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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamahl

Yes, the SNES displays 241 colors ;).

---

Yeah, sorry. I couldn't find SGX specs anywhere but wikipedia and I just grabbed the SNES specs there too. I should have known better. While I was there I also learned the Genesis displays 4 colors on screen out of 8 and sold 4 million units ;)

Quote:

---

1987 PC Engine - technologically relevant

1988 Genesis - technologically relevant

1989 SuperGrafx - pfft.

1990 SNES - technologically relevant

---

I don't really see it that way. The SGX was an awesome piece of kit, just a shame it got no support. Imagine if it was used along with the CD, Jaysus. The more I learn about the SNES hardware, the more I see it as a weirdly designed mess with a couple graphical tricks up its sleeve that were relevant in 1992.

the wii u is an excellent console and the gamepad is a good idea that has changed my way. in my opinion all controllers in future should have a main gamepad with screen. and the normal gamepad should also get a screen with the size of the screensize of vmu dc but twice as big.
honestly it is really handy

^...just ..just go away discuss mipmapping draw distance and texture managment with team adromeda for all i care

you wil be just as clueless in that department as you are in here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

In order to have the Voice commands and motion controls of the Xbone you need to invest in extra hardware as well. That hardware would be almost as expensive, if not more so, than a cheap android tablet.

Or you can pay a bit more and get a device like the nvidia shield, which is EXACTLY what the gamepad is, for the PC, except it's also a full blown handheld.

But again, no matter what the case, very few games will ever likely take advantage of such hardware in any way beyond some real basics.

The wii-u is no more special there than anything else... it's not a magic box, and neither it or the kinect offer anything that's being asked for by the masses as a capability on the PC.

---

No the Wii-U is not a magic box, but again its different because of the control pad. Without the control pad what does the Wii-U have to offer? Why should a consumer buy a control padless Wii-U over a 360 or PS3? in terms of hardware spec they are closer together than to a PS4 and XboxOne. You propose removing the pad to lower the price, to say $199, I can get a 360 or PS3 for that PS3 360 That both have a huge library of games, that I can buy cheaper because its last gen?

Or if say the consumer already has one, why buy yet another system for $199, that has very limited 3rd party support and that will not offer a true next gen experience in terms of graphics and features? I mean I get the theory that the lower price point will cause more sales, but I don't think that sacrificing the only thing that makes the Wii-U stand apart from its LAST gen competition is a smart move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

I don't know anyone who would dump 15-bit shading, over having more sub-palettes.

1987 PC Engine - technologically relevant

1988 Genesis - technologically relevant

1989 SuperGrafx - pfft.

1990 SNES - technologically relevant

---

You do, you're just announcing once again that you believe everyone thinks like you do.

The SuperGrafx could have done a port of SFII which looked like the 3DO version, only with layered background scrolling. The sprite abilities would allow Neo Geo ports with the same sized and number of sprites and no flicker. The SuperGrafx can display more screen coverage with sprites at 512 x 224 resolution than the SNES can at 256 x 224 resolution.

The SNES launched with games that didn't run properly. If it was the first 16-bit gen console, that would be one thing. But it was "technologically irrelevant" by launching over 3 years into the 16-bit generation and less than 3 years before 32-bit gen consoles were released. Between the launch of the first 16-bit gen console and Nintendo's post-16-bit gen console, there were 14+ game consoles/platforms which all supported the CD format. The only console which didn't was the SNES and there would only ever be one more console which would not support disc-based games: the Nintendo 64.

If any console can be dismissed as not being "technologically relevant", it's the SNES.

^ and what has the wii U to offer anyway ?
other then half assed ports of ps 3 and 360 games

down graded ports of ps4 xbox one games

and stale played out rehashes of the same ip's nintendo has been rehashing for the past 25 years and flogging them for full price and pretending its something new ?

not even a price tag of 199 is enticing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Semmie

the wii u is an excellent console and the gamepad is a good idea that has changed my way.
in my opinion all controllers in future should have a main gamepad with screen.
and the normal gamepad should also get a screen with the size of the screensize of vmu dc but twice as big.
honestly it is really handy

---

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__...onanimiert.gif
And the Theme Song for added effect.

.

The console is from 1989.

Still only got 512 colours? check

still using 6-channel tiny-PCM? check

still using a processor that isn't as powerful as a 68K? check

I stand by the fact that, that thing could've been a little more beefed-up before being released.

I still want to know how they can promote Off-TV play for future games, but games with higher reliance on the Gamepad for that second screen function.

Seems like you can only really support one or the other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

The console is from 1989.

Still only got 512 colours? With better management of them? check

still using 6-channel awesome, crisp, unique sounding WSG instead of memory choked samples? check

still using a processor that isn't as powerful as a 68K, but still runs circles around the 1 year-newer SNES? check

I stand by the fact that thing is completely awesome.

---

FIFY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

The console is from 1989.

---

So is the Genesis.

Quote:

---

Still only got 512 colours? check

---

Again, you can't quantify the 512 color/32 palettes vs 32Kcolor/16 palettes. You simply state matter-of-factly that it produces far worse visuals.



PCE <-----------------------------> SFC

http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/wh2_pce_2.pnghttp://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/wh2_sfc_2.png
http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/wh_dm_pce_2.pnghttp://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/wh_dm_sfc_2.png
http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/wh2_pce_3.pnghttp://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/wh2_sfc_3.png
http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/wh2_pce_4.pnghttp://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/wh2_sfc_4.png

http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/art_pce_3.pnghttp://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/art_sfc_3.png

http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/FFS_pce_1.pnghttp://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/FFS_sfc_1.png



And if PC Engine/SuperGrafx color looks that much worse to you with 32 palettes, then how are you even able to look at Genesis games?

Quote:

---

still using 6-channel tiny-PCM? check

---

It was actually:

6 WSG/digital audio channels
1 adpcm channel
1 redbook channel

versus

8 adpcm channels


But the hardware released later on with inferior audio has superior and "relevant" sound?

Quote:

---

still using a processor that isn't as powerful as a 68K? check

---

As far as running 2D games, it is comparable to the Genesis, while the SNES cpu is more comparable to the previous generation. Again, this makes the SNES "technically irrelevant".

Quote:

---

I stand by the fact that, that thing could've been a little more beefed-up before being released.

---

PC Engine games already toss around as much action as Genesis games. Adding second tile layer and twice as much sprites (enough to make 512 pixel wide resolution viable for any genre) was overkill, that's why it was unnecessary.

The SNES would have greatly benefited from dropping or cutting down superfluous effects in order to beef-up more. Or more importantly: launched as a CD-only system.

the megadrive is from 1988

Notice the dithered, non-transparent life bars in the SFC World Heroes.

Quote:

---

still using 6-channel tiny-PCM? check

---

The GBA was still using 4 core gameboy channels, with only 2 added sample channels (no pitch bending or volume; just two DACs - left and right). The SGX has a revised audio chip, it can stream up to 44khz streams no sweat with ~less~ cpu resource than the PCE did with 7khz. And that can be for any channel or a combination of channels. Even the GBA didn't do that. Plus, these are 'CORE' systems. The CD format still would have dominated on the SGX; so Red book and ADPCM. And there you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

PCE <-----------------------------> SFC

---

I'm not really disagreeing with you or anything, but that's not the fairest example to use.

Hudson Soft did the SNK ports themselves if I recall. The SNES had crappy ports by Takara.

I don't get why you guys don't see that having more colours is better. Those PCE ports have higher contrast, rougher shading.

512 colours was okay for 1987.

Genesis was released in 1988, still had 512 colours. Could've been bumped up to maybe 4096, but not that big of a deal.

SuperGrafx released in 1989, blows everyone away by its wide array of colours available. Not 15-bit, 12-bit, or even 10-bit, but 9-bit!!!


I aint some SNES fanboy, it has crap CPU, the sprites are stupidly handicapped, ugly console, but it still seemed more technologically relevant than the SuperGrafx.

We should whip out Daimakaimura for comparing the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

I don't get why you guys don't see that having more colours is better. Those PCE ports have higher contrast, rougher shading.

---

It has more colors, but a lot of games exaggerate that faded look. It's like I'm in Taiwan, trying to play a game with that thick as shit smog making everything faded. No good. More colors is always nice, but pillow-shading sucks and so does faded looking graphics. It's not that 512 colors is better, but it's that you can still do a lot with 512 colors. Only a very few areas are actually deficient in that small palette. And that's mostly darker browns and oranges.

Quote:

---

We should whip out Daimakaimura for comparing the two.

---

Compare games. I don't need to; I know my specs and my systems. And actively dev. And Super GnG actually looks pretty decent in 9bit color (I've already did some screen snap conversions). Sure, transparency would be more limited - but a port on the SGX would mean that it would be actually playable without slowdown. Even run at a higher resolution, too. Imagine that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KitsuneNight

^...just ..just go away discuss mipmapping draw distance and texture managment with team adromeda for all i care

you wil be just as clueless in that department as you are in here

---

Yeah man your the clever one here. ;)

Why the hell do the SFC shots make the characters look so much smaller in comparison? And Sega how in the hell did they allow the older PCE to outdisblay the MD in terms of color?

Just because a system is more capable doesn't mean that it's games are automatically better. I've seen plenty of SNES games that I swear used only gradient shades of brown and gray for their graphics. The same could be said for the Genesis and PC Engine. There are arcade games out there running less powerful chips than the Genesis has, but with artwork that is better than most of what is on the Genesis. It all comes down to the talent of the individuals and how they use the systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obviously

I'm not really disagreeing with you or anything, but that's not the fairest example to use.

Hudson Soft did the SNK ports themselves if I recall. The SNES had crappy ports by Takara.

---

They're examples of good color in the same games on both consoles, which hold up well to the source material in this aspect.

I had other examples I was about to post, but that's already quite a few images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da_Shocker

Why the hell do the SFC shots make the characters look so much smaller in comparison? And Sega how in the hell did they allow the older PCE to outdisblay the MD in terms of color?

---

In theory, cart space could have been an an issue in SNES fighting games, except that several Genesis games have large sprites in games with a variety of sizes. It seems to be that the SNES 2-size sprite bottleneck keeps fighting games stuck to a lowest common denominator. Games with consistently larger sprites like that Gundam Wing ED and WeaponLord have all the characters at the same size. I believe that the sprites in the PCE Neo Geo ports are all the same height as the arcade versions, but have been narrowed proportionate to the narrower screen resolution. So they're arcade-sized on a TV screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KitsuneNight

^ and what has the wii U to offer anyway ?
other then half assed ports of ps 3 and 360 games

down graded ports of ps4 xbox one games

---

It's a real problem. I think the strategy was to offer developers something that would make porting from PS3/360 possible, and then to maybe move on to unique titles focusing on the consoles strengths. The problem is, third parties don't work that way, especially the big publishers. They want the biggest return for the lowest investment, which means revisions of old games across as many platforms as possible with little or no attention to crafting a great game.

And then of course, there was the earlier than expected launch of the PS4 and XBOne.

Nintendo still want to offer a unique and interesting experience, but somehow still haven't wised up to the fact that the rest of the industry doesn't work that way and hasn't done for quite some time.

Let me add some background on the opinion. After the 3DS launched, Nintendo make a big effort to try and get publishers back on board with the system. For some reason, giving third parties a year of breathing space wasn't working. The logic being that the biggest complaint was that was difficult to compete against Nintendo titles. However, all the publishers were (rightfully) pointing out that 3DS install base was too low to make the investment and the big question they all asked was; when are Nintendo going to release software to drive up sales so they can bring software to the platform.

Ok. Fast forward to last year. The 3DS was the biggest selling console thanks to a massive push from Nintendo titles. Pretty impressive for something that people claimed was dead on arrival. But publishers are still not making software for the dammed thing...why? Oh...well...apparently they can't compete against Nintendo when it comes to software. *doh*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KitsuneNight

and stale played out rehashes of the same ip's nintendo has been rehashing for the past 25 years and flogging them for full price and pretending its something new ?

---

I'd charge many publisher with the same crime on other consoles. I'm not a big Mario fan. Never was. But Zelda? That's different. But launching a new I.P. is really, really difficult and cost intensive, so Nintendo face a really difficult task in trying to balance the strength of older I.P. with the risk of introducing something new. But amy of the games *are* something new; a different twist or a new set of new mechanics - in much the same way that all of the Sonic games are the *same* game but with new additions.


Sorry....I really shouldn't talk about this stuff, and I'm not really sure I'm being balanced and objective. I just wanted to offer a slightly different slant on things.

People focus too much on Nintendo's "stale IPs" but I really disagree. It's what makes them the most money and they're usually never bad games. If you enjoy Nintendo's games they haven't given much to complain about. If anything, they're not taking enough of an advantage of their IPs as they either sit on them and do nothing if they're not named Mario or Zelda or farm them out to other parties that do a piss poor job on them (Metroid Other M, Every StarFox game after 64).

But Nintendo is only one company and not able to carry an entire market themselves. Their failure is their apparent inability to make hardware that attracts third party developers. It's a problem we've attributed to Nintendo for a very long time now but it's finally reaching a fever pitch with the Wii U.

in my opinion those who do not support wiiu :
it depends
but let me categorise

1. some just dont support nintendo because of friendpolitics. most likely an agreement with sony and MS
2. some support is but suspisiously make bad ports or injustified release of a game that had a trilogy for same price
ME3 EA
3. the third developers that really do help wii u out such as platinum and activision. you gotta respect that.
we all know how the saturn was bashed. but capcom however never stopped supporting sega. and to that i say thanks.

nintendo will surely prevail by surviving and succeeding. but they wont prevail over sony, MS they can because of MS trash planning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obviously

People focus too much on Nintendo's "stale IPs" but I really disagree. It's what makes them the most money and they're usually never bad games. If you enjoy Nintendo's games they haven't given much to complain about. If anything, they're not taking enough of an advantage of their IPs as they either sit on them and do nothing if they're not named Mario or Zelda or farm them out to other parties that do a piss poor job on them (Metroid Other M, Every StarFox game after 64)..

---

well that is what i mean nintendod oesnt seem to be interested in their own titles that are not called mario zelda metroid or pokemon
they have a huge backlog of titles few publishers could even hope to equal and they do nothing with them
nintendo is content whoring out the same titles over and over again with smal variations and ever more confusing titles

the latest 5 ( !! ) mario titles are ridicilously convoluted in their titles

mario zelda and pokemon really are turning in to nintendo's cod they change very little and you generally know exactly what to expect while nintendo tries to pass off gimmicks in lieu of real innovation

sega is one of the few companies that has a huge backlog of titles and like nintendo they do fuckall with most of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Semmie

nintendo will surely prevail by surviving and succeeding. but they wont prevail over sony, MS they can because of MS trash planning

---

Microsoft made more money with the Xbox One in mere months than Nintendo did with over a year with the Wii U. Even with all the shit M$ are doing right now, the masses are still buying their products.

^ so you mean semmie is out of touch with reality and doesnt know what he is talking about ?
just like nintendo ?

who would have thought

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Semmie

in my opinion those who do not support wiiu :
it depends
but let me categorise

1. some just dont support nintendo because of friendpolitics. most likely an agreement with sony and MS
2. some support is but suspisiously make bad ports or injustified release of a game that had a trilogy for same price
ME3 EA
3. the third developers that really do help wii u out such as platinum and activision. you gotta respect that.
we all know how the saturn was bashed. but capcom however never stopped supporting sega. and to that i say thanks.

nintendo will surely prevail by surviving and succeeding. but they wont prevail over sony, MS they can because of MS trash planning

---

So, you are saying that Nintendo is basically being bullied around by the big bad MS? And that is has nothing at all to do with Nintendo:
1) Releasing hardware that guarantees they can't get games released that are the same as the other 2 contenders (for the second time in a row I might add).
2) Not courting developers with money and/or other lucrative deals to ensure they get good games/content on the wii-u.


And if I wanted to add more onto that, I'd add their dogged determination to shy away from things that the general gaming public has embraced until it's very late in the game (well planned/implemented online features being a big one).

Obviously it's not Nintendo's fault, and they did everything 100% right, and they are just being kept down by "the man". Yup... absolutely.

I still say the issue with 3DS wasn't a software issue so much as a pricing issue. Once Nintendo fixed the latter, sales rose. Good software kept that going, of course, but good software alone wouldn't have sold a portable game system at a $250 price point. Not gonna happen in that particular product market.

WiiU is a different can of worms. Price point wasn't the issue, and really still isn't. Launching a new gen console at the price point Nintendo did has happened before. Now they're very much under that price point. No, the issue is that WiiU has faced an ever dwindling perception of value. Consumers simply do not see the value in the product as a whole (hardware or software), and Nintendo has done nothing to show those consumers any different. That's not only a development and publishing issue, but a marketing issue as well.

Again, remember the "Wii would like to play" campaign. That helped establish the value in Wii to the larger, mainstream consumer market. I dare say that, alongside interactive kiosks presenting the game experience itself, that marketing campaign helped create the value perception that Wii Sports, and the Wii hardware (Wiimote) carried at launch. Compare Nintendo's marketing efforts then to their lack of effort now. Hell, compare their lack of effort now to the effort Sony and MS expended prior to the launches of their respective consoles and the marketing push they continue to give those consoles.

Nintendo has done NONE of that. And that's a HUGE issue they need to resolve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

And if I wanted to add more onto that, I'd add their dogged determination to shy away from things that the general gaming public has embraced until it's very late in the game (well planned/implemented online features being a big one).

---

what you mean like digital purchases being linked to the account instead of the console ?
cause nintendo is so out there and so forward thinking

On the subject of kiosks:

I have only seen one single WiiU kiosk in a Gamestop in NYC. I've been to multiple locations in the city that have XBO and PS4 kiosks set up, but no WiiU kiosk at all. I went to a Best Buy the other day, no WiiU kiosk. There was, however, a 3DS kiosk. No Vita kiosk though.

It's little bits of marketing efforts like that which end up helping "get out the word" a good deal. Again, Nintendo's not really done that, and this is a major market in the US, so I can only imagine how lacking it is elsewhere.

^ nintendo is hoping to coast along on the "good" name of the wii

and well you can see how well that is working out for them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spiffyone

I still say the issue with 3DS wasn't a software issue so much as a pricing issue. Once Nintendo fixed the latter, sales rose. Good software kept that going, of course, but good software alone wouldn't have sold a portable game system at a $250 price point. Not gonna happen in that particular product market.

WiiU is a different can of worms. Price point wasn't the issue, and really still isn't. Launching a new gen console at the price point Nintendo did has happened before. Now they're very much under that price point. No, the issue is that WiiU has faced an ever dwindling perception of value. Consumers simply do not see the value in the product as a whole (hardware or software), and Nintendo has done nothing to show those consumers any different. That's not only a development and publishing issue, but a marketing issue as well.

Again, remember the "Wii would like to play" campaign. That helped establish the value in Wii to the larger, mainstream consumer market. I dare say that, alongside interactive kiosks presenting the game experience itself, that marketing campaign helped create the value perception that Wii Sports, and the Wii hardware (Wiimote) carried at launch. Compare Nintendo's marketing efforts then to their lack of effort now. Hell, compare their lack of effort now to the effort Sony and MS expended prior to the launches of their respective consoles and the marketing push they continue to give those consoles.

Nintendo has done NONE of that. And that's a HUGE issue they need to resolve.

---

Price IS an issue, as it is intricately tied to value. People didn't want the 3DS because it was expensive... people were shying away from it. They dropped the price and a bunch picked it up, but Nintendo also followed up with a bunch of games for it. And mind you, this is in the handheld market where there is generally Nintendo as king of the mountain, and everyone else fighting for scraps at the bottom... assuming they even survive long enough to fight.

The price point the wii u launched at would have been fine... had it actually been a "next gen" console. But releasing such an anemic system at the price it went for (even for the basic package) was a huge mistake.

The wii owners bought a fun and CHEAP console. The wii u didn't offer anything to anyone. It wasn't the cheap pick up and play wii that appealed to so many people the previous gen. It isn't the feature rich powerhouse that people expect of a new next gen console either.

That price, much like with Sony and the PS3 at launch, really hurt. But it's not the ONLY problem with the system, and as it has dragged on for a year, and now has 2 direct competitors, it's not even certain there is a way out of the hole they have dug.

But this has all be talked about in this thread countless times. The system has a value problem that is intricately tied to the pricing, and has now also gone well beyond that to issues with game/content releases and general features.

Turning around the system after it's already hit the iceberg isn't enough anymore, they need to do something else because the time for them to do a minor course correction to get the Wii U accepted by the masses has come and gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KitsuneNight

and stale played out rehashes of the same ip's nintendo has been rehashing for the past 25 years and flogging them for full price and pretending its something new ?

not even a price tag of 199 is enticing

---

Nintendo would not continue producing Mario after Mario if people were not buying.

Super Mario 3D World is well worth the $59.99 price tag...if you haven't played it. The levels are inventive. The sound is compelling. The sheer amount of content is overwhelming.

The bosses at Nintendo need to pull their heads out of their asses and realize simple changes will make a world of difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rusty

Let me add some background on the opinion. After the 3DS launched, Nintendo make a big effort to try and get publishers back on board with the system. For some reason, giving third parties a year of breathing space wasn't working. The logic being that the biggest complaint was that was difficult to compete against Nintendo titles. However, all the publishers were (rightfully) pointing out that 3DS install base was too low to make the investment and the big question they all asked was; when are Nintendo going to release software to drive up sales so they can bring software to the platform.

Ok. Fast forward to last year. The 3DS was the biggest selling console thanks to a massive push from Nintendo titles. Pretty impressive for something that people claimed was dead on arrival. But publishers are still not making software for the dammed thing...why? Oh...well...apparently they can't compete against Nintendo when it comes to software. *doh*

---

This pretty much hits the nail on the head for the Third Party Situation. Nothing Nintendo does will please Third Party developers (especially western ones) short of Nintendo paying the entire bill for them to develop a game. If developers don't think they can compete with Nintendo then that should be a wake up call to them to step up their game and put more effort into what they make. It shouldn't be an excuse to run away and hide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCU

Nintendo would not continue producing Mario after Mario if people were not buying.

Super Mario 3D World is well worth the $59.99 price tag...if you haven't played it. The levels are inventive. The sound is compelling. The sheer amount of content is overwhelming.

The bosses at Nintendo need to pull their heads out of their asses and realize simple changes will make a world of difference.

---

or maybe people are just buying because of mario's name reconingtion

the naming conventions alone are confusing and i dont just mean the wii U the last 5 mario games have had extremley confusing names

super mario 3d world came out last year
while 3d land came out in 2011 how do these relate to each other ? and why is the wii U title called 3d world then ?
3d land was called 3d because it had 3d features fo the 3ds but why is 3d world saddeld with 3d because its an update of super mario world from the snes ?
or because its a sequel to 3d land or because nintendo just tought it was cool

and lets not even get started on new super mario bros 2 and new super mario bros U
which are 2d games
and there is a new super mario bros 2 for the 3ds as well which is a whole different game !

how is this not confusing ?

and how often can nintendo abuse the "new" monicker ? there are at least 5 "new" smb titles since 2009
wil the next one be new new
really new
super new
or new we really mean it new smb ?

this kind if vauge naming show that nintendo just has no idea anymore what its doing if they get somthing as basic as naming the latest titles in their biggest franchise and their last console wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

This pretty much hits the nail on the head for the Third Party Situation. Nothing Nintendo does will please Third Party developers (especially western ones) short of Nintendo paying the entire bill for them to develop a game. If developers don't think they can compete with Nintendo then that should be a wake up call to them to step up their game and put more effort into what they make. It shouldn't be an excuse to run away and hide.

---

It's probably easier and more lucrative for them to make games on the Playstation4 and Xbone. I think a lot of the problem is also that devs just don't understand how to reach Nintendo's demographic anymore. They're kiddy games that are mostly being played by adults. I think that throws a lot of developers for a loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old man

It's probably easier and more lucrative for them to make games on the Playstation4 and Xbone. I think a lot of the problem is also that devs just don't understand how to reach Nintendo's demographic anymore. They're kiddy games that are mostly being played by adults. I think that throws a lot of developers for a loop.

---

I've been wondering who Nintendo's demographic is, or if they even know. They make these games with kids in mind, but kids would rather play GTA or COD. The people who buy all of Nintendo's games are 20/30-somethings. This image represents everyone I know who regularly buys/plays Nintendo games

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_Nintendo.jpg

Not sure if stupid.. or epic arms..

quite sure thats stupid