Support NeoGAF

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

No, but others seemed to. And apparently Nintendo do. Or rather did.Umm... that's what I said. That was the proposition put forward, that's oft dismissed.

If one agrees with this premise, then I don't see why one would expect the system to take-off and/or these games to cause a massive turnaround. Or that Nintendo can sustain the system through their first-party output alone much beyond the limited appeal of the GameCube - which actually probably had better prospects of third party support.

I would hazard to say the 66K people buying the system now are the same people who would be buying the system had it Mario Kart U instead of NSMBU are the same people who would be buying it had it Super Mario Universe. The core Nintendo fanbase.

How much beyond that fanbase the system manages to attract would presumably depend on how much mindshare they managed to build during the Wii years and how much they manage to transition that audience.

Nintendo Land was the Wii U's equivalent of Wii Sports. The only problem is that the USP of the Wii U isn't simple or compelling.
See above proposition.

Its true that alot of people may believe that 3D mario alone can revitalize sales but Im not thinking that way. My whole idea is that A new mario plus other titles will make Wii U very appealing to those who like a great amount of quality software. The Wii U will have titles that neither GC or Wii would have gotten at all.

 

[donny2112]

it's a fact that the top-selling lists of third party games look VERY different on the HD consoles with the notable exceptions of music games.

And it's also a fact that most of the top-selling third-party games on the HD consoles were never released on the Wii. This is a tired and old argument. Core audience was very much on the Wii at the beginning as seen with CoD3 and RE4 sales, in particular. CoD4 didn't come to the system in 2007 with the other versions, which is when the series went mega, and the technological gap made it so that basically an entire other game had to be made to "port" to the Wii. Most companies didn't bother, so the core audience that was clearly present in the first year on the Wii slowly bled away due to lack of traditional games, except from Nintendo.

Looking at top-seller lists at the end of the generation is not going to tell you what the traditional game audience was like in the first year on Wii, since most of the top traditional games made this generation never came to the Wii. You're trying to show that traditional/core games didn't have an audience on Wii because they didn't sell, but you miss the fact that they mostly didn't come in the first place. It's an oft-repeated fallacy by many people who just look at the late-gen sales without appreciating how those sales formed during the generation. They see the lack of third-party games selling on Nintendo's system and say it was right for third-parties not to support the system, when the reality was that third-party traditional games did sell early on the system, but lack of supply eventually dwindled away the player base that was present on the system early on.

As said, this is a tired and old complaint and has been oft-repeated and debunked due to the logical fallacy that it is.

Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that Nintendo hurt themselves by not making the Wii easy to port to, but that doesn't change the fact that the most pushed games by third-parties never came to the Wii to be able to sell in the first place. Don't put the cart before the horse. Can't have continued good third-party sales when the biggest third-party games don't even come to the system to sell.

The false dichotomy is what you tried to post about Nintendo game sales holding back third-parties. For that to be the case, you'd have to believe that the software sales seen on the Wii were the highest that could've been possible on the Wii, so that one additional sale from one bucket had to come at the expense of a sale in the other bucket. However, that was clearly not the case, since the tie ratio was never tops in the generation, so there obviously wasn't some saturation limit going on with the system. In that case an additional sale in one bucket just raises the whole environment instead of taking a sale away from the other bucket. That also is an old argument that was flawed then and is flawed now. Not as oft-repeated as the casual/core stuff, but still been seen before.

Edit:
Tried to make it a little nicer. Your responses have been civil, so just because it's frustrating to keep pointing out the same problems when the argument is brought up doesn't mean I have to take it out on you.

 

[Massa]

Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that Nintendo hurt themselves by not making the Wii easy to port to, but that doesn't change the fact that the most pushed games by third-parties never came to the Wii to be able to sell in the first place.

That's a huge understatement. Those games didn't come to the Wii because they were not possible on the Wii.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't really subscribe to the idea that publishers are scared of Nintendo's game sales/can't compete with Nintendo. It's nonsense really - publishers aren't afraid of putting shooters on the 360 because of Halo, nor are they afraid of putting racers on the PS3 because of Gran Turismo. I would say it's really the opposite - and yes, we've discussed this before. Publisher's will not try and build an audience, they see no need to - it is up to Nintendo.

It's not just that Nintendo didn't make their system easy to port to for third parties. They also neglected themselves to invest significantly in trying to build or maintain that audience that apparently was there at the outset for core titles. They positioned their system towards families and the expanded audience from the outset; their branding and marketing was targeted as such.

There's also an argument to be had that simple technological progression caused the audience to migrate - while HDTVs were not as pervasive at the launch of the Wii, they became progressively moreso during the generation. Ergo, even with efforts invested in sustaining an audience they may have moved regardless as they adopted TVs which reaped the benefits of HD development.

 

[donny2112]

Those games didn't come to the Wii because they were not possible on the Wii.

Just like Infinity Ward said that Modern Warfare was not possible on Wii.

Now some games would've had to have major reworks on the level of Dead Rising, where you question if it's really worth calling it a port, anymore, but they could've put something on the system with the same name and similar experience, if the motivation was high enough. As said, requiring that high of a motivation to get the game was ridiculous, though, when Nintendo could've solved the problem from the get-go by putting different tech into the Wii.

Publisher's will not try and build an audience, they see no need to - it is up to Nintendo.

I keep going back to this, but I really blame Nintendo letting RARE go for a big portion of this. RARE was both a great complement to Nintendo titles in the N64 period and a great filler for the gaps from Nintendo's games getting delayed. (Can't forget the reveal of Diddy Kong Racing to be the big holiday title the same year it released, since Nintendo didn't have anything else ready.) They have never replaced that, and, no, Retro has not shown the ability to replace the output (or quality, in my opinion) of old-school RARE. Reading that NES article on Howard Lincoln makes me really disgusted with NOA all the more since those 90s guys left, since the article basically paints the RARE loss as due in big part to the post-90s guys not being as aggressive to develop talent. Yes, it was the Stamper Bros. who wanted out, and Nintendo just didn't want to take them fully in-house, but can't help but wonder if RARE would still be under Nintendo's umbrella if some of the top NOA guys from the 90s had stayed through the 00s to push for RARE staying with Nintendo. :/

 

[ProfessorMoran]

And it's also a fact that most of the top-selling third-party games on the HD consoles were never released on the Wii. This is a tired and old argument. Core audience was very much on the Wii at the beginning as seen with CoD3 and RE4 sales, in particular. CoD4 didn't come to the system in 2007 with the other versions, which is when the series went mega, and the technological gap made it so that basically an entire other game had to be made to "port" to the Wii. Most companies didn't bother, so the core audience that was clearly present in the first year on the Wii slowly bled away due to lack of traditional games, except from Nintendo.

Looking at top-seller lists at the end of the generation is not going to tell you what the traditional game audience was like in the first year on Wii, since most of the top traditional games made this generation never came to the Wii. You're trying to show that traditional/core games didn't have an audience on Wii because they didn't sell, but you miss the fact that they mostly didn't come in the first place. It's an oft-repeated fallacy by many people who just look at the late-gen sales without appreciating how those sales formed during the generation. They see the lack of third-party games selling on Nintendo's system and say it was right for third-parties not to support the system, when the reality was that third-party traditional games did sell early on the system, but lack of supply eventually dwindled away the player base that was present on the system early on.

As said, this is a tired and old complaint and has been oft-repeated and debunked due to the logical fallacy that it is.

Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that Nintendo hurt themselves by not making the Wii easy to port to, but that doesn't change the fact that the most pushed games by third-parties never came to the Wii to be able to sell in the first place. Don't put the cart before the horse. Can't have continued good third-party sales when the biggest third-party games don't even come to the system to sell.

The false dichotomy is what you tried to post about Nintendo game sales holding back third-parties. For that to be the case, you'd have to believe that the software sales seen on the Wii were the highest that could've been possible on the Wii, so that one additional sale from one bucket had to come at the expense of a sale in the other bucket. However, that was clearly not the case, since the tie ratio was never tops in the generation, so there obviously wasn't some saturation limit going on with the system. In that case an additional sale in one bucket just raises the whole environment instead of taking a sale away from the other bucket. That also is an old argument that was flawed then and is flawed now. Not as oft-repeated as the casual/core stuff, but still been seen before.

Edit:
Tried to make it a little nicer. Your responses have civil, so just because it's frustrating to keep pointing out the same problems when the argument is brought up doesn't mean I have to take it out on you.

At the end of the day it's not the third-party publishers and developers' responsibility to support the Wii or the WiiU, it's Nintendo's third-party relations department's job to get third-party publishers and developers on-board, and so far they're not exactly doing a great job, and the slow uptake of the WiiU despite having a year's headstart is going to make their job even harder, and having only 2GB of RAM isn't going to help their cause down the line when third-party developers start developing their games based on PS4 or xbox720 specs instead of still basing somewhat on PS3/xbox360 specs. Barring some sort of popularity wave that allow the Wii to accumulate a substantial userbase, things are going to be much more difficult for the WiiU.

 

[dragonfart28]

Its true that alot of people may believe that 3D mario alone can revitalize sales but Im not thinking that way. My whole idea is that A new mario plus other titles will make Wii U very appealing to those who like a great amount of quality software. The Wii U will have titles that neither GC or Wii would have gotten at all.

Right.

And games like Lego City and ZombiU will have legs because they contain an exclusive feature set that require Wii U pad functionality to make the experience.

We will begin to see that the lower cost, coupled with the head start in hardware sales and software library will help pick things up a bit by the end of the year.

 

[Radec]

They should just name it Super Mario HD.

Nintendo fans who are satisfied with just the Wii might find that more interesting.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Time to step out of their comfort zone. That's my advice. Not even sure what it encapsulates, I just know they need to do it.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Right.

And games like Lego City and ZombiU will have legs because they contain an exclusive feature set that require Wii U pad functionality to make the experience.

There'll be a far greater amount of "quality software" on the PS3 and 360, for the lower end market, at a lower entry price. The Wii U still doesn't look like it will have titles that these systems will have and that's without considering the huge catalogs of games they already have.

When it comes down to a platform having COD and GTAV and Destiny and everything else they have coming this year and everything else they already have vs a system having COD and Pikmin and Mario Kart and Super Mario; I would wager the former will end up the more appealing.

It's already showing it can't really appeal to the high end market; because, let's not mince words, it's not a generational upgrade.

Which is why, while no one wants to consider the possibility, I think it's worth considering that the product isn't particularly suited for any particular market - beyond that which must have Nintendo's output.

I have no idea where one derives the bolded.

 

[John Harker]

Right.

And games like Lego City and ZombiU will have legs because they contain an exclusive feature set that require Wii U pad functionality to make the experience.

We will begin to see that the lower cost, coupled with the head start in hardware sales and software library will help pick things up a bit by the end of the year.

Yes 8k a month... Such crazy legs

 

[Buddha Beam]

This is why third parties (mostly Western) don't like Nintendo currently, Nintendo doesn't create & refine the types of games (and gamers) that will help third parties sell on Nintendo home consoles. Part of the reason CoD is so successful on the 360 is because of Halo, not in spite of it.

If Nintendo wants western third party support, they're gonna have to internally develop the games which will attract third parties, not slap Mario & friends on genres Nintendo is familiar with.

This works the other way around too, though. There is no reason third parties shouldn't be looking at the types of games that sell so well on Nintendo consoles and creating content that appeals to those game buyers. That never happens though. We get a few half assed efforts every generation and maybe 1 or 2 genuinely great games that the publisher didn't know what to do with.

I'm not saying I think you're wrong, but the relationship is totally reversed here. Shooter games are popular on the Xbox BECAUSE of Halo. Halo is not necessarily popular because of other FPS games, however. I mean, you just don't see this reversed relationship you're talking about on other platforms in any other industry.

Ideally, both Nintendo and the third parties would work together mutually in that regard. But one could strongly argue that historically the 'tone' of the console is set by the first party and its software.
Third parties are just leaving money on the table to watch Zelda always sell 4-5 million copies guaranteed and not say, "let's get in on that action" and release a high quality big budget game inspired by Zelda. And yeah, that goes for Nintendo and, say, Grand Theft Auto style games, too. They probably should make that stuff.

I really see this as third parties in particular having incredibly poor business sense. The gaming industry has long seemed as if it's run by children who want to make the games they like, and fuck the smart thing to do.

 

[test_account]

As in launch lineup Im talking about the lackluster quality of games that every system had at launch except Dreamcast. Consoles seem to generally have bad games at launch. Which I why some people wait awhile. Wii U will have an incredible list of games by that time.

Ah ok, i understand. I wasnt sure what you ment with "Launch" (with the quote-signs around the word), but i see what you mean.

 

[Toski]

This works the other way around too, though. There is no reason third parties shouldn't be looking at the types of games that sell so well on Nintendo consoles and creating content that appeals to those game buyers. That never happens though. We get a few half assed efforts every generation and maybe 1 or 2 genuinely great games that the publisher didn't know what to do with.

I'm not saying I think you're wrong, but the relationship is totally reversed here. Shooter games are popular on the Xbox BECAUSE of Halo. Halo is not necessarily popular because of other FPS games, however. I mean, you just don't see this reversed relationship you're talking about on other platforms in any other industry.

Ideally, both Nintendo and the third parties would work together mutually in that regard. But one could strongly argue that historically the 'tone' of the console is set by the first party and its software.
Third parties are just leaving money on the table to watch Zelda always sell 4-5 million copies guaranteed and not say, "let's get in on that action" and release a high quality big budget game inspired by Zelda. And yeah, that goes for Nintendo and, say, Grand Theft Auto style games, too. They probably should make that stuff.

I really see this as third parties in particular having incredibly poor business sense. The gaming industry has long seemed as if it's run by children who want to make the games they like, and fuck the smart thing to do.

For what reason should third parties invest in Nintendo? Nintendo does not espouse what third parties want, especially when it comes to specs in a home console, and an audience that is receptive to their games. The PS4/Durango/PC will be a super platform and Nintendo is not there to reap any rewards of what it could offer.

The real problem is Nintendo does not cater aesthetically or philosophically to the western core gamer, nor do they want to and the Wii U sales at this time in the US/EU (and Japan) agree with this sentiment. I say (much to some posters chagrin) that homogeneity is the name of the console game, not individuation. Dudebro may buy a PS4 and Durango, but not a Wii U because it provides different needs than his wants.

I would say Nintendo is lucky Ubisoft is throwing them bones because I wouldn't.

 

[dragonfart28]

This works the other way around too, though. There is no reason third parties shouldn't be looking at the types of games that sell so well on Nintendo consoles and creating content that appeals to those game buyers. That never happens though. We get a few half assed efforts every generation and maybe 1 or 2 genuinely great games that the publisher didn't know what to do with.

I'm not saying I think you're wrong, but the relationship is totally reversed here. Shooter games are popular on the Xbox BECAUSE of Halo. Halo is not necessarily popular because of other FPS games, however. I mean, you just don't see this reversed relationship you're talking about on other platforms in any other industry.

Ideally, both Nintendo and the third parties would work together mutually in that regard. But one could strongly argue that historically the 'tone' of the console is set by the first party and its software.
Third parties are just leaving money on the table to watch Zelda always sell 4-5 million copies guaranteed and not say, "let's get in on that action" and release a high quality big budget game inspired by Zelda. And yeah, that goes for Nintendo and, say, Grand Theft Auto style games, too. They probably should make that stuff.

I really see this as third parties in particular having incredibly poor business sense. The gaming industry has long seemed as if it's run by children who want to make the games they like, and fuck the smart thing to do.

Definitely some combination of both.

Nintendo needs to lead by example, but third parties are the more egregious group when they barely put any effort into their ports or marketing decisions.

With fewer, more expensive games coming from third parties next gen, the console manufacturer with the best exclusives will look to have the upper hand.

 

[Pie and Beans]

This works the other way around too, though. There is no reason third parties shouldn't be looking at the types of games that sell so well on Nintendo consoles and creating content that appeals to those game buyers. That never happens though. We get a few half assed efforts every generation and maybe 1 or 2 genuinely great games that the publisher didn't know what to do with.

I'm not saying I think you're wrong, but the relationship is totally reversed here. Shooter games are popular on the Xbox BECAUSE of Halo. Halo is not necessarily popular because of other FPS games, however. I mean, you just don't see this reversed relationship you're talking about on other platforms in any other industry.

Ideally, both Nintendo and the third parties would work together mutually in that regard. But one could strongly argue that historically the 'tone' of the console is set by the first party and its software.
Third parties are just leaving money on the table to watch Zelda always sell 4-5 million copies guaranteed and not say, "let's get in on that action" and release a high quality big budget game inspired by Zelda. And yeah, that goes for Nintendo and, say, Grand Theft Auto style games, too. They probably should make that stuff.

I really see this as third parties in particular having incredibly poor business sense. The gaming industry has long seemed as if it's run by children who want to make the games they like, and fuck the smart thing to do.

This just doesn't work. If youre making the argument that third parties should make 'Nintendo-like' games, they have. Capcom with Okami Wii and Ubisoft with Rayman Origins. Absolutely tapped into the sort of thing the Nintendo core supposedly love to play. Both failed to rise to any kind of substantial success on the Wii platform that had a gazillion sized install base.

The harsh truth is unless its an actual Nintendo franchise, most of the time that set in their ways Nintendo hardcore finds it hard to give a shit or always looks for excuses not to.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I really see this as third parties in particular having incredibly poor business sense.

Yeah, its all their fault. When is Nintendo going to catch a break? :/

 

[shinra-bansho]

This works the other way around too, though. There is no reason third parties shouldn't be looking at the types of games that sell so well on Nintendo consoles and creating content that appeals to those game buyers.

They did.

That's why Ubisoft made the Just Dance franchise. And SEGA put Sonic exclusives on the platform.

Because Nintendo cultivated conducive audiences for these titles on the Wii.

 

[metalslimer]

Its not up to 3rd parties to support Nintendos system. With the way Nintendo completely bungled this launch, why should 3rd parties waste their time and money? To expand to a ne audience? From what we're seeing its not that large of a group anyway.

They did.

That's why Ubisoft made the Just Dance franchise. And SEGA put Sonic exclusives on the platform.

Because Nintendo cultivated conducive audiences for these titles on the Wii.

Exactly. The cheapest to make and biggest sellers all got various games from 3rd parties. The audience Nintendo attracted with he Wii was not the one that as going to make a new AA IP sell 5 million copies.

Hell Nintendo has handled the Zelda IP miserably latrly so im not sure whoo would think that is a good idea to copy right now

 

[Pachterballs]

blame the third parties?

oh wow.

 

[Shiggy]

Right.

And games like Lego City and ZombiU will have legs because they contain an exclusive feature set that require Wii U pad functionality to make the experience.

They'll have legs because there's nothing else to buy.

 

[Pachterballs]

They'll have legs because there's nothing else to buy.

those legs aren't going to carrying these games very far. imo.

you'll see in a couple of months.

 

[Shiggy]

those legs aren't going to carrying these games very far. imo.

you'll see in a couple of months.

Small legs
The next game to push the Wii U is probably Mario Kart.

 

[Snowden's Secret]

those legs aren't going to carrying these games very far. imo.

you'll see in a couple of months.

Almost certainly wrong. Super Mario 64DS launched with DS, another Nintendo system that didn't explode out of the gate, but went on to have tremendous legs and sells at full price (it may have even had a MSRP increase) almost a decade later.

 

[HocusPocus]

Nintendo and Apple seems like the smart combination to me to launch a console together next time.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Nintendo and Apple seems like the smart combination to me to launch a console together next time.

Apple don't need Nintendo.

 

[test_account]

Almost certainly wrong. Super Mario 64DS launched with DS, another Nintendo system that didn't explode out of the gate, but went on to have tremendous legs and sells at full price (it may have even had a MSRP increase) almost a decade later.

I think he only ment Lego City Stories and ZombieU.

 

[Moosichu]

Nintendo and Apple seems like the smart combination to me to launch a console together next time.

I couldn't imagine two more incompatible companies. Nintendo doesn't want Apple. Apple doesn't need Nintendo.

 

[jcm]

Apple don't need Nintendo.

I disagree. If apple were to launch a console, they would need nintendo, or something like them. They have no experience at all making games, and have ip with such history would be a huge win for them.

I can't imagine it would be a happy marriage though. Nintendo doesn't want to be some other conpany's game division, and apple doesn't seem like they'd do well trying to integrate a large, established company into their corporate culture.

I also think there's no chance apple is going to make a dedicated games console.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

And games like Lego City and ZombiU will have legs because they contain an exclusive feature set that require Wii U pad functionality to make the experience.

It's a shame the average consumer doesn't give a shit about rapidly tapping a touch screen or seeing a map on their controller.

I disagree. If apple were to launch a console, they would need nintendo, or something like them. They have no experience at all making games, and have ip with such history would be a huge win for them.

I can't imagine it would be a happy marriage though. Nintendo doesn't want to be some other conpany's game division, and apple doesn't seem like they'd do well trying to integrate a large, established company into their corporate culture.

I also think there's no chance apple is going to make a dedicated games console.

Apple aren't going to launch a console in the traditional sense because it's a dying market. What they'll do is just open up Apple TV to run apps, or such. And that's all they need to do. You don't need Nintendo to create content for something like that.

 

[eighty(one)]

For what reason should third parties invest in Nintendo? Nintendo does not espouse what third parties want, especially when it comes to specs in a home console, and an audience that is receptive to their games. The PS4/Durango/PC will be a super platform and Nintendo is not there to reap any rewards of what it could offer.

The real problem is Nintendo does not cater aesthetically or philosophically to the western core gamer, nor do they want to and the Wii U sales at this time in the US/EU (and Japan) agree with this sentiment. I say (much to some posters chagrin) that homogeneity is the name of the console game, not individuation. Dudebro may buy a PS4 and Durango, but not a Wii U because it provides different needs than his wants.

I would say Nintendo is lucky Ubisoft is throwing them bones because I wouldn't.

I've maintained a similar sentiment.

Once the majority of (PS4/720) 8 GBs are put to use, what will the available 1 GB (for games) in a WiiU really mean?

Less third party support. At least in terms of day and date releases, of the same games, with the other 2 systems.

Except the last sentence. I'm iffy with that one.

Then again, some great games designed specifically for Nintendo home systems, from third parties, haven't always found success:

Resident Evil 4 (GCN), Beyond Good and Evil (GCN), Madworld (Wii)....

ZombiU, if it has it only sold 100k? That's not a really a great number, especially for an exclusive on a console.


your entire post is spot on.

This just doesn't work. If youre making the argument that third parties should make 'Nintendo-like' games, they have. Capcom with Okami Wii and Ubisoft with Rayman Origins. Absolutely tapped into the sort of thing the Nintendo core supposedly love to play. Both failed to rise to any kind of substantial success on the Wii platform that had a gazillion sized install base.

The harsh truth is unless its an actual Nintendo franchise, most of the time that set in their ways Nintendo hardcore finds it hard to give a shit or always looks for excuses not to.

Your last sentence is what I've been trying to say for years.

I get that money is not infinite, but I see and hear (even on GAF), Nintendo fans waiting for some truly good (non Nintendo) games to be $15 or $20.

There is always some reason why the game isn't worth $40-$50, whether it only got an 8, or a Nintendo release is the following month, or its not worth $40 but $30, etc.

If it looks good, I'll just preorder and buy it (you can pay incrementally). I'd rather reward third parties for showing up (games are front loaded, first month sales count), than not.

I'd like to see more of their games (IPs) arrive on a system, not less.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Almost certainly wrong. Super Mario 64DS launched with DS, another Nintendo system that didn't explode out of the gate, but went on to have tremendous legs and sells at full price (it may have even had a MSRP increase) almost a decade later.

You're talking apples and oranges. There really isn't much competition in terms of handhelds where graphics isn't as important, Nintendo had a handheld monopoly for YEARS, they utterly dominated the market and basically only needed to release a couple of pokemon titles every six months, the PSP didn't really put up much of a fight and clearly neither has the Vita, the console landscape is a completely different beast, something that Nintendo does not have anywhere near the leverage it does in the handheld space, Wii had the motion gaming going for it and it snowballed into a massive fad, this hasn't translated into the same level of success for the WiiU and the WiiU simply doesn't have the hardware to compete with the new consoles coming out this year.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I disagree. If apple were to launch a console, they would need nintendo, or something like them. They have no experience at all making games, and have ip with such history would be a huge win for them.

I can't imagine it would be a happy marriage though. Nintendo doesn't want to be some other conpany's game division, and apple doesn't seem like they'd do well trying to integrate a large, established company into their corporate culture.

I also think there's no chance apple is going to make a dedicated games console.

Apple doesn't want to make a dedicated games console. Apple doesn't want to finance six and seven figure games development. Apple aligning with Nintendo would be nonsense. They completely clash.

 

[Kusagari]

The mere thought of Apple and Nintendo being able to coexist is hilarious. A partnership between the two would probably destroy both companies.

 

[jcm]

It's a shame the average consumer doesn't give a shit about rapidly tapping a touch screen or seeing a map on their controller.


Apple aren't going to launch a console in the traditional sense because it's a dying market. What they'll do is just open up Apple TV to run apps, or such. And that's all they need to do. You don't need Nintendo to create content for something like that.

I don't agree that tradional console gaming is a dying market. It's still going to be an enormous, multi-billion dollar business for the next several years. And apps on appletv isn't much of a threat to it.

Even if you throw out the market-expanding wii, the 360 and ps3 alone will have outsold the previous generation. I don't know how you get dying from that.

Apple doesn't want to make a dedicated games console. Apple doesn't want to finance six and seven figure games development. Apple aligning with Nintendo would be nonsense. They completely clash.

You know we agree, right?

 

[Kai Dracon]

The mere thought of Apple and Nintendo being able to coexist is hilarious. A partnership between the two would probably destroy both companies.

Iwata: *laughs*

Ghost Steve Jobs: "That's our laugh. It's outright theft."

 

[Quixzlizx]

Did Microsoft mean 41% of February console sales, or 41% LTD? If February, that would mean the Wii had 171.5k or so sales, or 105.5k if the Wii U is also counted as "current-gen."

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

The mere thought of Apple and Nintendo being able to coexist is hilarious. A partnership between the two would probably destroy both companies.

Hyperbole, but yeah the partnership won´t work since Nintendo is a dinosaur and Apple is the hip young entrepreneur who produces the newest, and most advanced technology and very tight functioning and fast responding OS.

 

[Meelow]

Nintendo and Apple seems like the smart combination to me to launch a console together next time.

Nintendo and Apple together would not work at all, Apple would not want to make a more traditional console and they wouldn't want to wait 5-6 years to release the 'iConsole 2' and Nintendo wouldn't want to be stuck following Apple's demands.

If an old or present manufacturer would work it would be Nintendo-Sega or Nintendo-Sony.

Even Microsoft would probably would want to fight for a partnership with Nintendo, it would help Microsoft finally crack Japan.

But yeah...

 

[jvm]

Just going through my numbers and so forth.

Last year's hardware units: 1.7mm
This year's hardware units: 1.1mm

A decrease of 36%.

PSV: down almost 190K
Wii: down almost 130K
Xbox 360: down 125K
PS3: down almost 90K
3DS: down over 70K
NDS: down about 35K

What a depressing situation. I feel more and more uneasy about the PS4 and Durango.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Just going through my numbers and so forth.

Last year's hardware units: 1.7mm
This year's hardware units: 1.1mm

A decrease of 36%.

PSV: down almost 190K
Wii: down almost 130K
Xbox 360: down 125K
PS3: down almost 90K
3DS: down over 70K
NDS: down about 35K

What a depressing situation. I feel more and more uneasy about the PS4 and Durango.

Well we are at the tail end of the gen and many people who might purchase the PS3 will likely hold off till the PS4(same goes for the Xbox), also whether we like to believe it or not the tablet/smartphone market has taken a bite off of the console market. Yes they are different markets but these are still entertainment devices and long gone are the days when home consoles were the sole entertainment devices in the living room.

 

[Zombie James]

Just going through my numbers and so forth.

Last year's hardware units: 1.7mm
This year's hardware units: 1.1mm

A decrease of 36%.

PSV: down almost 190K
Wii: down almost 130K
Xbox 360: down 125K
PS3: down almost 90K
3DS: down over 70K
NDS: down about 35K

What a depressing situation. I feel more and more uneasy about the PS4 and Durango.

Why? This generation's gone on for way too long and everything feels old as shit and stagnant. The only depressing thing is if PS4 and/or Durango miss their launches and slip into next year.

 

[fritolay]

If you were a developer planning for the next couple years, what systems would you develop for?

PS4 and XBOX hopefully knowing you can release close to the same game performance wise on both and get a large percent of the install base next gen? Or gamble on the Wii U?

 

[CouldBeWorse]

Just going through my numbers and so forth.

Last year's hardware units: 1.7mm
This year's hardware units: 1.1mm

A decrease of 36%.

PSV: down almost 190K
Wii: down almost 130K
Xbox 360: down 125K
PS3: down almost 90K
3DS: down over 70K
NDS: down about 35K

What a depressing situation. I feel more and more uneasy about the PS4 and Durango.

I'm trying to remain optimistic and blame it on old consoles with dated online experiences.

Or, it's just an expected market correction after the obscene, Nintendo-fueled growth of last generation.

These are troubling times for my favorite hobby, though

 

[CouldBeWorse]

If you were a developer planning for the next couple years, what systems would you develop for?

PS4 and XBOX hopefully knowing you can release close to the same game performance wise on both and get a large percent of the install base next gen? Or gamble on the Wii U?

PC or iOS. And I'd make small budget games and sell them cheap.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

Why? This generation's gone on for way too long and everything feels old as shit and stagnant. The only depressing thing is if PS4 and/or Durango miss their launches and slip into next year.

It's going to take a lot more than just a new hardware box under the tv to get people excited about console gaming again. Is anyone excited for next gen when all we've seen so far is stuff like Infamous 3, Killzone 4, Assassin's Creed 7 and Thief? I mean really?

New hardware isn't a magic wand. You need publishers to invest in new ideas.

Well we are at the tail end of the gen and many people who might purchase the PS3 will likely hold off till the PS4(same goes for the Xbox), also whether we like to believe it or not the tablet/smartphone market has taken a bite off of the console market. Yes they are different markets but these are still entertainment devices and long gone are the days when home consoles were the sole entertainment devices in the living room.

The people who are buying an Xbox or PS3 now are not the same folks who will be queuing up for next-gen in November.

 

[fritolay]

PC or iOS. And I'd make small budget games and sell them cheap.

Would you port to a console then?

 

[CouldBeWorse]

Would you port to a console then?

If it was cheap and easy. From what we know, I'd say yes to PS4 (assuming it's as cheap as Sony has implied) and Durango is wait and see (but no if it's like 360, which I don't expect it to be). It would likely be more effort than it's worth to port to Wii U.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Just going through my numbers and so forth.

Last year's hardware units: 1.7mm
This year's hardware units: 1.1mm

A decrease of 36%.

PSV: down almost 190K
Wii: down almost 130K
Xbox 360: down 125K
PS3: down almost 90K
3DS: down over 70K
NDS: down about 35K

What a depressing situation. I feel more and more uneasy about the PS4 and Durango.

This is such flawed logic imo. Exactly how much did you expect the PS3 and 360 to sell? This gen the 360/PS3/wii have sold a huge amount more than last generation, this can't go on forever. At some point PS3 and 360 sales were going to slow down a bit.

It's going to take a lot more than just a new hardware box under the tv to get people excited about console gaming again. Is anyone excited for next gen when all we've seen so far is stuff like Infamous 3, Killzone 4, Assassin's Creed 7 and Thief? I mean really?

New hardware isn't a magic wand. You need publishers to invest in new ideas.

MS hasn't even announced their next console yet and we still haven't seen E3. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that maybe, just maybe there will be something besides that announced before the consoles release.

 

[spwolf]

Just going through my numbers and so forth.

Last year's hardware units: 1.7mm
This year's hardware units: 1.1mm

A decrease of 36%.

PSV: down almost 190K
Wii: down almost 130K
Xbox 360: down 125K
PS3: down almost 90K
3DS: down over 70K
NDS: down about 35K

What a depressing situation. I feel more and more uneasy about the PS4 and Durango.

question is, how did consoles do 6-9 months before 360, PS3 and Wii hit?