Official Wii U Discussion Thread

Found this a interesting read http://www.zeldainformer.com/news/comments/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-why-it-failed?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

Not Wii U per se, but was Skyward Sword doomed to fail. A lot of points are quite accurate.

That's the kind of demonstration they need to do more to show the larger audience that this is a completely new console, and what it can do.

Rockstar Will Have Sports & Family Games On Wii U, Not Sure About Hardcore Games

While Take-Two will make sports and family titles for the Wii U, its bigger core franchises have been notably absent from the list of partners. And that seems unlikely to change anytime soon.

“We haven’t announced anything,” says Zelnick on the possibility of moving the company’s mature titles onto the Wii U. “I’m skeptical.”

http://mynintendonews.com/2012/06/16/take-two-rockstar2k-will-have-sports-family-games-on-wii-u-not-sure-about-hardcore-games/

Their thinking is so strange.

This is how I envision the thinking process leading up to the decision not to release games on a Nintendo console.

Gaming Company CEO- "Hey, we are not sure we want to release our hardcore games on a Nintendo system until we know how well our games sell. "

Developer- "Okay, so how about we make some terrible shovelware games to test the water?"

Gaming Company CEO- "Brilliant! Good thinking! "

*Developer makes some crap games in a few days time*

Gaming Company CEO- "Hmmm, those awful games you made don't seem to be selling well, and they're not getting very good reception. �_� "

Developer- "Maybe it's because they are terrible?... Nahh. "

Game Company CEO- "That's it, I've decided not to release our games that are actually good and would most likely sell in droves onto a Nintendo platform. "

Developer- "Such brilliant logic! "

Game Company CEO- Thank you, I thought it up myself. 8) "

It seems like companies say "Oh, the Nintendo Systems never have any core games on them for some reason. *Proceeds to develop shovelware for Nintendo platform*"

( Edited 17.06.2012 01:02 by Hawk )

Hawk said:
It seems like companies say "Oh, the Nintendo Systems never have any core games on them for some reason. *Proceeds to develop shovelware for Nintendo platform*"

You can foot the blame thoroughly at Nintendo's door. The SNES and N64 never had these problems, both having roughly equivalent amounts of 'mature' content as competing platforms. If something didn't make it to the N64, it was because of the cartridge format.

From the GameCube onwards, Nintendo showed an increasing lack of interest in the core audience. When they could have been encouraging companies like ID to port games like Doom 3 to the GC, they were instead focusing on Mario Party and stuff like that.

Nintendo now markets itself as primarily as a purveyor casual and kiddy software. In recent months they have made motions to the contrary, which is great. I don't see it going anywhere positive, though.

Why don't Nintendo offer Rockstar a publishing deal for GTA V, for example? That game is blatantly going to be hugely successful, and one of the best games in a long time. If R* are having doubts, Nintendo could alleviate those doubts by offering to publish the game, thereby taking financial responsibility somewhat away from R*. It's not like the Wii U can't handle the game.

They should be doing things like that rather than making empty gestures alluding to the core gamers, and hoping companies see those gestures and start supporting Wii U with their marquee mature titles. They should be more hands-on, making sure that core and mature titles make it to the new console via publishing games of other developers which fall into those brackets, and making their own.

I bet Nintendo could make a really great adult's game if they actually tried. Games like ZombiU mark a glimmer of hope in that regard (I know Nintendo doesn't have anything to do with that one), but those examples are vastly outweighed by tripe.

Been thinking the same, Martin. Nintendo should be doing everything in their power to get these games on their system. Call them, knock on their door, offer them cash, publish their games - they should be doing all they can to get games like GTA5, RE6 and Tomb Raider on the Wii U. We all expected these games to make their way over, but now it looks unlikely.

Then there's the fact that Iwata recently said they won't fight for exclusives on the system, paving the way for the likes of Rayman Legends and ZombiU to eventually be released on other consoles. If you want people to buy your console and bring over Call of Duty gamers, give them a reason to. Pay devs to make games for just your console. Get those mature games on the system.

I accepted a while ago that we'll probably never get a Nintendo system that can be the go to console for everything again, and I don't mind having it as that second console that's a bit special, but what they want kinda goes against what they're doing. They're trying, but I don't know if it'll be enough. I just don't know if the Wii U will really appeal to all the casuals and COD players. Time will tell, of course.

Yeah, echoing what you all are saying, the only way Nintendo can get these games is to offer to take the risk. These companies have essentially said "we don't know if the market for our games is there", which translates to: "we're afraid we're going to lose money". This frustrates Nintendo fans - but it's also a fair concern. Especially in this economy.

Wii Dance Fitness Plus Poniez 2 is the sort of stuff that sold on the Wii this generation. Grand Theft Auto? Well, that's a riskier proposition. Especially after Chinatown Wars on DS sold below expectations. If Nintendo wants these games and the gamers who like them, they're going to have to actually do something about it this generation.

That's if Nintendo is serious about becoming the primary gaming system again. Otherwise, as Az said, they're just going to be the second system - the Zelda box as the Wii was to many of us this generation. Plug it in a when a new Zelda/Metroid/3D Mario comes out, otherwise leave it in the closet. The Wii U can be different - but it's really up to Nintendo to make sure it is.

Otherwise, as Az said, they're just going to be the second system - the Zelda box as the Wii was to many of us this generation. Plug it in a when a new Zelda/Metroid/3D Mario comes out, otherwise leave it in the closet. The Wii U can be different - but it's really up to Nintendo to make sure it is.

You've missed out on a tonne of amazing games then.

I think you guys may need to get over this defense of the Wii. (In general) I don't like the Wii's library. The Wii is the first Nintendo system that made me go multiplatform. Telling me how amazing the system is, is an exercise in futility. You can't tell me to like something. That isn't how it works. I was bored on the Wii. And it wasn't from a lack of trying.

If you love it - that's fine. Different strokes and all. But trying to tell me about how I've "missed out on great games" or "I wasn't trying" is kind of meaningless. Those games may be great to you, but they don't appeal to me.

The point of this wasn't to return to an old sore point, though. Some of you love the library. A lot were disappointed with it. It's old news at this point. What we're discussing now is how Nintendo should attract third parties for the Wii U - one of the major items people felt Nintendo dropped the ball with on the Wii. That's why I brought it up - if they fail again with third parties, for me the Wii U won't be able to be more than a second system that comes of the closet when a new Nintendo game comes out.

Hence the discussion on how Nintendo needs to go about getting third parties to develop games for the Wii U. Whether that's cash incentives, publishing, risk sharing, etc.

Okay, sorry.

Feh nevermind shouldn't have bothered.

Marzy said:
Okay, sorry.

I can never read you, Marzy. I can't tell whether you're being passive aggressive, or legitimately apologizing (which isn't necessary!).

I'm legitimately apologising.

I shouldn't have said what you like and can't like. If you don't like the library of Wii games, that's your personal choice. I personally think it has a fantastic library of games though.

Like Martin_ said, If Nintendo started publishing games from third party developers (that people actually want) I think it would go a long way in gaining back the trust of the so called "core" gamers.

I do feel that Nintendo has lost their edge recently. It seems like they aren't really sure of what kind of company they want to be. They have this great new system coming out that has a lot of potential, but they have no idea what to do with it. That's how I feel about it, at least.

And sorry Marzy, but I have to agree with Jacob on this one. While Ninty did have some really great first party titles, the majority of the non-Ninty games didn't interest me very much, but to each his own.

( Edited 19.06.2012 04:55 by Hawk )

EA Preparing for "Next Generation" of Consoles, Which Are "Technical Prowess Based" = Not WiiU

http://www.zeldainformer.com/news/comments/ea-prepping-for-the-next-generation-frostbite-2-is-just-the-beginning

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/172497/eas_core_strategy_tech_teams_.php?page=3

P100 Gameplay Demo
http://www.gamesradar.com/project-p-100-gameplay-quickplay/

( Edited 19.06.2012 06:19 by Linkyshinks )

Nintendo totally could start splashing a bit of cash for publishing deals, etc. We all know Nintendo keeps a tight reign on it's profits, and while a lot of us weren't happy with the Wii, Nintendo tapped a new market and were totally rewarded with having the most financially-successful console, this generation.

Unlike their competitors, Nintendo aren't loss-leaders. If you don't know, basically MS and Sony lost so many billions on 360 and PS3. For years each console was sold at a loss to the parent company. It cost more to make than they were selling it for (else nobody would ever buy it).

This is a risky strategy which is employed in hopes of enticing people with something powerful and affordable, writing off the losses in order to build a large install base, which in turn leads to profits from software sales. In fact, MS started this trend with the original Xbox.

Now, Nintendo has never done this. It has always made a profit from it's hardware, which is why the Wii has always seemed like a raw deal in terms of money compared to it's more powerful cousins. If Nintendo doesn't want to take such huge risks (to be fair, MS and Sony have their hands in many industries whereas Nintendo relies solely on gaming), that's fine. They could take smaller risks, though.

That's where offering real incentives for companies to issue their big marquee games on Wii U comes in. Don't want to lose billions and billions on hardware losses? That's understandable. Why not pony up much smaller amounts of cash to third parties to get their core games on the console?

It wouldn't even have to be exclusivity deals. Let's hypothetically say that Nintendo approached R* about a Wii U version of GTA V. Let's imagine that Nintendo say "We want GTA V on Wii U" and R* say "We're not sure because of X and Y", Nintendo could simply lessen the burden by offering to publish the Wii U version. This would not involve making the companies not release their games on competing platforms. It's simply saying to them "We'll take that risk for you, now go make it".

If it didn't work, Nintendo would lose some money, R* would be unaffected. I'm sure even a catastrophic flop isn't as bad for Nintendo themselves, as they own the machine and the manufacturing plants, etc etc. They don't need to buy a license to develop a game on Wii. They don't need to buy the discs and cases off of themselves for more than what they paid to make them. Etc.

Maybe it wouldn't be an immediate formula of success. But it would be something that could be built upon. Maybe that could be their strategy of incurring potential losses (they games may be wildly successful), but on acquiring top-drawer software rather than hardware.

It's not going to be an overnight thing. It's been too many years for that. The bottom-line is that if Nintendo want the core gamers back, those gamers need to be drawn to the console. That is done by giving them the games they could not get on the original Wii but could get everywhere else.

Yes, the Wii has the largest install base. But much of those users are casual gamers, which is why companies like R* do not release their games on Wii. There may be a gazillion people who own the format, but how many of them are core gamers? Not many. As has sort of been pointed out, many Wiis are left unused.

You'll notice that while the console itself is wildly successful, the software not so much. The Wii section in my local gaming outlets are smaller than the other two platforms. How often do we see Wii games populating the multi-platform chart? When they do, are they core Wii games, or casual ones?

I'm getting out of my extent of knowledge, here. I really don't have an intimate relationship with sales charts. Ultimately, as Jacob says, if Nintendo really want the core gamers back, they will have to do something about it. Making promising comments and admitting to mistakes is not going to cut it in the long run. It's a good start, but it's just a start.

If they think simply expressing those sentiments is going to bring the third parties and core gamers back whilst they carry on as normal.. well. It just isn't going to be like that. The third parties will give their big marquee games to the platform holders who have been investing in them over the years, and providing platforms where their games sell.

I know I sound very doom-and-gloom, but like some of you guys I would actually like a Nintendo console to be an attractive proposition for me once more. Unlike anybody here (I think) I don't own a Wii, never have, never will (unless some ridiculously good pre-owned deal comes along).

They've made good motions and gestures towards the core gamers recently (I hear they're finally implementing Sony and MS' persistent friends lists.. well done Nintendo), and they should continue to do so. Mere words will soon be unacceptable, though. They need to act. The sooner they act, the better.

They've got a head-start, and if they act now it will be to the benefit of everyone except MS and Sony. If they rest on their laurels, well.. PS4 and Xbox 3 are looming, and will totally and savagely dominate the core market if Nintendo give them the chance.

"Because we have the Vita, I think we can do a lot of special things. And remember, that Wii U tablet doesn't have a processor in it, so it's got to be fueled by that box sitting under your TV. We can do some pretty special things that you'll start to see on the floor this year and you'll see more over the upcoming months about what you can do when you actually have a processor in the thing that's in your hand as well.

And when you start to see how you can cross over between the two platforms - look at two of the titles that are here at E3, PlayStation All-Stars and Sly 4, for example. Both available on Vita and PS3, and there's some sort of interactivity across the board. Developers are interested in that kind of stuff."

- Sony Worldwide Studios vice president Scott Rohde

Linkyshinks said:
look at two of the titles that are here at E3, PlayStation All-Stars and Sly 4, for example. Both available on Vita and PS3, and there's some sort of interactivity across the board. Developers are interested in that kind of stuff."

- Sony Worldwide Studios vice president Scott Rohde

Plus... As I have stated somewhere else, it's a false assumption that the Gamepad has NO processor, it needs to have some sort of graphical power to decode a 60FPS stream of video, without artifacting and at a resolution which seems to be at least 480p, constantly flowing from the console and render it within mere milliseconds... Sure it can't be anything close to the Vita, otherwise it wouldn't be very affordable and/or profitable, but still...

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, some sort of touch interface could be uploaded to the Gamepad which would be able to run it as stand-alone, to alleviate some of the strain on the console, so that all the data that would travel between the console and the Gamepad would be the inputs. Because it can't have "NO processor" as was implied here. And something else that just occurred to me is that I don't see what would make that controller so power-hungry if it wasn't some form of processing hidden in its depths.

( Edited 19.06.2012 11:01 by RudyC3 )

The guy is just over-simplifying the fact that the Wii U tablet does not have a traditional gaming hardware setup - CPU, GPU, sound processor, RAM, etc. He's trying to make non computer users/gamers understand this, but he failed as well as slightly insulting the intelligence of those who he was aiming to enlighten.

Obviously it has a processor. My old-school Casio calculator has a processor in it, and it can't do a billionth of what the Wii U tablet can do. No processor at all = nothing happens. There's just no gaming-level hardware in the tablet. It's streaming in the video from the Wii U. It's basically just a touch screen that accepts a video feed, and has some manual buttons.

I think he has a point with PS3/Vita combination potentially being more powerful/flexible/whatever, but I think your point is excellent Rudy. Who the fuck wants to buy a game twice and own both of them at once? Outside of my sad N64 collecting binges (I have about four or five Mario 64 carts of differing regions/versions), not me.

I think another point to be made here is that not many developers will use this function as far as PS3/Vita goes, whereas pretty much all of them will on Wii U (I would imagine). So that takes even more wind out of this guy's sails.

( Edited 19.06.2012 14:57 by Martin_ )

Its Sony... They had something negative to say about the wii b4 it launched but still copied the feature (blatantly) that they were negative about. Expect them to do the same with wiiu but their gamepad will have A touchpad on the back and work with a kinect type camera.. No imagination

RudyC3 said:

Linkyshinks said:
look at two of the titles that are here at E3, PlayStation All-Stars and Sly 4, for example. Both available on Vita and PS3, and there's some sort of interactivity across the board. Developers are interested in that kind of stuff."

- Sony Worldwide Studios vice president Scott Rohde

Not sure consumers will be equally as interested in buying the same game twice just so they can play it accross two platforms... On WiiU you only need to buy the game once. A 40€ Sly 4 on Vita + a 70€ Sly 4 on PS3, just so you can play the same game only once but have two copies of it sitting on your shelves... I'm not so sure that's what consumers want...

Plus... As I have stated somewhere else, it's a false assumption that the Gamepad has NO processor, it needs to have some sort of graphical power to decode a 60FPS stream of video, without artifacting and at a resolution which seems to be at least 480p, constantly flowing from the console and render it within mere milliseconds... Sure it can't be anything close to the Vita, otherwise it wouldn't be very affordable and/or profitable, but still...

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, some sort of touch interface could be uploaded to the Gamepad which would be able to run it as stand-alone, to alleviate some of the strain on the console, so that all the data that would travel between the console and the Gamepad would be the inputs. Because it can't have "NO processor" as was implied here. And something else that just occurred to me is that I don't see what would make that controller so power-hungry if it wasn't some form of processing hidden in its depths.

You're right that it has to have a processor, but it's most likely nothing to write home about. Digital TV's have processors too. Heck, your TV remote has a processor of sorts too. Everything digital does. The Wii U pad probably has a very simple micro-controller purpose-built to accept an SD video feed and slap it on the screen. It has to also perform a few other functions like controlling the gyroscope and NFC, infrared etc, but again, these are pretty simple functions.

So yeah, it has a processor. But it can't run Crysis.

edit: pretty much what Martin said. lol

( Edited 19.06.2012 15:42 by Jacob4000 )

All of this reminds me of being able to link your Gamecube to your GBA. The GBA had gaming processors in it! Hardly anyone used it, though, and definitely never for anything essential to the game. I imagine it was because you can't depend on the player to own a particular handheld system, even a GBA. There's no way you can depend on people owning a Vita.

I'm pretty sure the game that used the Gamecube/GBA link the most was Zelda: Four Swords, and even then you could play it without a GBA. It was just a little less cool. Everything was just bonus, like the island in Animal Crossing to get coconuts or an extra gadget in Splinter Cell. It'll be the same with the PS3 and the Vita.

"Sony and Microsoft are going to fight over gigaflops and teraflops and GPUs and all this. In the end, it won't make that much difference. When you get to this, it makes a really big difference in the experience. Nintendo went and brought motion into the gaming sphere and while only having a tenth of the processing power was able to outsell all of them in all of these ways."

- John Carmack