170°

Simon Says: Why the Wii U Will Be Insignificant Come Fall

Simon looks at what the near-future holds for the Wii-U and also looks at why the console hasn't been too popular recently.

Read Full Story >>
gamentrain.com
dedicatedtogamers4054d ago (Edited 4054d ago )

I don't think it will be "insignificant", but the issue is lack of support, both from Nintendo and from 3rd parties especially. Nintendo chose to launch first. There is no doubt that was intentional. However, by failing to have a killer first year, they've blown a massive advantage.

My fear for the console is this: the 3DS. Nintendo cannot afford to lose their handheld market. Through the dark days (in terms of marketshare) of the N64 and Gamecube, the handheld line always kept Nintendo afloat. Since the 3DS has more competition than ever before, Nintendo needs to make SURE that it succeeds. To do this, they have to divert attention away from the WiiU (which is what they're already doing).

I disagree with the author that it needs games like Mario Galaxy 3 (or an equivalent 3D Mario). What WiiU needs is a Wii Sports equivalent, Mario Kart, or more 2D Mario (which is the only game currently driving the hardware in large numbers). The Wii's popularity (directly due to Wii Sports, Mario Kart, 2D Mario, etc) allowed more niche titles to be developed for the system. You can't focus on the niche market first while ignoring the mainstream.

Neonridr4054d ago

4 months in does not equal the first year.

Let me guess, the Vita had a great first year and it's doomed right? Oh wait, no it isn't..

dedicatedtogamers4054d ago

You're not looking at the big picture. When the 3DS launched, it bombed. Nintendo misjudged the market. The 3DS is selling well directly due to Nintendo diverting a ton of attention to the 3DS, which they didn't anticipate. It clearly ended up diminishing Nintendo's focus on the WiiU, which is what we're seeing now.

You brought up the Vita. The reason why it is not as likely the Vita will bomb is because we're seeing games RIGHT NOW. We're seeing announcements RIGHT NOW. Nintendo, on the other hand, keeps telling us "be patient" without showing us any of those games, y'know, made from the "massive support" from 3rd party devs like Nintendo promised 2 years ago.

Neonridr4054d ago

The 3DS is selling well because it appeals to lots of people, especially in places like Japan where it continues to just move units. Nintendo has always succeeded in the handheld market because they understand what sells. Sure there are more games on the 3DS now, but that's natural as the system matures to see more titles. Just like as the Wii U matures, we will see more titles. We can both agree that once the core Nintendo titles show up (Zelda, Galaxy style Mario, Mario Kart, Metroid, Smash Bros) that the hardware will move. It's a hard sell to a new customer when there isn't much in the way of exclusives on the system right now..

Dj7FairyTail4054d ago

@dedicatedtogamers

3DS did great. It started doing bad late 2011 Spring. Then Summer it started dropping more then
Price Cut came August 2011. From Feb-Aug 2011 3DS sold 6m worldwide. At the end of the year 3DS sold over 12m.

Vita been out for a year is still at 5m while 3DS sits at 31m now.

Wii U sold 3.06m from Nov. 18 and Dec. 31 that is almost half of what Vita is at now over a year.

PopRocks3594054d ago

@dedicatedtogamers

The 3DS didn't bomb at all (a bomb is a product that ultimately was a failure like the Virtual Boy and Dreamcast), it just initially sold sluggishly until after its price was dropped and shortly thereafter two AAA Mario games were released. The only "attention" that price drop received was from all of the media outlets talking about it which only affects the likes of us who talk about games and the industry on the internet which only makes up so much of the mass market (as in not a lot). That sort of news didn't make the headlines of CNN or other mainstream TV outlets as far as I know.

"Nintendo, on the other hand, keeps telling us "be patient" without showing us any of those games, y'know, made from the "massive support" from 3rd party devs like Nintendo promised 2 years ago."

What else can they do exactly, rush out Pikmin 3 and their other titles in a broken and unfinished state? Nintendo can't exactly snap their fingers and have all the big third party devs at their doorstep you know. Furthermore (if we're talking about the Vita), exactly what third party support does that platform have right now? All I remember being announced for it since the CoD and Assassin's Creed spinoffs is Tearaway and some cross-compatible PS3/PS4 games. Yet somehow that platform is perfectly well off (not that I disagree, but I don't see how the Wii U's situation is all that different).

dedicatedtogamers4054d ago

@ PopRocks

Those games were shown off over two years ago. In the case of Pikmin, it was announced 3 years ago, originally for the Wii. Nintendo is failing to generate interest in their console because they need to make sure the 3DS is selling well. Despite what the 3DS has currently sold, keep in mind that the 3DS is selling HALF of what the DS managed to sell (30 million a year compared to 15 million a year).

The problem with WiiU compared to Vita is perception. Despite its slow start, Vita appears to be getting more games. All of the games (except for Tearaway and Killzone, I believe) shown off prior to Vita's launch are available. The few Vita games that were shown off but not launched are due within the year. WiiU, on the other hand, has several games in limbo. Will Pikmin 3 launch this year? Will Zelda U launch this year? What about Mario Kart? Nintendo isn't giving us any answers.

PopRocks3594054d ago

@dedicatedtogamers

The DS is also the second best selling platform of all time, just under that of the PS2. Besides, the 3DS is currently selling pretty well, not to mention how quickly it was selling throughout the past year.

http://www.gamedynamo.com/a...

As for the Vita assessment, that's a very fair point. You're right in that Nintendo is being secretive as usual, but let's not pretend that games without release dates are necessarily games that will never release. While I sympathize with those saying that the games are taking too long to come out, as an actual owner of the console, I'd rather wait until those games are developed at their best and released. I don't want another situation like Star Fox 64 3D where they neglected to include online multiplayer to save time and money and get the game out sooner (essentially leaving out content for the sake of an earlier release).

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4054d ago
ziggurcat4054d ago

"Nintendo chose to launch first. There is no doubt that was intentional. However, by failing to have a killer first year, they've blown a massive advantage."

actually, they blew their advantage when they decided to release a system that's barely better than current generation consoles rather than putting something out that would be comparable to what sony/MS are going to be putting out later this year, and tried to sell 3rd party AAA titles that people played 1 - 2 years prior to the system's release.

dedicatedtogamers4054d ago

Not necessarily. The Wii launched 1 year after the 360 and was greatly underpowered compared to its competitors. It isn't unusual to see Nintendo go with the underpowered/cheap to manufacture route once again.

wingman32x4054d ago (Edited 4054d ago )

I think Nintendo's pretty safe in terms of market share in the portable market. The Vita would need a perfect storm to make any serious threat for first place. This is purely based off of how big the gap is at this point in time vs. some of the big stuff Nintendo hasn't released yet. So yeah, there is increased competition, but not enough for the 3DS not to do good. Plus, profit is still being made on every unit sold.

I seem to have trouble reading you. A couple of weeks ago you joked at how the DS' library was stronger than the 3DS' at equivalent time periods in a blog. But here you're saying that the 3DS is benefiting from more first party attention than usual(which is true). Which is it? This isn't meant to antagonize, just want a more clear explanation of your view on this.

dedicatedtogamers4054d ago

The 3DS is starting to get a library that appeals to people who bought the DS, let me put it that way. The first run of 3DS games were primarily focused on - you guessed it - 3D. Their newer games are just trying to be good games. Nintendo needs to make sure the 3DS succeeds. The Vita isn't its only competitor, keep in mind. And even though the 3DS isn't selling horribly, it is selling about half of what the DS sold. And the DS was a completely new and unproven kit. The 3DS should have the advantage of following in the DS' legacy, but the sales aren't there (yet).

I didn't want to shift focus away from the WiiU. All I was pointing out is that during the years leading up to the WiiU's launch, an event happened which caused Nintendo to forget about their own gaming console. What was that event? A less than stellar first year for the 3DS. Nintendo needed to fix that, and the WiiU is currently suffering because of that.

wingman32x4054d ago

In regard to the diverting focus thing, that's a pretty plausible hunch. However, it's hard to guess what studios were working on near term Wii U games before hand.

The only one that comes to mind is that maybe EAD developing 3D Land got in the way of progress on 3D Mario and Zelda, but even if they trashed 3D land, I don't think either of them would have made launch or anywhere near it.

As for Intelligent Systems, who knows if they had anything queued up. They're working on SMT X FE now, but that seems more recent.

Nintendo had a fair number of games outsourced for the 3DS. They had Grezzo do OoT, and Star Fox was done by someone else, too. DKCR 3D is also being outsourced, and Luigi's mansion was done by Next Level Games, a 3rd party dev.

So while I see merit in your idea, it's hard to really say to what extent it affected things.

jcnba284054d ago

I wonder why you only see these type of articles on N4G?

Hmm...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4054d ago
LOL_WUT4054d ago

As of now yea you'd could say that the Wii U is insignificant but come this fall that could all change. #E3 ;)

lovegames7184054d ago

hmmmmm i want to weigh in without ppl getting offended. Now it is insignificant to many but come fall yes it will have some good staple ips on the horizon and will catch interest, however i do believe it will be nowhere near the interest of the ps4/xbox and even its staple ips wont make it a successful console as say the other big two. Wiiu disappointed many not just in terms of lack of software to this point but just the overall package to many is underwhelming. Ps4 and rumored xbox is just in another league according to professionals like Digital Foundry and such and Wiiu just isnt doing it for many.

that being said Wiiu may not have the success that Wii had but i believe it will have some success and have some good games to play soon (not saying there arent any now just not that many). I admit when it drops below 200 and it gets a new Zelda game ill probably buy into one but at this point it has nothing for me or anything better than what my ps3 offers.

TheSkullkid4054d ago Show
Show all comments (34)
290°

Why Xbox believes it must cut costs and close studios

Companies, particularly public companies like Microsoft, need to grow.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
gold_drake1d 13h ago

i mean its pretty simple, they spent close to 30 billion in acquiring activision, they thought they'd make it bk no problem, and that didnt happen.

its just shit that because of MS's miscalculation alot of people lost their jobs.

Jingsing1d 10h ago

This is exactly what many people said would happen including the CMA and FTC. Lies lies and more lies and they allowed a $69 billion buy out to happen.

gold_drake1d 9h ago

oh yeh it was 70 billion. that was my bad haha even worse.

JackBNimble12h ago

MS has educated financial advisers, they knew there was little chance to recoup the 70billion just to break even on the Activision deal let alone whatever other nonsense is going on in MS.
This whole thing was to corner the market for leverage.

thesoftware7301d 9h ago (Edited 1d 9h ago )

gold,

You can't be serious, right?

Do you think that MS thought they would make 80bill in a year & Half? They haven't even released titles under MS yet, lol.

But in fact, that A/B revenue is already paying off, look at the last earnings call. That $80 billion is long-term money, my guy, no sane person/company would think they would make that back in any short-term situation, it's a long-term investment.

Let's play silly then. If MS's reason for laying off staff and closing studios was due(which it really was not) to the A/B deal, tell me what Sony's reason was for past studio closures, the recent 900-person layoffs, closing Sony London, shutting down Dreams, and closing Japan Studio? Zipper? Psygnosis? cuts at all their internal studios.

Keep in mind, you are claiming MS's reason is because of the A/B deal; please explain Sony's reason.

Hofstaderman1d 9h ago

You actually still defending them? Sheesh.....

gold_drake1d 9h ago

this is not a sony vs MS debate. dont make it something it isnt.

and of course not, but im pretty sure they thought they'd make more money after the deal. they didnt, and closed off some studios.

its pretty insane to think there is any other reason for the closure of studios in this case.

romulus231d 9h ago (Edited 1d 9h ago )

(It really was) due to the Activision Blizzard deal and the loss of physical sales due to gamepass. You keep bringing up Sony in all your posts about this, stop deflecting and trying to change the topic, this is about MS and what they are doing.

BehindTheRows1d 9h ago

Has nothing to do with Sony. Stay on topic.

notachance1d 8h ago

once in a while you see someone too invested in their make-believe console war that everything happened has to be connected to said war…

a bit of banter between fans is normal, this crusade you’re doing now isn’t.

Chevalier1d 8h ago

Wow idiotic. You bring up very old closures not that there haven't been recent ones from Playstations, but, seriously stop deflecting. This has NOTHING to do with Playstation.

Does Playstation got $3 trillion behind them and daddies wallet? No they don't so stop making a fool of yourself.

Xbox has never been profitable really and they just keep losing money so between their worst hardware sales, terrible 3rd party sales and now terrible 1st party sales.

Gamepass numbers that are no longer being announced shows their numbers after 3 years of missed targets has flatlined. Plus their recent gains up to 34 million were ONLY because they folded Gold members in too. Absolutely take your idiotic rhetoric out of here. Keep on topic without deflecting.

S2Killinit1d 8h ago

Ayayayay with these xbox/MS excuses.

Reaper22_1d 3h ago

How dare you mention Sony! Everyone here knows when Sony closes a studio and lay off workers it was the right thing to do. Even when they bought Gaikai and fired almost everyone it was the right thing to do.

Gamers can be such hypocrites sometimes.

andy851d 2h ago

Is it? That's revenue not profit. Completely different.

fr0sty17h ago

The earnings call only showcased how dire the situation is... Even with ABK and Bethesda, they still couldn't make enough to keep investors happy, gamepass subs are stagnant, and hardware sales are tanking.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 17h ago
thesoftware7301d 7h ago (Edited 1d 6h ago )

Drake,

"this is not a sony vs MS debate. dont make it something it isnt."

You are correct that it's not an MS Vs Sony Topic, but when exaggeration and imagination mix from a one-sided social group, similar examples are needed to ground radical thoughts; in this instance, the example was that shutting down 3,4,5, even 6 studios during a restructure/ buyout/acquisition is not some anomaly(it can suck) that has to be dissected or spell doom and gloom.

"But I'm pretty sure they thought they'd make more money after the deal. They didn't, and they closed off some studios."

But they did make more money, a lot, actually; the last earnings call showed a huge growth in profit, almost all due to A/B revenue.

"its pretty insane to think there is any other reason for the closure of studios in this case."

The fact that they did make money, kinda throws this out the window, and besides, you don't wake up and say, hey let's close a studio, you look at the output, you look at the dev as a whole, the long term and short term, you weigh it against all other studios and goals, you keep key members, ect..then you close if they are the weakest links...which by MS analysis they were.

Again, I will make a small Sony comparison, just so some of you can understand and see past the bias; Insomniac, ND, and Bungie have made some of the best games ever created, yet Sony saw fit to cut jobs in every of these studios, even tho Insomniac & ND are the biggest producers of PS games, leagues ahead better than Tango and Arkane, yet, they saw cuts, mind you, while being the TOP produces of PS first party. They were told to cut costs, and more jobs may be on the line, and Bungie is being threatened by a hostile Sony takeover. Put that in perspective, as I know that layoffs and dev closures are different, but if the best of the best is getting cut off, it is less than surprising, that lesser studios are closing.

@Cheva,
My response fits well with your comments as well. You even went on to prove that the dev closures are not just due to A/B acquisition. Then you point out Sony has less money than MS, inferring that MS should keep devs open that they see as lesser earners, while Sony having less money makes it okay to close them. lol...it doesn't work that way.

gold_drake1d 6h ago

im not reading all of that. u have ur opinion, i have mine.

thats rly it.

but this aint sony vs ms.

ApocalypseShadow1d 6h ago

You're trying to compare a 100 billion company to a company that has 3 TRILLION worth. SIE has to live or die on their own. And in turn, PlayStation has helped the main company again and again. Sony has to balance out what is working and not working in the company.

While Xbox has Daddy Warbucks footing the bill to keep the platform afloat. They have been bleeding money from Nvidia hardware in the OG Xbox, the RROD fiasco, the attempted 2013 DRM nonsense and the lies about being the most powerful console in the world and the losses of paying out millions to prop up a service hoping it catches on with enough subscribers to justify its existence.

They're not comparable if Xbox isn't allowed to live or die by its actions. It's subsidized. Revenue isn't profit. And if they were profiting on their own, they wouldn't be closing developers. If they were profiting, they wouldn't need Daddy Warbucks spending 80 to 100 billion buying up 3rd party publishers to sustain a loss leading platform.

They stopped announcing game sales, stopped announcing hardware sales, stopped announcing game pass subscribers, they are putting games on their competitors platforms but you're telling us that they are doing great even after killing jobs and closing developers at Xbox.

Stop drinking the Kool aid. You're drunk.

Chevalier21h ago

Again at which point did Playstation have a $3 trillion company shift the market with a giant purchase?

"But they did make more money, a lot, actually; the last earnings call showed a huge growth in profit, almost all due to A/B revenue."

Lol. No they didn't. Increased revenue was ONLY due to adding Activision Blizzard revenue in. Growth was only 1 percent. It's idiots like you that have no idea what they're talking about is why Xbox isn't better than it is. You guys just make excuses continually.

If Xbox got so much profit then why did they stop announcing hardware numbers? Why did they stop announcing Gamepass numbers? Oh right because they're NOT profitable. Their sales in every category has dropped off the face of the planet. It's why Spencer will be closing more studios and canceling upcoming projects too.

The Wood13h ago

How can they be profitable when they're not selling enough hardware, software or subs. You need take a seat on this one my friend unless you can prove you angles

jwillj2k412h ago

Sony didnt shut down the studios you mentioned after they made last of us or ratchet and clank or destiny. Cutting jobs is not equal to closing studios. Sony cuts are a candle in the sun of Microsoft’s closures.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 12h ago
WelkinCole1d 2h ago

I am pretty sure MS knew this would happen and this was part of their plan. I mean if anyone with half a brain can see this happening I am pretty sure a multi billion company like MS knew this would happen

The whole strategy in buying Beth and Acti/Blizzard is for

1. Buy established games they can have under xbox because they have done a horrible job in building their portfolio internally for the past 15 years

2. Following from 1, try and boost xbox competitivenss against a dominat PS which MS after 3 tries still can't crack

3. Follolwing from 2, try and weaken Playstation dominance by taking out these massive multiplats from the PS

4. Following from 3, try and profit off from the PS domiance with selected games they will still have on the PS to make money like COD

5. Obviously get the IP's by buying them instead of creating them which again as I mentioned in number 1 they have been woeful in doing

None of these had anyting to do with keeping all the devs they accuried. MS has always been very shitty to Devs under them. Look at what happned to Bungie for example.

I believe MS in court truely mean it when they said they had to do something because PS was just too dominant. This was their last roll of the dice.

And from the looks of things. It has not panned out as MS had hoped. PS5 is still as dominant as ever and xbox is still behind. Worse still their MP's they got is not irreplaceable as they thought. Starfield? lol!. There have not been any major shift in momentum in this console war in their favor so now its time to start cutting their loses and it starts with the most expensive cost for any company. People.

Michiel198923h ago

for a comparison, sony laid of a bigger % of it's staff this year than ms, it's what companies sadly do nowadays. If you think with GP and Bethesda + acti aquisition they were looking for quick cash, you couldn't be more wrong. It hasn't even been a year, "they thought they'd make it bk no problem, and that didnt happen." shows you have 0 understanding of how a business operates.

thesoftware73011h ago

@ Michiel1989

Exactly this!

I'm reading these comments, and it's mesmerizing how off-base most of them are.

I posted a few comments above, and their rebuttals have nothing to do with the points that I presented; when they start doing that, I just ignore them because, at that point, they're debating all over the place.

Profchaos17h ago

30 more like 70 to 80 plus 7 for Bethesda

Tzuno12h ago

meanwhile everything turned woke an inevitably went downward, i'd say it serves them well if they promote such kind of approach, mwuahahahahahhh!

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 11h ago
anast1d 10h ago

They are going to use AI for a large portion of the game development process. Upper management need bonuses and the shareholders need more money. So, people will lose their jobs.

Skuletor1d 9h ago

Maybe they were already using AI to make business decisions, which would explain why they closed Hi-Fi Rush's studio, then said they need more games like Hi-Fi Rush not long after that announcement.

Crows901d 9h ago (Edited 1d 9h ago )

They shouldn't have bought any studios. Some is okay...but they went on a shopping spree...stupid

Einhander19721d 8h ago

The better question is why did Microsoft buy publishers for a service they were subsidizing they knew couldn't support.

And why are so many websites trying to make people feel sorry for Microsoft instead of truly criticizing the fact they are closing studios and killing jobs that would have been fine if Microsoft themselves hadn't gotten involved.

Quit feeling sorry for Microsoft and start feeling sorry for the industry and the all the gamers who are actually losing out.

THIS IS MICROSOFTS FAULT.

RNTody1d 8h ago

The first thing that happens after any major acquisition or merger is a consolidation of the whole new portfolio, which includes cutting any excess, bloat or portfolios that don't fit the larger MO of the big boy. So far, it's been par for the course with Microsoft and that's why gamers have been so against this acquisition. Tango Gameworks is the beginning. You think Microsoft wants to pay to keep small timers like Ninja Theory in business?

There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Microsoft will improve any of these studios, but plenty to suggest that they will get rid of what they don't need and hold onto the IP. The real agenda of the acquisition was always to acquire The Elder Scrolls, Diablo, Fallout, Call of Duty, Candy Crush etc. that will create millions in passive revenue stream for Microsoft regardless of where the games release. Microsoft simply wants their cut.

Because of Games Pass Microsoft has no interest in investing in new IP which is risky and requires creative talent they can neither nurture nor manage. Game Pass has also not grown in the way Microsoft expected it to, even post acquisitions. Therefore the logical thing to do, without serious money makers to release, is to cut as much cost as possible.

Show all comments (46)
90°

10 of the best Kirby games ever made

NE: "Kirby's been on more than a handful of adventures, and we've gathered a list of 10 of the best Kirby games here."

Read Full Story >>
nintendoeverything.com
140°

Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night DLC Adds Free Gameplay Modes

Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night has received a bunch of new DLC, including two new gameplay modes, for free.