next »

[Richard Kain]

Reviving this thread from the grave now that we have a few actual details about the WiiU's launch.

Coming out in the U.S. first, on November 18th, for $300 base price and $350 for a deluxe model. (which I believe just has a larger hard drive)

Is Nintendo making the same over-pricing mistake that they did with the 3DS? Is anyone interested in picking one of these up at launch, or is the price too steep in this economy?

[TeeGee]

Not interested at all. Price is steep, past experience with Nintendo bad (except the DS), and Wii U looks like it's gonna be outdated the moment next gen comes out. Gonna wait for the library of exclusives to grow and for the price to go down before even considering it.

[Irock]

300 bucks is what I expected. It's 50 dollars more than the Wii was and it comes with a tablet controller.

The $350 version has more storage, comes with Nintendo Land and includes a bunch of plastic shit.

Not interested at all. Price is steep, past experience with Nintendo bad (except the DS), and Wii U looks like it's gonna be outdated the moment next gen comes out.

The increase in power from the 360 and PS3 to the 720 and the PS4 isn't going to be anywhere close to being comparable to the leap from the Xbox and PS2 to the 360 and PS3. The Wii U will likely get all the multiplatform games for its entire lifespan since the differences between all the consoles won't be that huge. The Wii was a different scenario because it was barely a step up from the Gamecube and wasn't even capable of HD graphics, while its competitors were miles ahead of the previous generation.

I'll probably try and get one on launch day.

[TeeGee]

From what I know, the difference between Sony/MS next gens and Wii U is still relatively significant, especially in the RAM department. Relatively small differences between specs of the PS3 and 360 could make a game feel gimped on the weaker console, so I imagine it's going to be even more pronounced here. I wouldn't want to feel that I got the short end of the stick on all my multi-platform purchases, so my interest in Wii U depends solely on exclusives and Nintendo first-party stuff.

[Richard Kain]

The $350 version has more storage, comes with Nintendo Land and includes a bunch of plastic shit.

Yes, I just found out the rest of the details. Initially I was thinking that I would be willing to go for the base model. But now that I know Nintendo Land is going to be bundled in with the deluxe model, I'm leaning in that direction. A mini-game collection featuring nostalgia-fueled Nintendo staples is something that I would want at launch anyway, and the extra memory is a pleasant bonus. An extra $50 doesn't seem so bad to me for that.

I can certainly understand why some consumers might not be interested. But I'm actually looking forward to this launch. And I think that the WiiU is going to benefit somewhat from the long lag between hardware cycles. With Microsoft and Sony both playing coy on their next hardware iterations, Nintendo will get to enjoy the spotlight this holiday season with the only "new" system on the market. It will probably manage some decent sales on novelty alone, even with the higher-than-expected price.

And there's no use sugar-coating it, they announced a higher price than most people expected. It is about in the range that I personally expected, but I was hoping they would go $50 lower in order to be more competitive with the 360 and PS3's pricing. This does give Sony and Microsoft an opportunity. A price cut on their consoles before Black Friday would give them a chance to severely hamstring Nintendo's launch-window performance. I am interested to see their reaction.

[ham and brie]

The Wii U will likely get all the multiplatform games for its entire lifespan since the differences between all the consoles won't be that huge.

I certainly wouldn't bet on that.

There's quite possibly going to be a problem with diminishing returns from the increased processing power, in terms of how the improvement will actually be perceived by players though.

[Irock]

The Wii U will likely get all the multiplatform games for its entire lifespan since the differences between all the consoles won't be that huge.

I certainly wouldn't bet on that.

There's quite possibly going to be a problem with diminishing returns from the increased processing power, in terms of how the improvement will actually be perceived by players though.

Bet against me. 400 cash dollars. Let's do it.

[Tuba]

Was expecting a lower price but, $350 for the console with more space and Nintendo Land doesn't sound bad.
Nintendo Land looks like a good party game.

The Wii U will likely get all the multiplatform games for its entire lifespan since the differences between all the consoles won't be that huge.

I certainly wouldn't bet on that.

There's quite possibly going to be a problem with diminishing returns from the increased processing power, in terms of how the improvement will actually be perceived by players though.

Not ALL the multiplatforms but most should come. I believe that the power gap between the next and current gen should be a lot smaller than the last one, development costs for AAA studios are already high enough and I personally don't see that big jump on the UE4 tech demos showed.

Also, publishers have been putting a lot more money on simpler casual games and indie stuff that don't require much processing power, those games should be easier to port now.

[Tumetsu]

I'm not really interested in this at the moment. I'm not sure if I ever get new console, but if I do, I want first to see decent library. Besides I'm probably getting new computer this fall.

[ham and brie]

Not ALL the multiplatforms but most should come. I believe that the power gap between the next and current gen should be a lot smaller than the last one, development costs for AAA studios are already high enough and I personally don't see that big jump on the UE4 tech demos showed.

I think what Epic has said about Wii U and UE4 gives some idea about how they're viewing the console's place in the next gen:

http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/gears_of_war_judgement/news/epic_happy_to_wait_for_massive_leap_in_next-gen_console_performance.html

"I'll state that I don't think it's our intention to bring Unreal Engine 4 to Wii U, but Unreal Engine 4 is going to be supremely scalable.

"We'll run on mobile phones and on a wide variety of things, so if a customer decides they want to port an Unreal Engine 4 game to Wii U, they could. But Unreal Engine 3 is a really good fit for that platform."

[TeeGee]

Not ALL the multiplatforms but most should come. I believe that the power gap between the next and current gen should be a lot smaller than the last one, development costs for AAA studios are already high enough and I personally don't see that big jump on the UE4 tech demos showed.

I think most games will come to Wii U, but will be half-assed ports with subpar quality and blurry textures. There's no point in optimizing for the weakest console of the cycle, especially as it's also the most risky one.

As for the quality jump, it's not really all about new tech. Even using an old engine, better hardware means you can just pack higher resolution textures, apply more AA, and display it all in full HD -- basically make it look like current titles on a powerful PC. Games are already developed with very high quality assets that are then scaled down for console releases, so it's not like it increases the costs that much.

[TeeGee]

As for waiting for good exclusives...

Now, that's what I'm talking about: http://kotaku.com/5942937/bayonetta-2-is-a-wii-u-game

[Richard Kain]

I think most games will come to Wii U, but will be half-assed ports with subpar quality and blurry textures. There's no point in optimizing for the weakest console of the cycle, especially as it's also the most risky one.

These expectations stem from a strange delusion that I'm surprised the market still clings to. A lot of people still want there to be one console that they can get, and then ignore all others. Essentially, they want to be able to just buy one hardware spec, and still "have it all."

By now it should be obvious to everyone that this is simply never going to happen. This is especially true of any box that Nintendo makes. As long as first-party development exists for hardware manufacturers, there will always be platform exclusives. The only way to preclude that possibility is to make it illegal for hardware manufacturers to develop games for their own systems. And that's more than a bit unreasonable.

It's time we all accepted that in order to enjoy the entire spectrum of gaming experiences, multiple hardare platforms will have to be purchased. There is never going to be just one system that will magically get everything.

[TeeGee]

People just don't want to spend money on multiple consoles, except for the most dedicated gamers with high enough income. It's as simple as that. Also, Wii is pretty unique, but PS3 and 360 essentially offer the same thing.

And from the developer's perspective -- going multi-platform simply means more money. Most AAA titles don't return a profit and companies need to take every opportunity they can get to increase sales. There's a reason why we're seeing less and less exclusives from third parties. It's good to remember that "hits" like Uncharted may actually haven't returned their investment if seen from pure software sales perspective.

[Richard Kain]

People just don't want to spend money

You could have just cut it off right there. This is the crux of what you're saying, and its true. But if you want things, you often have to pay to get them. And when it comes to video games, if you want 1st party games, you are going to have to purchase 1st party hardware, simple as that.

While it might be better economically for a developer to sell games on multiple consoles, it is definitely NOT better for a console manufacturer. Exclusive titles are the only real means they have to force players to purchase their hardware. It is the one sure-fire method they have of competing. Gamers follow the games. The blue-ocean of casual players might be swayed by novelty, but the core demographics will always follow the games. And if a hardware manufacturer can secure the games, they can secure the audience.

So the interests of budget-conscious consumers will always be at odds with 1st-party development. So there's no point in lamenting this fact. Just accept it and move on. If you are willing to go without playing Nintendo games, you don't have to buy their hardware.

[J-Snake]

development costs for AAA studios are already high enough

I hear that often. But why do you think next-gen will make development more expensive? One could think that the development already occurs with potentially high-res in mind, it is only scaled down. More power can make development easier because you have less restrictions on how you have to do the stuff, except you are pushed to fully expoit the hardware power.

[Tuba]

development costs for AAA studios are already high enough

I hear that often. But why do you think next-gen will make development more expensive? One could think that the development already occurs with potentially high-res in mind, it is only scaled down. More power can make development easier because you have less restrictions on how you have to do the stuff, except you are pushed to fully expoit the hardware power.

Well, with a more capable console, players expect more detailed graphics, more realistic animations, voice acting, a more "cinematic" experience overall... making better models and animation require more work, hence, more money. It has been like that for the last 20 years, can't see why it would change.

Unless the next gen is powerful enough that we can just make everything high-res and use that for everything, then costs should at least stay the same... 

[Eendhoorn]

Alot of user comments on blog go along the lines of "omg no 1080p? fuck you nintendo", "thanks nintendo for letting me play on a small screen instead of on my 55" full HD tv".

I can't stand this attitude, who gives a crap about graphics when the gameplay is comepletly shit. Games like Inifinty Blade are the worst experience ever, but people seem to play it solely for it's graphics. That just doesn't make any sense.

I for one think the Wii U's tablet concept opens up alot of new gameplay possibilities. Just the fact that 2 players can't see eachothers screen in multiplayer can add alot of new fun mechanics.

[Richard Kain]

Well, with a more capable console, players expect more detailed graphics, more realistic animations, voice acting, a more "cinematic" experience overall... making better models and animation require more work, hence, more money. It has been like that for the last 20 years, can't see why it would change.

Nintendo has been cheating a bit in this respect. Instead of jumping up to high-definition, they made the Wii instead, and let the 360 and PS3 blaze that particular trail for them. Now that the market is ready for high-definition systems, they are finally launching their comparably-powered hardware quite a bit after-the-fact. Instead of forcing the issue at the beginning of this hardware cycle, they get to take advantage of 3rd party development that has already been scaled up by their competitors.

Of course, that presumes that they can actually move product with the WiiU, which is not a foregone conclusion. Former success is no guarantee of future success, Nintendo still has a lot to prove with the WiiU.

[s0]

Now that the market is ready for high-definition systems, they are finally launching their comparably-powered hardware quite a bit after-the-fact. Instead of forcing the issue at the beginning of this hardware cycle, they get to take advantage of 3rd party development that has already been scaled up by their competitors.

the problem with that is: why would i want to buy a wii u to play assassin's creed or darksiders or whatever on it when i can do the same on an xbox 360 i can buy cheaper?

honestly not seeing much of an audience for this thing right now apart from the usual nintendo fanboys.