Why won't Nintendo discount the Wii U?

[cmdrdredd]

The thing is, people always said this even when Nintendo was equivalent to their closest competition (GameCube versus PS2) or ahead (DS vs PSP). I was playing games over the phone lines on my SNES and it was glorious, but the GameCube, PlayStation 2, and PSP (at first) all took the PC-route of letting the game developers set up and maintain their own services.

I still remember the AJC newspaper getting the "expert" opinion from the proprietor of X-Playground, an XBOX and PS2-only LAN center in Peachtree City, GA. This "expert" went on to state the absolute falsehood that Nintendo was not doing as much as Sony or Microsoft for online/network games. If he had left Sony out of the comparison then what he said would have been true but, instead, he slipped up and showed his bias. Nintendo had many LAN games at the time (1080 Avalanche, Mario Kart Double Dash, Kirby Air Ride, etc) and Phantasy Star Online. Sony had some iLink (FireWire) networking games and a very few Network Adapter games. They were supporting it at least as well as Sony, if not better (1st party).

When the DS went online Nintendo created a very limited networking service for it which was more than Sony did for the PSP at that time. The PS3 launched and the PSP was updated with PSN much later.

That doesn't matter. It's what happens with current consoles that matters. Back then nobody knew what they were doing and there was no real connectivity portal like we have now where you can see who's online and what they are playing and do cross game voice chat etc. Sony and Microsoft both adapted to the need for internet based network gaming including setting up a system where you can quickly identify friends and such outside the games. Nintendo really didn't and still hasn't shown any changes on that front. The gamecube only had Phantasy star for internet based network gaming and one game called Homeland that never released outside of japan. How you figure one single game is considered "better support" is beyond me. Gaming over LAN is almost entirely irrelevant when talking about network gaming at this point. Many games play as if someone was in the same room but you are playing with/against someone across the country or even from another country. Heck I was playing Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament online before the PS2 even launched. To compete in the marketplace of today's gaming demographics Nintendo has to have a structured online gaming system that embraces the same standards as PSN and XBL. This includes universal voice communucations, friend lists, a gamertag ID system, even video and photo sharing has become commonplace.

 

[Ichinisan]

That doesn't matter. It's what happens with current consoles that matters. Sony and Microsoft both adapted to the need for internet based network gaming. Nintendo really didn't and still hasn't shown any changes on that front. The gamecube only had Phantasy star for internet based network gaming and one game called Homeland that never released outside of japan. How you figure one single game is considered "better support" is beyond me. Gaming over LAN is almost entirely irrelevant when talking about network gaming at this point. Many games play as if someone was in the same room but you are playing with/against someone across the country or even from another country. To compete in the marketplace of today's gaming demographics Nintendo has to have a structured online gaming system that embraces the same standards as PSN and XBL. This includes universal voice communucations, friend lists, a gamertag ID system, even video and photo sharing has become commonplace.

Sony didn't build a network platform for developers during the PS2 generation.
Nintendo didn't build a network platform for developers during the Gamecube generation.

Some third parties built their own online play for PS2.
The same third parties developers neglected to build their own online play for Gamecube.

Nintendo made some games with LAN play while it was pretty-much ignored by third-parties.

 

[CZroe]

...How you figure one single game is considered "better support" is beyond me.

I said that Nintendo themselves supported their network adapter as well as Sony themselves did. It sounds like you credit third-party support to Sony, when the argument even by third parties at the time was that they didn't bother for GameCube due to Nintendo's apathy. The real reason was because the install base did not have the users to make it worth setting up servers.

Also, there were three games released in the USA with Internet play, SIX if you count the games playable with tunneling services (also popular for PSP, PS2, and XBOX games at the time). Nintendo made three of those games themselves. Sony made a couple online SOCOM games and GT3 A-Spec for i.Link.

Gaming over LAN is almost entirely irrelevant when talking about network gaming at this point. Many games play as if someone was in the same room but you are playing with/against someone across the country or even from another country.

It was pretty relevant coming from the "expert" owner/operator of X-Playground Console LAN Gaming Center.

What I'm pointing out is that people have been saying these things about Nintendo's attitude toward network/online play since even before it was true. No one supported it and it became an afterthought, so it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Heck I was playing Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament online before the PS2 even launched.

Who wasn't? I was playing Quake II before that... and Quake before that, and Killer Instinct before that... and Doom before that.

To compete in the marketplace of today's gaming demographics Nintendo has to have a structured online gaming system that embraces the same standards as PSN and XBL. This includes universal voice communucations, friend lists, a gamertag ID system, even video and photo sharing has become commonplace.

I agree, but they need the user base too and people aren't likely to pay another subscription fee for a secondary console even if it's comparable in functionality.

They need a closed platform for licensing software and DLC but I've always dreamed about an open platform for most everything else. For example, they could mandate that any licensed online game needs to use an open server platform where the user could over-ride the default server if the devs stop maintaining it. It could be right there in the app's settings from the start. Never going to happen, but I can dream, can't I?

 

[cmdrdredd]

I agree, but they need the user base too and people aren't likely to pay another subscription fee for a secondary console even if it's comparable in functionality.

I consider my XB1 secondary to my PS4 overall since I use it much less, but I still pay for XBL. If Nintendo had the games and the same benefits of subscribing I'm sure people would consider it.

 

[sweenish]

I consider my XB1 secondary to my PS4 overall since I use it much less, but I still pay for XBL. If Nintendo had the games and the same benefits of subscribing I'm sure people would consider it.

Generalizing your anecdotal single use case to the general population makes no sense.

 

[Voxata]

Generalizing your anecdotal single use case to the general population makes no sense.

Doesn't mean others don't also do the same thing. I for 'two', do.

 

[Lil Frier]

Generalizing your anecdotal single use case to the general population makes no sense.

I wouldn't say you did anything differently. You made the generalized assumption people wouldn't pay for a Nintendo subscription, likely based on the idea that you wouldn't. I've known of multiple people to own both consoles and sub to both services as well. I mean, look at how sub-based society has become. You have Spotify, Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Office 365, cloud storage, and a bunch of other stuff. Many people have several of these services. I try to avoid all of that stuff as best I can (the only monthly subs I have right now are XBL and GCU, the latter of which offers monetary gain). I'd still consider paying to play a Nintendo console online, but--as is commonplace with consoles--it would depend on having people to play with.

 

[sweenish]

I wouldn't say you did anything differently. You made the generalized assumption people wouldn't pay for a Nintendo subscription, likely based on the idea that you wouldn't. I've known of multiple people to own both consoles and sub to both services as well. I mean, look at how sub-based society has become. You have Spotify, Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Office 365, cloud storage, and a bunch of other stuff. Many people have several of these services. I try to avoid all of that stuff as best I can (the only monthly subs I have right now are XBL and GCU, the latter of which offers monetary gain). I'd still consider paying to play a Nintendo console online, but--as is commonplace with consoles--it would depend on having people to play with.

You assume I'm automatically making the opposite case argument by pointing out a logical flaw.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Generalizing your anecdotal single use case to the general population makes no sense.

Offer the incentives and quality of service and people would consider subscribing. As Lil Frier said there are tons of services people subscribe to and many people have more than one. If what you said was true nobody would subscribe to Netflix because they have Cable service already. Netflix is the secondary service, but it offers access to content that you don't get on Cable right? Same thing. Xbox Live offers things PSN doesn't. Nintendo's service would as well.

 

[HeXen]

Offer the incentives and quality of service and people would consider subscribing. As Lil Frier said there are tons of services people subscribe to and many people have more than one. If what you said was true nobody would subscribe to Netflix because they have Cable service already. Netflix is the secondary service, but it offers access to content that you don't get on Cable right? Same thing. Xbox Live offers things PSN doesn't. Nintendo's service would as well.

Netflix and Hulu are my primary service. To hell with cable companies. They package stuff people don't want as they increase the prices and is why they cut the cord.

 

[Sonikku]

Microsoft's way ahead of Nintendo and they're fighting harder than hell for your dollar.

Xbone + 5 games + extra controller + $50 gift card for $370.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nice-xbox-one-deal-gets-you-five-games-an-extra-co/1100-6440094/

Nintendo isn't even trying anymore.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Netflix and Hulu are my primary service. To hell with cable companies. They package stuff people don't want as they increase the prices and is why they cut the cord.

I don't have cable either currently this was just a quick example. I know a lot of people who have cable but still subscribe to streaming services because there is exclusive content they want to see. Just like people with more than one console subscribing to two online services between them because the content is different.

 

[sweenish]

Offer the incentives and quality of service and people would consider subscribing. As Lil Frier said there are tons of services people subscribe to and many people have more than one. If what you said was true nobody would subscribe to Netflix because they have Cable service already. Netflix is the secondary service, but it offers access to content that you don't get on Cable right? Same thing. Xbox Live offers things PSN doesn't. Nintendo's service would as well.

This is a much better argument, minus the false assumptions made about what I was saying.

Just because I point out flawed logic doesn't automatically put me on the opposite side of the argument.

 

[HeXen]

Am I the only one that wants to see Nintendo do a Sega and just make games for other systems? I think it would be great though we won't have their gimmicky control stuff but I'd wager that they would earn more profits because hardware is pretty risky but their software is money in the bank.
They could probably make good money selling retro Nintendo systems with say 50 built in games, people eat that stuff up. Limited edition stuff is huge with collectors

 

[CZroe]

I was never saying that no one would get both services if Nintendo made a competitively featured/priced service. I was saying that there probably would not be enough people paying for it. Chicken and egg. If the community never gets big/robust enough to justify the cost for more people, making the service equivalent may not be financially viable.

Here's the thing: even the people ITT saying that they would pay for both know that they wouldn't if the user base was anemic. We can't just assume "if you [Nintendo] build it, they [users] will come." It's the video game console market, not Field of Dreams.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I was never saying that no one would get both services if Nintendo made a competitively featured/priced service. I was saying that there probably would not be enough people paying for it. Chicken and egg. If the community never gets big/robust enough to justify the cost for more people, making the service equivalent may not be financially viable.

Here's the thing: even the people ITT saying that they would pay for both know that they wouldn't if the user base was anemic. We can't just assume "if you [Nintendo] build it, they [users] will come." It's the video game console market, not Field of Dreams.

Remember all the people complaining about how PSN is no longer free for online play? Where are they now...paying for PSN to play online. They had an incentive to pay the fee. Nintendo could do the same they just have to offer the right services.

 

[Sonikku]

Am I the only one that wants to see Nintendo do a Sega and just make games for other systems? I think it would be great though we won't have their gimmicky control stuff but I'd wager that they would earn more profits because hardware is pretty risky but their software is money in the bank.
They could probably make good money selling retro Nintendo systems with say 50 built in games, people eat that stuff up. Limited edition stuff is huge with collectors

I think pretty much all of us wish they would just put Mario on Xbox/Playstation. But they won't do it. The Wii just put too much money in the bank for them to feel the necessity. It's a shame too because the gimmicks don't add anything so compelling that it's worth taking them over the competition. Star Fox could have been a solid 8+ if it had been a pro controller game. Instead, the tablet is there so they feel compelled to integrate it even to the detriment of the game.

And then there's the 3DS. I love my 3DS because of all the games it has but the touch pad really doesn't justify its existence. About the only time I use it is when I need to pull out the stylus just to select a damn menu option (because some games won't always allow you to select menu options with the analog stick or d pad) or for something stupid like when I need to confirm my location to Rob64 so he'll drop a weapon upgrade in Star Fox 64.

It's extremely jarring being in the thick of Area 6 when I need to take my fingers off the face buttons and my eyes off the top screen just to yank out that damn stylus to rub the screen. Of course, you can always mitigate it by leaving your thumb print all over the screen instead but how is this crap in any way improving the experience? The gimmicks sour the experience, it doesn't enhance them. Nintendo games would be better on Vita/PS4/Xbone. They just lack the financial incentive to do so.

 

[CZroe]

Remember all the people complaining about how PSN is no longer free for online play? Where are they now...paying for PSN to play online. They had an incentive to pay the fee. Nintendo could do the same they just have to offer the right services.

PS4 and XBOX One each have enough users for critical mass and neither would require users to be willing to pay for both to get there. Nintendo is not in that enviable position.

 

[cmdrdredd]

PS4 and XBOX One each have enough users for critical mass and neither would require users to be willing to pay for both to get there. Nintendo is not in that enviable position.

They could be if they actually tried

 

[HeXen]

I think pretty much all of us wish they would just put Mario on Xbox/Playstation. But they won't do it. The Wii just put too much money in the bank for them to feel the necessity. It's a shame too because the gimmicks don't add anything so compelling that it's worth taking them over the competition. Star Fox could have been a solid 8+ if it had been a pro controller game. Instead, the tablet is there so they feel compelled to integrate it even to the detriment of the game.

And then there's the 3DS. I love my 3DS because of all the games it has but the touch pad really doesn't justify its existence. About the only time I use it is when I need to pull out the stylus just to select a damn menu option (because some games won't always allow you to select menu options with the analog stick or d pad) or for something stupid like when I need to confirm my location to Rob64 so he'll drop a weapon upgrade in Star Fox 64.

It's extremely jarring being in the thick of Area 6 when I need to take my fingers off the face buttons and my eyes off the top screen just to yank out that damn stylus to rub the screen. Of course, you can always mitigate it by leaving your thumb print all over the screen instead but how is this crap in any way improving the experience? The gimmicks sour the experience, it doesn't enhance them. Nintendo games would be better on Vita/PS4/Xbone. They just lack the financial incentive to do so.

yes, and 3DS is really slow, even internet is slow, one thing at a time crap. I have the Zelda edition XL, previous model and was a bit disappointed with some of the store prices. Some of the games feel pretty cut down from what they could have been or were on the WiiU. Though a second analogue stick and better 3d display would be nice, I don't feel it's worth the upgrade, even if I sell the old one.

I have Icarus Uprising...I just cannot do their funky control scheme

 

[poofyhairguy]

Am I the only one that wants to see Nintendo do a Sega and just make games for other systems?

I will admit I didn't buy a Wii U (but I have bought every other Nintendo home console). With that said, I don't ever want to see a day where Nintendo isn't making hardware. The Wii U flopping was the Wii U's problem.

The fantasy is without a console Nintendo would crank out $50+ million budget AAA open world games and you get to play a Zelda as deep as the Witcher or a Mario with a sandbox that makes GTA look like a litter box. The reality is by definition without consoles Nintendo has failed, and in failure Nintendo isn't going to pivot to being a PS4 developer. Too much pride and risk.

So instead we will get basically DS harvest moon like games for $30 (because screw the idea of Nintendo not getting paid top dollar for their games) on your iPhone or Android. When they have to give up on hardware I am pretty sure we are giving up on getting AAA console games from them period.

Think of the crazy money they could make if Virtual Console games were on mobile right now. They aren't going to risk going after the Hao gamers, hell they had problems with Wii U! quality games for a while. If they are forced to capitulate, that same force will push them to the army of causal gamers in mobile. They are already heading that way.

Personally I wish Apple, Google or Amazon would just buy them to develop for their set top boxes. That seems to be the best hope if they don't make the hardware- still be part of the company that does.

 

[HeXen]

I will admit I didn't buy a Wii U (but I have bought every other Nintendo home console). With that said, I don't ever want to see a day where Nintendo isn't making hardware. The Wii U flopping was the Wii U's problem.

The fantasy is without a console Nintendo would crank out $50+ million budget AAA open world games and you get to play a Zelda as deep as the Witcher or a Mario with a sandbox that makes GTA look like a litter box. The reality is by definition without consoles Nintendo has failed, and in failure Nintendo isn't going to pivot to being a PS4 developer. Too much pride and risk.

So instead we will get basically DS harvest moon like games for $30 (because screw the idea of Nintendo not getting paid top dollar for their games) on your iPhone or Android. When they have to give up on hardware I am pretty sure we are giving up on getting AAA console games from them period.

Think of the crazy money they could make if Virtual Console games were on mobile right now. They aren't going to risk going after the Hao gamers, hell they had problems with Wii U! quality games for a while. If they are forced to capitulate, that same force will push them to the army of causal gamers in mobile. They are already heading that way.

Personally I wish Apple, Google or Amazon would just buy them to develop for their set top boxes. That seems to be the best hope if they don't make the hardware- still be part of the company that does.

I don't think I was really talking about them making games for consoles only, I meant a variety of hardware platforms. I mentioned before in another thread they could do their own client like Steam, Origin..etc and still sell peripherals that work with a variety of hardware. Point is their IP's are worth billions just by themselves. I think Mario alone was estimated to be worth 16 billion if I recall correctly. It's far less risky to produce a mario game for every platform, available to everyone rather than a proprietary affordable platform available to only those that buy it. Affordable being a key word which means secondary system in today's terms.
The business world knows no morality and it can eat them alive like it did Sega. It's a real and serious threat and the NX specs don't suggest much, even the console fanboys are already complaining about it.

Hardware is risky because they have to license everything and have a variety of companies produce everything from the ram to the optical drive and today isn't yesterday...people seriously look at hardware specs. Even kids would rather have a Playstation or Xbox over Nintendo. I can't think of any other parent I know who's kids say they want a Wii U unless it's in conjunction with a PS/Xbox or as a secondary system...same with the original Wii, people had it along with an Xbox because it was unique and cheap enough. Nintendo has been a secondary system since the N64, times are changing.

 

[Fallen Kell]

Well, now that both Sony and MS are releasing new hardware in the near future (i.e. before the end of this year), how does everyone think this will affect the new Nintendo console due to be released in the same timeframe?

Personally, I don't think Nintendo thought both Sony and MS would effectively upgrade their hardware at this time, which I think is really catching Nintendo off-guard. They were finally putting up the money into the console to have graphics power back on par with the other competing consoles, only to now most likely still be a generation behind.

Sure I know both Sony and MS said that the new consoles won't negate the current PS4 and Xbone, but we all seriously know differently. While the biggest reason for Sony's new hardware upgrade is to be able to do VR, and MS's reason is to stay competitive with Sony, I don't see how we will not see non-VR games not take advantage of the additional graphics horsepower (I guess we will see console games get the same graphics settings menus PC's have for dealing with the hardware differences).

I seriously don't see Nintendo putting in the time to re-do their designs with the higher end graphics chips needed to be on par with Sony and MS.

 

[purbeast0]

neither sony nor ms is releasing an "upgraded" console by the end of this year.

 

[cmdrdredd]

neither sony nor ms is releasing an "upgraded" console by the end of this year.

True the Xbox S is basically just the original hardware in a new case with a UHD drive and updated HDMI capabilities.

I don't even think Nintendo cares to compete anymore. They have done nothing in over a decade to say that they are trying to be the top gaming company. When the market changes they don't and with their game release schedule they couldn't compete anyway.