|
The Taint Reaper posted:3d World should have been a launch game, not a game that appears more than a year into the console's life. He could have said NSMBU, or ZombiiU, and the point would stand. However, as far as the graphics not appearing upgraded currently, that's going to be changing before too much longer. I imagine Watch Dogs will be the first game where there's significantly better visuals on PS4/XBO, and the difference in graphics is only going to increase from there.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
Astro7x posted:You're missing my point, those are two DIFFERENT games you mentioned. As jaded as you are on the NSMB series, they are actually different games with their own unique set of levels. Jaded? Hell no, I love them, I'm a big fan of 2d platformers. But aside from resolution, I can't tell the difference. The reason that's different to, say AC4, is that the AC4 versions are ports of the same game - wheras NSMB Wii and Wii U are different games, coded specifically for the system they're on. You were the one saying that upgraded graphics aren't a selling point. I agree, and judging from WiiU's sales, most people do. Going by sales, that argument doesn't seem to be bothering the ps4/bone buyers. In terms of setup - I don't know if it's a massive factor, but the budget console market are less likely to own HDTVs. If you don't own one, a huge chunk of the 'upgrade' to WiiU is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Seeing how well HD rerelease did for Sony, I think Nintendo should be paying a B team to give us HD rereleases of some of the bigger Wii games. They would expand the game library and be relatively cheap to produce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:Seeing how well HD rerelease did for Sony, I think Nintendo should be paying a B team to give us HD rereleases of some of the bigger Wii games. They would expand the game library and be relatively cheap to produce. I wouldn't think that a B-team is something that Nintendo would be down with handling classics, at least I'd hope so as there's good examples as to why that's a bad idea. Look at what a B-team did to the Zone of Enders Collection on the PS3 and 360. It was basically a disaster, may be responsible for killing Zone of Enders 3, and the patch that fixed things to run smoother ended up only being on the PS3 version of the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
I actually had a nightmare about buying a WiiU and then not figuring out that there weren't any games I wanted. And I don't even think about home console poo poo all that often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
I would love the idea of Nintendo having a skilled dedicated Legacy Software team for handling classic games both for VC purposes and for more involved HD ports of Gamecube games and onwards, but it's hard to tell how financially viable it would be to spend resources in that way, and I'm guessing the answer is "not very".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:I wouldn't think that a B-team is something that Nintendo would be down with handling classics, at least I'd hope so as there's good examples as to why that's a bad idea. Look at what a B-team did to the Zone of Enders Collection on the PS3 and 360. It was basically a disaster, may be responsible for killing Zone of Enders 3, and the patch that fixed things to run smoother ended up only being on the PS3 version of the game. Honestly, I'm not sure if Nintendo has a B-team. They seem to keep their dev teams perpetually under-manned, then the recruitment process that they have that was posted several pages ago just keeps them that way. Didn't they pull people off of the Mario team or something for the WWHD port?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Has Nintendo released a Nintendo-themed Little Big Planet rip off? If not, what are they waiting for? It would simultaneously help address the fact that they have no idea what consumers want anymore and the fact that they have barely any content on their console, because consumers could generate their own content and share it. They could print money by periodically releasing content packs (Pilotwings pack, Metroid pack, etc.). Just give people a sandbox where they can create their own Mario levels, Kart tracks, Zelda dungeons, all that. I imagine they wouldn't want to do it because it would dilute the brand or whatever, but they're doing a pretty good job of flushing all their brands down the toilet on their own anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Probably like 1/3 of the stuff available for LBP is "look at my recreation of the first 20 minutes of Earthbound in LBP's engine" or "hey guys.....MARIO" so it would be a huge success for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Problem being that Nintendo don't understand user generated content. See the picture chat stuff which was nixed because people drew porn or whatever on it. Also, it'd stop them from being able to charge $50 every time they bring out a new 2D mario game (aka New Super Mario Bros Level Pack).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
Mr.Unique-Name posted:Didn't they pull people off of the Mario team or something for the WWHD port? You might be thinking of the new Zelda game for 3DS; according to the Iwata Asks article, they broke up the three-man prototype team because they needed all hands on deck for Skyward Sword and Nintendo Land. WWHD was the exact opposite of what you're describing - the core team within Nintendo was very small (six or seven people plus management, from what I recall) plus an external studio that did all the gruntwork, and it was done in around six months. (Incidentally, the external studio was Hexadrive, the same dudes who were hired to fix ZOEHD.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:Problem being that Nintendo don't understand user generated content. See the picture chat stuff which was nixed because people drew porn or whatever on it. It's true, all of their major attempts at it are of the ephemeral variety, completely opposite stuff like Twitch or sharing stuff with your friends/saving it and so on. Look no further than Elektroplankton, which I found amazing personally but, well...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
Animal Crossing? Flipnote? Pushmo/Crashmo, even.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
PaletteSwappedNinja posted:Animal Crossing? Flipnote? Pushmo/Crashmo, even. Is there anything stopping me from making dickbutt patterns in animal crossing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
To the people saying they can't get rid of the gamepad because of the existing games that use it, why couldn't they just patch the games to not require it? I mean, I was under the impression that aside from two or three games the most they use it for is an inventory or map screen. They can just send out a patch.MechaCrash posted:The tablet that people keep saying should be removed to bring down the costs. The tablet isn't selling. It would appear the consumers don't give a poo poo about it. The argument that somehow the tablet adds more value than the ~$100 it adds to the retail price is pretty ridiculous to me. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:To the people saying they can't get rid of the gamepad because of the existing games that use it, why couldn't they just patch the games to not require it? I mean, I was under the impression that aside from two or three games the most they use it for is an inventory or map screen. They can just send out a patch. You are incorrect. Many games use them for smaller elements or minor features which would then become unavailable. It isn't enough that they are unplayable without the gamepad but it is enough that you'd be removing or disabling features or rendering parts of the game unavailable. It isn't a trivial or easy thing to patch games like that. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You are incorrect. Many games use them for smaller elements or minor features which would then become unavailable. It isn't enough that they are unplayable without the gamepad but it is enough that you'd be removing or disabling features or rendering parts of the game unavailable. It isn't a trivial or easy thing to patch games like that. Yeah it probably won't be trivial but it's not like they're doing anything else at the moment besides watching this sink Titantic-style. You keep insisting that getting rid of the gamepad will make consumers want this thing even less, and I just don't see that. The gamepad is not selling consoles. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
A big part of it is also the matter of dedicating resources and manpower sensibly. Pulling programmers working on upcoming games, thereby delaying those titles, so that they can go back to work on already-completed games in order to remove a feature? loving preposterous, sorry. The common response is "Well would it be a worse strategy than what they've gone with so far?", and my answer to that is yes. It would be worse and dumber. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:Problem being that Nintendo don't understand user generated content. See the picture chat stuff which was nixed because people drew porn or whatever on it. They could still charge (maybe not $50) for their own level packs, other developers do (Trials for instance). This is all a pipedream of course, Nintendo doesn't seem capable of pulling something like this off even if they were willing too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
Papercut posted:They could still charge (maybe not $50) for their own level packs, other developers do (Trials for instance). This is all a pipedream of course, Nintendo doesn't seem capable of pulling something like this off even if they were willing too. Sure, if you ignore the repeated instances of them actually doing this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Yeah it probably won't be trivial but it's not like they're doing anything else at the moment besides watching this sink Titantic-style. You keep insisting that getting rid of the gamepad will make consumers want this thing even less, and I just don't see that. The gamepad is not selling consoles. Because it would mean spending time and resources they could be using on other things which also add value to the system instead to devoting resources to 'fixing' old games, as well as further alienating their few loyal third party developers by telling them to either spend money patching their own games or be left with a bunch of games that will no longer sell even the limited amount they did on the Wii U. The Gamepad was not a good idea but they are stuck with it because the cost of getting rid of it is significant and the benefits of removing it are not compelling enough to overweight the costs, even if we weren't taking Nintendo's pride into account. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Yeah it probably won't be trivial but it's not like they're doing anything else at the moment besides watching this sink Titantic-style. You keep insisting that getting rid of the gamepad will make consumers want this thing even less, and I just don't see that. The gamepad is not selling consoles. The problem is that it's a lot of work done on games that probably won't see much of a rise in numbers sold. While consoles are steadily getting better, they aren't getting close to how games perform on Steam during sales. Dustforce made a huge amount of money when it was on sale, far more than its already solid launch. There's plenty of incentive to keep supporting a game because of those Steam sales boosts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:A big part of it is also the matter of dedicating resources and manpower sensibly. Pulling programmers working on upcoming games, thereby delaying those titles, so that they can go back to work on already-completed games in order to remove a feature? loving preposterous, sorry. Why do you think future software is going to help the WiiU in any way? If they pull manpower from future games I think it's safe to say it won't hurt much. And why do people keep dancing around the issue of the price? The reason given that they can't remove the tablet is that it will break some games. Okay, so fix the games. Do you not think that slashing the price is their best option? They can't do that without removing the tablet. And no, the tablet is not a system selling feature. The consumers don't care. This isn't an advertising problem either. If it's that much of a burden to patch games then just cut the tablet and don't patch them. The amount of rationalization in this thread is incredible. Apparently nintendo's best option is to do what they're doing right now, and literally every other one is worse. ImpAtom posted:Because it would mean spending time and resources they could be using on other things which also add value to the system instead to devoting resources to 'fixing' old games, as well as further alienating their few loyal third party developers by telling them to either spend money patching their own games or be left with a bunch of games that will no longer sell even the limited amount they did on the Wii U. Wait, what are the costs in removing it? If they don't patch the games the costs are zero. And do you think that cutting the cost by up to $100 won't sell any more consoles? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Why do you think future software is going to help the WiiU in any way? If they pull manpower from future games I think it's safe to say it won't hurt much. Is this a serious post? The Wii U's most effective selling point is the expectation that, if nothing else, it will continue to be supported with Nintendo software. Cutting into that software pipeline would be nuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Wait, what are the costs in removing it? If they don't patch the games the costs are zero. And do you think that cutting the cost by up to $100 won't sell any more consoles? For one it would only increase the brand confusion and frustrate consumers who already are having trouble telling the difference between the Wii and Wii U. It would hurt their consumer image worse, reduce the number of games they have coming out... basically there's no good argument here beyond "$100 cheaper = more sales" without any associated thought about the problems it would cause. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
So their only option is to continue what they're doing right now, every other one is worse? I thought that was reasoning that has been causing them to decay for the past 15 years, but hey, what do I know?  Also yes, they would sell more if it were $100 cheaper. This isn't some kind of crackpot idea. And their advertising has been poo poo from day one, so you can't use that as an argument not to do this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Not every alternate strategy is worse, but yours definitely is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
Okay, so what should they do? Continue supporting a dead console for another 3+ years then release another failing console? I mean this thread has consisted of nintendo supporters shooting down every single suggestion and offering basically no alternatives. And 'fix the advertising' isn't any better an idea than cutting the price by $100, sorry. vvvvvv jesus christ then out with them. What are the solutions? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So their only option is to continue what they're doing right now, every other one is worse? I thought that was reasoning that has been causing them to decay for the past 15 years, but hey, what do I know? No. You're acting like the only solutions are "change literally nothing" and "remove the gamepad." icantfindaname posted:Okay, so what should they do? Continue supporting a dead console for another 3+ years then release another failing console? I mean this thread has consisted of nintendo supporters shooting down every single suggestion and offering basically no alternatives. No it hasn't. We in fact had this exact same argument earlier which you appear to have skipped over. I, personally, don't think the Wii U is going to recover but that doesn't mean I think they should do random things in a desperate flailing attempt to survive. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
Patching already released games is unlikely to be worth it, but the more compelling question is whether selling the gamepad separately would be worth it. Selling the Wii U for $200, half the price of the PS4, seems way too potent a concept to ignore. Yes, those buying certain games would have to pay $300 for the console and gamepad to be able to play them. But that's exactly what's already happening, so nothing would be different there. The only possible issue is one of perception. If it was made clear on the "Wii U only" box that some games may require the gamepad, and the gamepad box clearly said it could only be used on Wii U, would any remaining confusion outweigh the potential profits of cutting the price so dramatically?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No it hasn't. We in fact had this exact same argument earlier which you appear to have skipped over. I, personally, don't think the Wii U is going to recover but that doesn't mean I think they should do random things in a desperate flailing attempt to survive. Yes, it has. In this very friggin post you're doing it, alluding to some vague solutions without actually explaining any of them. Tell my why selling the gamepad separately, and selling an SKU without it for $200 is a bad idea, and what better option exists for nintendo. vvvvv Holy poo poo. You make a post saying you have solutions besides do nothing, and then say their best option is to do nothing in your very next post. Are you listening to yourself? This is ridiculous. No, cutting costs over the console's life isn't an alternative, it's loving expected. It's what every single console maker has done with every single console ever. If they didn't do that they would be doing less than nothing. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Yes, it has. The fact that you're making side arguments instead of actually posting alternatives is a pretty good indicator of this. Keep the gamepad, continue developing new software, research how to reduce the manufacturing costs on the Gamepad and system itself, reduce the price without removing the gamepad. It isn't a great solution but it is better then "uh, remove all the gamepad features and also patch all your old games!" I said earlier in the thread that I don't think the Wii U can recover. That hasn't changed. I think they can hope to minimize damage at best and screwing over their existing games and redesigning their system from the ground up isn't a good way to do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, so what should they do? Continue supporting a dead console for another 3+ years then release another failing console? I mean this thread has consisted of nintendo supporters shooting down every single suggestion and offering basically no alternatives. My take has more or less been: -Build reputation through improved services/features (specifically online support, virtual console, and media functionality) and a continued pipeline of quality software -Brand themselves as this console generation's best-kept secret, use that reputation to segue into a strong platform a few years down the line; find ways to work down the manufacturing cost and price that don't involve splitting the userbase or cutting into their software pipeline -Prepare for a new console release halfway through the PS4/XBone generation, around 2016/2017; consult heavily with developers/publishers on hardware design, and attempt to settle into a leapfrog pattern with the competition Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:My take has more or less been: Okay, this is an actual thing they could do. I agree they should do this, and they should also cut the price and sell it minus the gamepad. But fine, you've given an alternative. This is better than "keep sailing towards the iceberg and maybe cut costs some I guess".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Holy poo poo. You make a post saying you have solutions besides do nothing, and then say their best option is to do nothing in your very next post. Are you listening to yourself? This is ridiculous. No, cutting costs over the console's life isn't an alternative, it's loving expected. It's what every single console maker has done with every single console ever. No, you're just ignoring everything except what you want to hear and you're going to continue doing that because you decided that "remove the gamepad" is the miracle solution. It isn't a good solution. It would reduce the system's costs but open up a boatload of new issues, reduce the number of available games on the system, remove features from the system itself, require patching of the OS and system itself if not the games, and it is clear by this point that the Wii U's problems are more than "it costs too much." The Wii U, as I have said repeatedly, is probably not salvageable. They need to minimize the damage until they release their next system, do what they can to at least attract attention to the system as it stands (which means games), and use the time they have to make their next system what it needs to be to sell, be that a full-powered X-Box/PS4 competitor or an affordable low-price alternate to those two systems that third parties can work with. Even if the Wii U started selling gangbusters tomorrow, that isn't going to bring the third parties back. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No, you're just ignoring everything except what you want to hear and you're going to continue doing that because you decided that "remove the gamepad" is the miracle solution. It isn't a good solution. It would reduce the system's costs but open up a boatload of new issues, reduce the number of available games on the system, require patching of the OS and system itself if not the games, and it is clear by this point that the Wii U's problems are more than "it costs too much." Okay, you don't think selling it minus gamepad is a good idea. Fine. But don't accuse other people of not being open to ideas when your 'solution' is literally to continue doing what they've been doing and not change anything. Like, do you not see the irony in saying that everyone else is closed minded and hearing what they want to hear when your idea is for them to not change at all and continue what they've been doing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, you don't think selling it minus gamepad is a good idea. Fine. But don't accuse other people of not being open to ideas when your 'solution' is literally to continue doing what they've been doing and not change anything. Like, do you not see the irony in saying that everyone else is closed minded and hearing what they want to hear when your idea is for them to not change at all and continue what they've been doing? I'm not accusing other people of not being open to ideas. Your particular idea is one that has come up again, and again, and again in this thread. It has been argued to death. One of the mods literally toxxed that they would ban themselves if Nintendo removed the Gamepad. If you have other ideas, go for it. I'd love to hear a solution that isn't "Nintendo should go third party" "Nintendo should remove the gamepad" or "Nintendo should be bought by Apple."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, you don't think selling it minus gamepad is a good idea. Fine. But don't accuse other people of not being open to ideas when your 'solution' is literally to continue doing what they've been doing and not change anything. Like, do you not see the irony in saying that everyone else is closed minded and hearing what they want to hear when your idea is for them to not change at all and continue what they've been doing? Calm down buddy. I'm pretty sure Iwata isn't reading this thread so we don't really have to all come to an agreement on the best solution to present to him for fixing the Wii U.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
Kewpuh posted:Calm down buddy. I'm pretty sure Iwata isn't reading this thread so we don't really have to all come to an agreement on the best solution to present to him for fixing the Wii U. That's loser talk, come on guys Nintendo is depending on us, we can do this if we put our heads together!! Really though why is everyone ignoring the possibility of selling the gamepad separately instead of dropping it, I thought I posed a pretty reasonable question in my previous post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
AngryCaterpillar posted:That's loser talk, come on guys Nintendo is depending on us, we can do this if we put our heads together!! Because it's effectively the same splitting with all the same problems except the need to patch, but adding in the fun problem of Wii U games and Wii U w/ Gamepad games to further confuse people already confused by the Wii U/Wii. Basically making it optional is not very different from removing it all together but with slightly different potential problems, plus Nintendo still has to make the pad (and thus spend money on manufacturing.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:48
|
|