Nintendo: We have failed to establish Wii U as a "worthy" Wii successor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lan Di

So that means the real price of a WiiU is ~$400 if you want a hard drive. That's more expensive than a 500gb PS3 or 250gb 360. That's garbage. It because of that stupid-ass game pad. Another revolutionary failure by Nintendo. Superjoke, I mean Super Scope, Virtual boy, and now the Game Pad.

---

A 500GB External HDD can be acquired for about $50. So the price is probably closer to $300-$350 depending on where you get your Wii U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lan Di

And BTW, check this out. AC4 performs poorest on the WiiU according to eurogamer.

Wii U:


PS4/Xbone


Link--->http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...t-gen-face-off

---

Funny thing, that got posted on Neogaf and a lot of people who own the Wii U version are calling that face off into question as they haven't experienced frame rate issues nearly as bad as Digital Foundry claimed to. And regardless, a shit port only proves a shit port.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

Do you have a reason why they're screwing around with solid-state memory, when hard-drives offer more Gigs for cheaper?

---

Solid-State takes up less space making the console smaller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

I would still fault Nintendo at the DLC issue. Ultimately Nintendo gets to authorize what gets released. They are also the ones who are there to make a console, an infrastructure, and a community that is appealing to developers.

---

The infrastructure is there. Other developers have no problems getting their DLC up on the Wii U. Games like Call of Duty missing their DLC is entirely on the developer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

A 500GB External HDD can be acquired for about $50. So the price is probably closer to $300-$350 depending on where you get your Wii U.




Funny thing, that got posted on Neogaf and a lot of people who own the Wii U version are calling that face off into question as they haven't experienced frame rate issues nearly as bad as Digital Foundry claimed to. And regardless, a shit port only proves a shit port.

---

Yup, I got that from the neogaf forums. It's quite evident that 3rd parties don't give a damn about publishing quality games for the WiiU. In the next year the WiiU will slowly erode into oblivion. Black Friday 2013 saw a respectable leap in WiiU sales and trust me that will be the last. I bet Reggie drops a turd during the VGX awards tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Nintendo did try that stuff back in 2012, remember? They also made that deal with Sega for 3 exclusive Sonic games remember? Remember the announced "unprecedented relationship" with EA back at E3 of 2012? Nintendo can money hat all they want, but if those third party developers don't actually deliver a quality product, that issue falls on the third party developer. Yeah they could start trying to buy more third party stuff but the real culprit here were the developers who pushed out shit products back in 2012 knowing full well they wouldn't sell due to their lackluster quality.

Their attempts at getting EA on board in 2012 got them a sub-par port of Madden and Fifa with missing content, and a late port of Mass Effect 3 at the same time EA was releasing Mass Effect Trilogy for the 360 and PS3. Is it really Nintendo's fault that EA put out shit?

---

We were talking about DLC, right?

It's not like the PS3 got the ME Trilogy overnight. The PS3 only had Mass Effect 3 in March of 2012, and it would not be until Microsoft's exclusivity contract with Bioware had expired on the other 2 chapters, before we would see the Trilogy appear on the PS3 and PC. Bioware was obviously already porting the PC and PS3 versions of the other chapters, long before the deadline with MS had arrived. Why would you think that EA would be able to port all 3 chapters to the Wii U, when they had so little time to do so?

And going back to the subject of Wii U DLC. Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U will not have all of the DLC that will be available on the other platforms.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/...3-wii-u-review

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IGN

At the end of the day, you have a simple series of questions to ask yourself when considering Mass Effect 3 on Wii U. Do you have an Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 or gaming PC? Is experiencing the entirety of a plot-centric trilogy’s story important to you? Is having access to all of the game’s DLC integral to your experience? If you answered yes to any of those questions, than this version of the game isn’t for you.

---

http://wiiudaily.com/2013/02/bioware-mass-effect-3-dlc/

Quote:

---

Mass Effect 3 was a launch title for the Wii U and it included all DLC released by Bioware before that. That seemed like a good indication that both Bioware and Electronic Arts planned on supporting their product, but sadly that’s not the case. The Omega Pack, Citadel and Reckoning DLCs will not be heading to Wii U. The Omega Pack has already been released for PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and PC gamers, while the previous two have yet to be released.

Speaking to IGN, a Bioware representative stated that “there are no plans to bring Citadel or Reckoning to the Wii U at this time”. This is disappointing for consumers who supported Bioware and EA by purchasing their product on a Nintendo console. How do you feel about the lack of DLC? Let us know in the comments below.

---

Nintendo must have shoved a ton of money towards EA to get that title and its DLC. :wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

The infrastructure is there. Other developers have no problems getting their DLC up on the Wii U. Games like Call of Duty missing their DLC is entirely on the developer.

---

The infrastructure is nothing like what MS and Sony put out there, they are working on it, but to say that it's anything close to the competition is pretty laughable. They ignored it for ages and were content with it being terrible for too long while everyone pointed it out to them just how bad it was and their two competitors did it absolutely better in every single way.

And no, it's not just on the 3rd party Dev's. Some of it absolutely is their concern but the situation should have gone like this.
Dev: We are putting x game on the wii u, but we don't feel the DLC will be profitable and/or it's too much work or whatever reason they give.
Nintendo: We're sorry to hear that, here is money/support/whatever to help you with that because we want people on our console to be able to experience their games in just the same way as they could on the others. On second thought, here is more money/support/whatever to ensure you do a great job and give us some wii u exclusive content to make the purchase of this game on our console even better for our awesome and loyal fans!


Because that is what Sony and MS do more or less. They don't accept half assed efforts for major titles. They actively pursue these devs to give them everything available + exclusives. That is why you see games on both the MS and Sony consoles with both all sorts of content available on both as well as some specific to each.

Nintendo has the resources to do this, and they sure as hell have every reason to need to do this... but yet they are not out and doing this all over.

So sure... you can fault the company for making a bad port... but when so much is on the line for Nintendo, why are they not ALL OVER every single dev making games for their system making sure that all the big releases are a rock solid experience that showcased just what the system could do? And more than that, have absolutely everything that isn't contractually locked to other consoles available.

The ME games for instance... they should have ensured that they are THE definitive version of it. All DLC from all 3 included, right off the bat, plus upgrades, and maybe even some exclusive content on top of that. Instantly a worthwhile purchase for anyone who didn't have them already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

We were talking about DLC, right?

It's not like the PS3 got the ME Trilogy overnight. The PS3 only had Mass Effect 3 in March of 2012, and it would not be until Microsoft's exclusivity contract with Bioware had expired on the other 2 chapters, before we would see the Trilogy appear on the PS3 and PC. Bioware was obviously already porting the PC and PS3 versions of the other chapters, long before the deadline with MS had arrived. Why would you think that EA would be able to port all 3 chapters to the Wii U, when they had so little time to do so?

---

PS3 had Mass Effect 3 on the same day the as the 360. It had Mass Effect 2 in 2011. But what I'm talking about is the release of Mass Effect Trilogy. You know, the release that had all 3 games included in one package for the price of one game? That same release that EA put out on the 360 and PS3 around the same time they put out Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U. How could they possibly think people would buy copies of Mass Effect 3 in droves for the Wii U when they could get all three games for the same price on their 360, PS3, and PC? That's what I mean by the issues of self fulfilling prophecies with Wii U third party support. You can't expect a game like Mass Effect 3 to sell well at full price on the Wii U when you are selling Mass Effect Trilogy for the same price on PC/PS3/360 when your intended audience for Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U are the people who missed out on the series. They were essentially competing with themselves.

It may have been a bit much to port all 3 games in that amount of time, but considering the port wasn't even handled by Bioware but was outsourced, they could have probably outsourced the other two ports. But if that's unrealistic, there's another option they had. That option was to go in understanding it wouldn't sell well, not because Wii U owners don't buy third party games, but because they were competing with themselves. But instead of going "Hmm, maybe that wasn't the best planned release" and learning from their own mistake, they instead decided to blame Wii U owners and drop support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

And going back to the subject of Wii U DLC. Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U will not have all of the DLC that will be available on the other platforms.

---

I'm aware of that, it was probably because it didn't sell well because the intended audience bought the better deal with Mass Effect Trilogy on the PS3/360/PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Nintendo must have shoved a ton of money towards EA to get that title and its DLC. :wtf:

---

They probably put some money down to get EA to support the system with ports of their most popular current gen games. EA were the ones who stupidly decided to compete with themselves though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

The infrastructure is nothing like what MS and Sony put out there, they are working on it, but to say that it's anything close to the competition is pretty laughable. They ignored it for ages and were content with it being terrible for too long while everyone pointed it out to them just how bad it was and their two competitors did it absolutely better in every single way.

---

I obviously meant the infrastructure for DLC. Yeah there are some aspects that still leave a bit to be desired, but they are making changes to fix that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

And no, it's not just on the 3rd party Dev's. Some of it absolutely is their concern but the situation should have gone like this.
Dev: We are putting x game on the wii u, but we don't feel the DLC will be profitable and/or it's too much work or whatever reason they give.
Nintendo: We're sorry to hear that, here is money/support/whatever to help you with that because we want people on our console to be able to experience their games in just the same way as they could on the others. On second thought, here is more money/support/whatever to ensure you do a great job and give us some wii u exclusive content to make the purchase of this game on our console even better for our awesome and loyal fans!

---

So Nintendo should babysit every single third party developer to make sure they are doing what they are paying some of them to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

Because that is what Sony and MS do more or less. They don't accept half assed efforts for major titles. They actively pursue these devs to give them everything available + exclusives. That is why you see games on both the MS and Sony consoles with both all sorts of content available on both as well as some specific to each.

---

Yet Nintendo is the only one of the three that has actually made money these past few generations. Coincidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

So sure... you can fault the company for making a bad port... but when so much is on the line for Nintendo, why are they not ALL OVER every single dev making games for their system making sure that all the big releases are a rock solid experience that showcased just what the system could do? And more than that, have absolutely everything that isn't contractually locked to other consoles available.

---

The problem with that is that it can become a slippery slope really fast. That could easily lead to a situation where regardless of how much sales the DLC would get, Nintendo would be forced to pay extra for it due to those developers essentially blackmailing them for it. The bottom line is that Nintendo isn't the one ultimately in control of games that are made by Third Parties and their DLC. It's the Third Party Developers who are at the wheel. Your anger at the Wii U not getting the same kind of support for those games would be more effective if it was directed at them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

The ME games for instance... they should have ensured that they are THE definitive version of it. All DLC from all 3 included, right off the bat, plus upgrades, and maybe even some exclusive content on top of that. Instantly a worthwhile purchase for anyone who didn't have them already.

---

They did include all the DLC for Mass Effect 3 up to it's release with the Wii U version. That wasn't the issue. The problem was that EA pretty much shot themselves in the foot by releasing a better more appealing deal on the PS3, 360, and PC that was aimed at the exact same audience. Would you honestly buy Mass Effect 3 with all its DLC on the Wii U for $60 when you could get all three games on the 360, PS3, or PC for the same or less in one big bundle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Semmie

Ik know bro. You at least make arguments and balance them. But knuckleduster clearly jumped into this thread with the intention to disagree and complain regardles.

And that is why inclassified him as a troll. Plus he is a liar. And it is hard to respect such a person
I have to confess that i basically ignore most of him just to keep the peace in me.

Treckies got valid points. So do u. And even the ones that disturb me. But if they are facts who am i to talk against them.

Knuckles however does that.
Liar and a troll

So its not you ;)

---

http://i.imgur.com/xqjErKg.gif


Nintendo doesn't have it's shit together to be worth $299 and the future is bleak. It's time for them to hemmorage their money on consumers directly with another price drop. I bet it won't happen though, maybe after E3 teases shiny new games that won't come out until 2015.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

So Nintendo should babysit every single third party developer to make sure they are doing what they are paying some of them to do?

---

For the moment? Absolutely. If they are paying them, they should make sure what they are paying them for is absolutely top notch. If they are not paying them for anything and it's a major release, they should be inquiring if there is anything they can do to help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Yet Nintendo is the only one of the three that has actually made money these past few generations. Coincidence?

---

That is because of their business strategy to sell the console at a profit vs SONY/MS's choice to give more hardware and take it as a loss. I can respect that, but I also think it's an issue in that I think they are just unconcerned with the situation because they are still making money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

The problem with that is that it can become a slippery slope really fast. That could easily lead to a situation where regardless of how much sales the DLC would get, Nintendo would be forced to pay extra for it due to those developers essentially blackmailing them for it. The bottom line is that Nintendo isn't the one ultimately in control of games that are made by Third Parties and their DLC. It's the Third Party Developers who are at the wheel. Your anger at the Wii U not getting the same kind of support for those games would be more effective if it was directed at them.

---

MS and Sony have been doing this for awhile. They need to get interest in the wii u, if the system sell well, has a good base of users, and is shown to have a market to sell these games, devs will put it out on it. It's only a slippery slope if Nintendo keeps half assing it and this is the ONLY way they are going to get things going on the wii u for the life of the system. In which case it's still worth it for the gamers just to provide them with games to play on this system.... or are you content with the wii u being the "alternate" system only for Nintendo games? That is what Nintendo seems fine with, and I personally think they should strive for more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

They did include all the DLC for Mass Effect 3 up to it's release with the Wii U version. That wasn't the issue. The problem was that EA pretty much shot themselves in the foot by releasing a better more appealing deal on the PS3, 360, and PC that was aimed at the exact same audience. Would you honestly buy Mass Effect 3 with all its DLC on the Wii U for $60 when you could get all three games on the 360, PS3, or PC for the same or less in one big bundle?

---

[/quote]
Yes, ME3... not the whole trilogy, and didn't bring all the DLC even for 3 to it. This was a huge trilogy with lots of fans. Many people know about it, and some may have wanted to get it on this new Nintendo system even had they not had it already. This should have been, as I said before, THE definitive release of the whole thing... start to finish. Complete with all DLC past, present, and future, that was not contractually locked to something else. That was not, and is not the case... and Nintendo should have doggedly pursued them, even offered to do the port themselves free of charge and publish if needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

PS3 had Mass Effect 3 on the same day the as the 360. It had Mass Effect 2 in 2011. But what I'm talking about is the release of Mass Effect Trilogy. You know, the release that had all 3 games included in one package for the price of one game? That same release that EA put out on the 360 and PS3 around the same time they put out Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U. How could they possibly think people would buy copies of Mass Effect 3 in droves for the Wii U when they could get all three games for the same price on their 360, PS3, and PC? That's what I mean by the issues of self fulfilling prophecies with Wii U third party support. You can't expect a game like Mass Effect 3 to sell well at full price on the Wii U when you are selling Mass Effect Trilogy for the same price on PC/PS3/360 when your intended audience for Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U are the people who missed out on the series. They were essentially competing with themselves.

It may have been a bit much to port all 3 games in that amount of time, but considering the port wasn't even handled by Bioware but was outsourced, they could have probably outsourced the other two ports. But if that's unrealistic, there's another option they had. That option was to go in understanding it wouldn't sell well, not because Wii U owners don't buy third party games, but because they were competing with themselves. But instead of going "Hmm, maybe that wasn't the best planned release" and learning from their own mistake, they instead decided to blame Wii U owners and drop support.

---

I'm well aware of the PS3 having Mass Effect 3 on the same day as the 360. I even brought that up, that the PS3 had ME3 before the trilogy was released. I waited for the Trilogy to arrive, before buying it on the PS3, because I didn't want the gimped experience and already had the 1st 2 chapters on the 360.

How would anyone expect the Wii U version of Mass Effect 3 to sell well, or sell the console for that matter? The console had to have all 3 chapters, with enhancements and added content the other versions didn't have, for it to really matter. Again, you keep thinking that it is on EA, when it's on Nintendo to ensure that 3rd party publishers are taken care of and giving their console the proper treatment. This goes all the way back to the previous consoles and how Nintendo has handled 3rd party support. Nintendo wouldn't let Square produce games for the GBA, unless they made a game for the Gamecube, so Square gives them Crystal Chronicles in return. Nintendo floods the Wii marketplace with really crappy shovel-ware and dilutes the overall appearance of quality software for the console. 3rd party publishers get upset because their software isn't selling well enough (and don't give me that goofy list of good selling Wii 3rd party titles), so they eventually just walk away from Nintendo.

Nintendo could have put the effort in to ensure that they got all 3 chapters for the Wii U. They could have offered to port the 1st chapter, much like how Sega provided team members to help with the development of Resident Evil: Code Veronica for the Dreamcast.

3rd parties owe Nintendo nothing. They are in the business to make money. They are not in the business to lose money just to make Nintendo look good. Nintendo needs to be a humble company, that kisses the asses of every 3rd party publisher they can get. They need to ensure that those companies make money, even if it requires Nintendo to send cash their way.

Quote:

---

I'm aware of that, it was probably because it didn't sell well because the intended audience bought the better deal with Mass Effect Trilogy on the PS3/360/PC.

---

Again, this goes back to Nintendo. They could have sent money EA's way, or offered them cash incentives if the DLC didn't reach x amount of units, to ensure that they do get that content. Why can't you understand what people are saying about this?

Quote:

---

They probably put some money down to get EA to support the system with ports of their most popular current gen games. EA were the ones who stupidly decided to compete with themselves though.

---

What is that supposed to mean? Yeah, Mass Effect 3 was competing with 3 other platforms. It was not like getting the title on the Wii U was a big deal, much like getting the Armored Edition Batman game wasn't either.

Quote:

---

They did include all the DLC for Mass Effect 3 up to it's release with the Wii U version. That wasn't the issue. The problem was that EA pretty much shot themselves in the foot by releasing a better more appealing deal on the PS3, 360, and PC that was aimed at the exact same audience. Would you honestly buy Mass Effect 3 with all its DLC on the Wii U for $60 when you could get all three games on the 360, PS3, or PC for the same or less in one big bundle?

---

All of that DLC was on the disc. It wasn't really DLC for the Wii U.

And real question is: Why would you buy Mass Effect 3 (Wii U), or a Wii U for that matter, of you already have a 360 or PS3.

Nintendo needs to do what MS did with the 360. Secure exclusive rights to a big name franchise, or a franchise that has the potential to be big. There's this little franchise called Fallout, that is going to have a title released really soon. You would think that Nintendo could secure a 3 to 6 month exclusive for Fallout 4, but Nintendo is too proud of a company to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Solid-State takes up less space making the console smaller.

---

This reminds me of the pathetic excuse they had for sticking with cartridges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

This reminds me of the pathetic excuse they had for sticking with cartridges.

---

That may have been their excuse, but the reason was to control the medium on which their games were distributed (which also allowed them to force publishers to manufacture a minimum number of games and to charge a bigger chunk of money than necessary for manufacture). It obviously blew up in their face.

I like the Wii U much better than the Wii, but then again, my tastes haven't usually gone along with the console favorite of any generation, save the Atari 2600. I recognize the shortcomings of some of Nintendo's decisions with the Wii U. I don't think it's a good choice as a main system as it has limited media capabilities and low developer support. However, I can see it as a great complement to a main console. As an occasional gamer, there's still a ton of PS3 games for me to play and I won't really need to upgrade from that perspective for many years (all the while I can pick up cheap games). I think my next console will be a Wii U next year as a complement to my PS3 which will allow me to play Nintendo's high quality exclusives with my 8 year old daughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

This reminds me of the pathetic excuse they had for sticking with cartridges.

---

just oftopic. i still remember it as a dark day when cds came out. cartridges are quality and can live a lifetime handled correctly. a cd can even damage because of sun or any silly reason. some cds will stop working after 4 years. dont ask why those strange things happen. they had good easons staying with cartridges. unfortunately they were not stimulated to keep doing that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Semmie

just oftopic. i still remember it as a dark day when cds came out. cartridges are quality and can live a lifetime handled correctly. a cd can even damage because of sun or any silly reason. some cds will stop working after 4 years. dont ask why those strange things happen. they had good easons staying with cartridges. unfortunately they were not stimulated to keep doing that

---

Even in 1996, the benefits of CDs completely out-shined the benefits of cartridges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

Even in 1996, the benefits of CDs completely out-shined the benefits of cartridges.

---

ofcourse it did.

but cartridges were stronger.

is that an opinion or a fact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Semmie

ofcourse it did.

but cartridges were stronger.

is that an opinion or a fact?

---

A fact, and a sacrifice that had to be made when moving to CDs. As CDs had 1/5 the manufacturing costs, and 45x the storage space.

You would need 45 N64 cartridges, to match the storage space of a single CD.

Cranky Kong? Nintendo, are you fucking kidding me?!? I called it. Reggie dropped a turd at the Spike TV VGX awards show.

Link--->http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/12/...ropical-freeze

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REhVNpMSrGY