There some analysts out there, I don't know if you've seen them, but they are harsh, scaremongering doomsaysers about how Wii U is going to sink like the Bismarck and Nintendo is going to go the way of Sega etc.
Whilst I believe that their 'analysis' is harsh and that their opinion holds the weight of the average internet forumer - some of what they say I can sort of agree with.
I believe that Nintendo is going to have it much tougher this round of consoles than it had with Wii. For a start, motion gaming was a much more appealing concept for everyone to grasp hold of and it was much easier to understand. What Nintendo showed with Wii U was a combination of functions that left most people watching the presentation thinking: wha? whoa? who? what now? Oh.
Now Wii U is going to be much more expensive tech than Wii was, the controller has to cost a bomb with all the functions and then it's going for wireless image streaming and a console that is, by reports ranges from either 40% more powerful than PS3, to 5 X the power of the 360. A higher price point is a crushing factor when it comes to selling a product and Nintendo is going to have to drive sales whilst looking over their shoulder to see what the other guys are coming out with.
They also shot their load early. With Wii, DS and 3DS their in built hardware USPs were revealed fairly late in the game, too late to easily copy by the other companies. You can see with Move and Kinect how the other platform holders are willing and able to mimick the features of another console to their own advantage. Wii U showed off their tablet design at E3 2011 and less than a year later we hear that Microsoft's Nextbox is in tablet form too with a wireless base station. The naive among you may try to disassociate one piece of news with the other - the more cynical wont. Regardless of whether the competing machines have a tablet form or not, you can bet that when the research guys who are making those machines saw Wii U's tablet, a lightbulb went off in their heads with ideas about what they could do with that kind of tech too. Especially if they were struggling with what 'new' features they could incorporate into the next gen so it wasn't just more of the same.
Then there is the specs gap, if there is one.
IGN is reporting that Nextbox will only be more 20% powerful than Wii U and the Sony machine has to be in the same ballpark unless they want to nuke themselves with a super high spec machine. But rumours are that Wii Us memory is going to be 2GB or less and the Frostbite engine guys recentely said that 2gb wasn't enough, 4 gb would work and 8gb would be ideal.
Will Wii U be able to use the engines of the next generation to the full or will there be a noticible gap? No one knows at this point. Mark Rein said that if a machine couldn't handle UE4 they could do Samaritan with UE3 and just use the new effects to whiz it up to Samaritan level. But then recentely Rein said that UE4 made Samaritan look like crap.
Software wise, some good support has been announced and just because it has good hardware specs, it is getting games like Assasin's Creed 3, Ninja Gaiden 3 and the newest Battlefield game. It's easy to port from 360, but will it be easy to port the games from MS and Sony's newest machines?
Ultimately balance is what is needed, whenever you see predictions about how a console will fare, it comes down to balance. Launching with what we would assume as a 1 year headstart, first year sales might not be great, the price will be high and the software and killer app might be elusive. But assuming it does have that years headstart it might afford them the prospect of dropping the price before or at the launch of the competitions machines and by then, having a few killer titles that would make the gaming audience cave and get one.
Like the 3DS, the games have to be there and the price has to be there. Then its a question of having sustained software support. Will 3rd party sales continue to drag? How will Nintendo adapt to the next gen, will they be able to scale up and manage vastly more expensive and potentially time consuming projects?
At the moment, Wii U looks solid as hardware, but its success or failure is looking more uncertain. My prediction is that the real sales will take off once the machine reaches the right price with the right software, 1st year, not great IMO.
I think they will sell good numbers, better than GC and PS3 for instance but they wont put up Wii numbers that's for sure.
And all of this depends on what the competition do. This is the stage where what you decide now affects you for the next 5 years and is unchangable. If the other guys have less appealing machines, well you know the rest.
I want Nintendo make the games they want to make. As for third parties, they should make what they want instead of waiting for someone else to show them the way.
Great post Robio.
A valid point.
First we need to know price and power and of course Nintendo software. Then we need to hear from MS and Sony too. Really I think the biggest hurdle Nintendo has at this point will be getting the hardware out at a reasonable cost. People shouldn't question their reasources or ability to make great tech, they partner with the best american PC makers for that like everyone else. It's whether they are willing to push the razor blade model they usually shy away from. I think the success of the DS gave them some confidence to increase the 3DS hardware and I think their experience with Wii will embolden them for Wii U.
Clearly for those of us who have been through all prior re-interpretations it is an up hill battle.
But there are new generations of humans growing up all the time, for whom, perhaps, the Gamecube (or even the Wii) was their first Nintendo console. And for them the magic will remain strong enough to stimulate sales.
As one who has been there from the beginning, yeah, I'm done. The Wii versions of Super Smash, Animal Crossing, Mario Party etc... are the last ones I'll buy (or at least I'll skip until the next next gen comes along).
Even Mario Kart Wii, another sequel in that long running line of games had explosively good sales.
I did not call any of those franchises "tired" for the record. Just played out for me. Mario Party 2 was hella fun, 3, good, and from there... well how many can you play?
When N does something new, like SMG or DKC, I'm down for it, but 3-4 gens of the same thing gets old, and not just for N, same goes for Hot Shots Golf, Gran Turismo, Wipeout, Halo and Uncharted.
Sorry I was using the term 'tired' as a paraphase of the general argument that swings around established Nintendo franchises and the general sentiment of the internet in general. Did not mean you specifically Pro.
There are games which can grow tiresome, Mario Party yeah.... big example right there. Otherwise for the other games you could lump so many other franchises into the mix from other companies, Halo being done to death, Assasins Creed done to death, Killzone and God of War 4 on the way etc.
What I was saying is that the point that Nintendo is in trouble unless it starts making games like the other guys has been swinging around for over a decade and Wii and DS are arguably two of their most sucessful and innovative consoles regardless of the same 'tired' franchises some peeps on the internet seem so bored with.
I think it's more important for them to balance system features, specs and price and innovate within franchises like Metroid Other M, Super Mario Galaxy etc and do more to court western devs.