Nobody seems to realise this, but better hardware does not help sell your console. In fact, looking at all the generations, you'll find that the most successful consoles are *always* the ones with the seemingly worst hardware.
Quoting old figures from past generations does nothing to address the actual points I've made. Gaming isn't what it used to be. Circumstances change. The Wii sold because it has something the Wii U doesn't, which is a huge grip on the casual market.
Everybody, their sister and their dog wanted a Wii when it came out and for months before that, because it was completely different from what the gaming options of that time offered.
If I'm part of the vast cynical market that doesn't very much care about the GamePad, I have no reason to go to the Wii U. My games are on the Xbox and PS3 already. Future consoles will have game selections the Wii U won't.
The Wii U is going to eventually fall because of its hardware difference, as the vast majority of gamers will go on to buy the actual next-gen consoles, causing games to be made specifically for those consoles. Games that won't be on the Wii U. Which is going to be most of them.
And they have to keep selling to this market in order to stay relevant.
Which is what I'm saying they'll never do. The Wii U has very little appeal.
They don't have a Wii-sized revolution in their hands; the casual market isn't going to follow you simply because you're superficially appealing to it. They're just not that inclined to spend money on games.
That's why they're casual.
That's why they were untapped.
Yes you can. You just have to actually start making games for them. After all, many people bought a Wii AND a DS, no?
Immaterial. The Wii had a different appeal and no precedent. Casual gamers don't buy games because they're tailor-made for casual gaming, they buy them because there's a wow factor that elevates them above simple "videogames".
And the DS is a different product for a different market, fighting a different fight.
The motion controls were completely wasted potential in general. And that includes both first-party and second party games. There would've been no need if Nintendo had actually followed up on motion controls in a meaningful way instead of abandoning them half-way through.
I don't think we are disagreeing here.
Yes, because not playing the new AAA game of the week means you have no standards.
Point? You're not debating my argument. The Wii U will sell mostly out of novelty value and Mario/Nintendo loyalty, initially, and then there's absolutely nothing preventing it from losing steam and becoming a dud in the face of its next-gen superiors.
Unless there's good third-party support, amazing exclusive titles and very compelling implementation of the GamePad.
I've seen none of those, and only with them can the Wii U stand out as a console that offers something that its current and next generation competitors don't.
I'm not saying it's impossible for the Wii U to work, I'm just saying that by all visible indicators it's looking pretty bad.
You realise the only thing worse for Nintendo are the Gamecube and the Virtual Boy?
The N64 is a magnificent console not just for Nintendo, but as a console.
You would need to dumb down the interface so it's all playable with the touch pad. Also, you lose keyboard macros.
So you'd either have a simple, but dumbed down control interface, or one like on the PC, that'd end up being needlessly complicated to be touch compatible.
Both our posts are complete speculation.
But I'd argue that nothing is being "dumbed down" or "lost" if you're making new games for a new console from scratch. We're not porting games - we're supposed to be innovating here, remember? New, interesting ways to make games and controls.
Who knows.
