintendo handheld was an Advance (of at least a couple of incarnations) and I like them, but also have a few PSPs, so they don't get used, even when I want a game to take with me.  If I had to sit on a subway 2 hours a day, I'd be more interested in the handhelds, but if I want to play a game, I do it on my 16' projector, or one of the plasmas.   My young nephews and nieces love their DS's, but they like different games than I am interested in.

And why is it weird that folks on a site dedicated to building arcade machines, and in a forum meant for discussing consoles are passionate about a discussion regarding video game consoles and developers?  Maybe it's weird that you are here calling us weird 

Besides, if one were ever to do a "grown up" thing like invest in the companies which fuel the hobby, not having a discussion like this, or understanding the mechanics of a marketplace would be financial suicide.

[Vigo]

But are you observing what games your peers are playing or looking at actual sales figures?  I'm doing the latter.  I have plenty of friends who play Call of Duty but how popular is it on the overall sales chart for this generation of consoles? What types of games ARE prevalent this generation?  I present the top 15 games of this (7th) generation of video games:

Once you remove the hardware pack ins, and the handheld titles the list looks like this:

1. Mario Kart Wii   Wii   2008   Racing   Nintendo   
2. Wii Sports Resort   Wii   2009   Sports   Nintendo   
3. Wii Play   Wii   2006   Misc   Nintendo   
4. New Super Mario Bros. Wii   Wii   2009   Platform   Nintendo   
5. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

FYI, All those games you have left are still pack-ins. Mario Kart and New Super Mario Bros were wii pack ins and Call of Duty MW3 was a PS3 and xbox Pack in. Wii Sports Resort and Wii play were controller bundle deals.

[RandyT]

FYI, All those games you have left are still pack-ins. Mario Kart and New Super Mario Bros were wii pack ins and Call of Duty MW3 was a PS3 and xbox Pack in. Wii Sports Resort and Wii play were controller bundle deals.

They weren't primarily pack-ins.  You weren't forced to buy those titles to get any other piece of hardware you might have wanted without them.  But it does still end up skewing things further, as folks would probably end up with them without specifically seeking them out.

[ChadTower]

They weren't primarily pack-ins.  You weren't forced to buy those titles to get any other piece of hardware you might have wanted without them.  But it does still end up skewing things further, as folks would probably end up with them without specifically seeking them out.

Nearly everybody who bought Wii Play bought it because it came with a Wiimote for about $10 more than just a Wiimote.  That is a controller packin title.

[RandyT]

Nearly everybody who bought Wii Play bought it because it came with a Wiimote for about $10 more than just a Wiimote.  That is a controller packin title.

I'd be all for pulling that one from the list, but I give it the benefit of the doubt.  I bought the bundle for that same reason, but made a conscious choice to spend the extra $10 to play the game.  In that sense, I "bought" the title because it was cheap, and looked interesting, but it was still something I chose to do.  I do agree that at the full price as a non-bundled game, it would not have fared as well.

[DarthMarino]

I don't want to bring cell phone games and apps into this as I think DS and PSP are much closer to consoles than phones.  The hardware is made by the usual suspects and a huge chunk of the games are ports, sequels or reworked games that appear on their big brothers.  Even since the days of GBA, the portables were interfacing with consoles.  Heck, the SNES could play Gameboy games and Game Gear could play Master System games.  But, fine. I'll just focus on the main consoles.

I brought up the sales list because I stated that Nintendo was the undisputed top publisher right now and this alone would attract many gamers to the Wii U. Since no one agrees with me, I would like to know which publisher everyone else thinks is at the top right now.  I didn't say to list your favorite.  I am talking about which publisher has the potential to sell the most games on and has the most solid IP's to push a new system.

[Vigo]

I don't disagree with your assessment at all. Nintendo is the top publisher, they make the best games and add on devices, and that drives good sales.

Here is why I see people shying from this system. The problem is that a lot of 3rd party game makers don't want to touch Nintendo. It's too much work. Their system is underpowered from competition, require special consideration on how to make the controls work, and have to jump through Nintendo's hoops to publish. 3rd party publishers want to program one game and port it out to each system. It takes considerable work. While the wii u would not be underpowered immediately, it would be after Sony and MS release their next systems.

People tend to shy away from a system if it leaves them without games like Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Madden, etc. And if they actually get those games on the Nintendo, they will be dumbed down versions, they will haphazardly try to incorporate Nintendo's special controls, and often the release will be even delayed.

[DarthMarino]

^I don't think Nintendo is going to make big strides with third parties on the Wii U.  The reasons you listed are absolutely valid.  My point is that you can't write off the entire system because of this.  This is nothing new for Nintendo but they've had relative (N64/Cube) to high (Wii) success despite this shortcoming.  The first and second party offerings are going to be enough to make Wii U a compelling and successful system.  Randy is saying that because they are shifting some of their focus to win over the "hardcore", Call of Duty-type demographic that the entire system will fall flat.  I think they will still deliver their usual piece of the pie in spades and once again fail to capture the rest of the pie.  Nintendo's system are always must own IMO because of the incredibly strong games you can only get through them.  It isn't the ONLY system gaming enthusiasts should own but neither are the other 2.

[Vigo]

I can't help but think that if Nintendo made a system that was as powerful as the competition and didn't make standard controls such a side option, they would be dominating.

[RandyT]

Randy is saying that because they are shifting some of their focus to win over the "hardcore", Call of Duty-type demographic that the entire system will fall flat.  I think they will still deliver their usual piece of the pie in spades and once again fail to capture the rest of the pie.  Nintendo's system are always must own IMO because of the incredibly strong games you can only get through them.  It isn't the ONLY system gaming enthusiasts should own but neither are the other 2.

You really should at least read what I write before attempting to paraphrase;

I don't think anyone is "counting them out".  They have a loyal following, and the younger kids who grew up with a Nintendo handheld in their backpacks will always have a soft spot for them.  But one thing I am pretty confident of is that they won't be able to break out of the niche market they have confined themselves to for so long.

Is that really different from what you wrote above?  It isn't the fact they they are positioning themselves to compete in the "hardcore" market, but that they are doing it at least 4 years too late with hardware that is unlikely to make that demographic take serious notice.

If Nintendo's main selling point are their dated franchises, how much of the mainstream market are they really going to get?  There are always going to be those who want to play the latest Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc. and Nintendo will have them over a barrel.  They will have no other option but to buy their latest system in order to do it.  As for the rest of the market, they will need to find the controller scheme to be a "must have", or there will be no real compelling reason to shell out the money.  And with newer consoles from the two "heavy hitters" just around the corner, coupled with the current weak economy, how many are going to pick up the Wii-U when, outside of those Nintendo franchises, it's getting mainly ports of games they already own, or can play as well on their existing systems?

As I stated before, I don't have crystal ball and can't know how the "casual" market will respond to the touchpad control scheme.  I was wrong about the number of people who would buy into the Wii hype, but I was much closer on the end result.  Nintendo's massive success in the marketing of the Wii may end up being what dooms the Wii-U.  Consumers tend to have a long memory, and whether or not they still see Nintendo as an attractive option will also depend heavily upon how much value they felt they got from the Wii.  I don't think it's fair to "write them off" because of it, but many have.

[shponglefan]

I can't help but think that if Nintendo made a system that was as powerful as the competition and didn't make standard controls such a side option, they would be dominating.

I dunno about that.  Part of what made the Wii attractive in the first place was its low price point; esp. compared to the PS3.  And Nintendo still made profit on it, whereas Sony sold PS3s at a loss.

[Yenome]

I wanted me a vita but since i dont hardly touch the ps3 i saw it as another toy that would sit and not get too much use. tho with cell phones unless you got a ios or android its not 100% that one game will work on more than one phone. I know my dumbphone uses java but hell even then half the java stuff is too much for it.

[hypernova]

There are always going to be those who want to play the latest Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc. and Nintendo will have them over a barrel.

Is it wrong for me to enjoy bracing said barrel? 

Right now I'm of the mindset that I'll be able to hold off on this console for at least 6 months.  And probably longer if a price cut has not yet occurred (and I feel it's imminent), or if more games I'm interested in (like those IPs you mentioned) aren't out yet.  For once, I'm going to be able to sit back and relax for a bit.

[Kolhell]

To the OP:

I don't get the new one either, but somehow new PS models keep coming out and keep selling.  Then again, I had a fat PS2 that never died, so I may be an outlier.

As for why Sony is successful: 1) Japan, 2) even though their BD capabilities may suck compared to other devices, most consumers don't know/care about the difference, 3) brand loyalty.

wish i could get a xbox360 controller that worked on the ps3. and not those lame ass ps3 controllers that clone the xbox360 layout so poorly.

wut?

I'm sorry if this is construed as flaming, but this is easily the most dumb, least thought-out statement I've read on the internet in the last two months.  Allow me to enlighten you.

Nintendo was responsible for developing what we consider the "standard" controller layout in 1990 with the SNES controller, which improved upon previous controllers with an ergonomic design and the 4-button pad with L/R triggers.  This also began the convention of labeling the buttons A/B/X/Y/L/R, although the SNES controllers were read from right to left, as opposed to the western left to right.  The ever-quirky Nintendo has since pioneered EVERY SINGLE innovation that you now hold in your hands.  Excluding oddities such as the paddle controller for the old Atari systems, Nintendo was the first to bring you analog controllers, force feedback, and motion-sensing technology.

Sony launched their PSX in 1994, and rather than trying to reinvent the wheel alongside Nintendo they chose to improve upon what Nintendo had already learned.  They are responsible for the addition of L2/R2 triggers during their initial PSX run and later for the addition of the twin analog sticks in 1996.  Sony has since added force feedback, analog buttons, and motion sensors to their controllers to keep up with the competition, but the initial design has remained largely unchanged since this date.

When M$ entered the market six years later they tried to blend the best of all worlds.  They put Sony's PSX button layout onto Sega's Dreamcast pad design, then bumped up the size to make it more appropriate for adult hands and switched the left stick with the D-pad to make it more ergonomic.  They took the sum of all knowledge garnered up until that point and still screwed it up.

M$ controllers, to this date, have been plagued by issues, while Sony stands strong with their initial improvements upon Nintendo's technology.  Sure, the six-axis motion controls may be worthless, but motion-sensing technology is worthless in general when you have buttons and sticks that can perform the same tasks.  Xbox controllers, on the other hand, have suffered from crappy batteries, crappy cables, the inability to use both crappy batteries and crappy cables to support each other, analog sticks only beat out in crappiness by the original N64 controllers, D-pads that might as well not exist (if you don't believe me go check out some fighting game forums and see what lengths they go to modifying their 360 pads), crappy headsets, and expensive proprietary peripherals, just to name a few.



You know what?  I'm going to go ahead and add 4) the controller and 5) because Sony actually sees its customer base as more than a cheap date to my reasons above.  Free online play and the lack of being gouged by proprietary crap will keep me loyal to the PS3 for a long time, not to mention the fact that early firmware supported dual-booting Linux, of all things, on your console.

[ChadTower]

  Excluding oddities such as the paddle controller for the old Atari systems, Nintendo was the first to bring you analog controllers, force feedback, and motion-sensing technology.

PS1 had analog sticks on the controller (Dual Shock).  Vectrex had an analog stick on the controller.  The Saturn had a true analog controller though it didn't come with the system.

No standard system controller has ever had force feedback.  Some have tactile feedback and yes the N64 rumble pak was first there.  Tactile feedback is very different from force feedback.

[Kolhell]

  Excluding oddities such as the paddle controller for the old Atari systems, Nintendo was the first to bring you analog controllers, force feedback, and motion-sensing technology.

PS1 had analog sticks on the controller (Dual Shock).  Vectrex had an analog stick on the controller.  The Saturn had a true analog controller though it didn't come with the system.

No standard system controller has ever had force feedback.  Some have tactile feedback and yes the N64 rumble pak was first there.  Tactile feedback is very different from force feedback.

Sony and Sega both launched their analogue controllers in response to Nintendo's N64.  I consider the Vectrex among the "oddities," as it took over a decade for the idea to return to the market and stick.

As for "force feedback," I chose that phrase over "haptics" because I figured it would be more recognizable among a forum of gamers.  My point still remains valid, however, despite the semantics.

[M.Lanza]

  Excluding oddities such as the paddle controller for the old Atari systems, Nintendo was the first to bring you analog controllers, force feedback, and motion-sensing technology.

PS1 had analog sticks on the controller (Dual Shock).  Vectrex had an analog stick on the controller.  The Saturn had a true analog controller though it didn't come with the system.

No standard system controller has ever had force feedback.  Some have tactile feedback and yes the N64 rumble pak was first there.  Tactile feedback is very different from force feedback.

Sony and Sega both launched their analogue controllers in response to Nintendo's N64.  I consider the Vectrex among the "oddities," as it took over a decade for the idea to return to the market and stick.

As for "force feedback," I chose that phrase over "haptics" because I figured it would be more recognizable among a forum of gamers.  My point still remains valid, however, despite the semantics.

Don't forget the 5200.

[RandyT]

Don't forget the 5200.

Yes, and  the Apple II, Tandy Color, and PC computers which used analog joysticks for gaming, long before the N64.  If there was any innovation at all by Nintendo in this regard, it was the physical shape of the device.  It was, to my knowledge, the first analog "thumbstick".

[lilshawn]

my system buying habits...

bought the Sega Master system...passed on the NES. No reason really.

bought the SNES... passed on the genisis. SNES tech and graphics where superior in my mind.

bought the N64- passed on the PS1. N64 had zelda titles coming...bought the system solely for that. PS had some nifty racing games, but not any kind of deal breaker. the cd player functionality was cool, but meh...i have a diskman.

bought Xbox, gamecube - passed on PS2. At this time, the PS2 didn't have anything i wanted. None of the games where appealing in the slightest.

bought xbox360, wii - passed on PS3. Admittedly I bought the 360 only about a year ago now whilst the wii was bought 6 years ago, but PS3...you disappoint. Your games don't look any better than the 360's the wii is it's own genre... also i haven't turned on my wii in probably 6-8 months now. i probably could have passed on the wii. but for it's price point, the PS3 was the real dog of the bunch. Blueray was the only thing going for it after release and even that, i haven't adopted...I stream HD video to my TV from my computer. There is no need.

so now we are at what now?

wii u

xbox720 / xbox8 / xboxinfinity (or whatever they are gong to call it)

and the PS4

across all these systems one thing seems synonymous between them... GPU integrated with the CPU (nintendo and microsoft going with ibm power pc chips and sony going with AMD)

this means all the systems will be similarly stacked. guess it's going to come down to gimmicks and games then.

[DNA Dan]

Between all these consoles, handhelds, tablets, portables, smartphones... TOO MANY GADGETS!!! Just give me my arcade machine!

[ChadTower]

Between all these consoles, handhelds, tablets, portables, smartphones... TOO MANY GADGETS!!! Just give me my arcade machine!

The one with 8 joysticks, 500 buttons, and 15000 games?   

[lilshawn]

Between all these consoles, handhelds, tablets, portables, smartphones... TOO MANY GADGETS!!! Just give me my arcade machine!

The one with 8 joysticks, 500 buttons, and 15000 games?   

some site mentioned the possibility of a screen in the next xbox controller.