"The Wii U is crap" "awful console" "Nintendo are walking dead"

[Amir Kondori]

No one has "enough money that it doesn't matter". Nintendo has offices around the world, thousands of staff, large infrastructure, and all of that costs money. Its called "operating expenses". Also, Nintendo is a publicly traded company and its leaders have a fiduciary duty to make money for its investors. If the WiiU is a failure Nintendo will either have to restructure, laying off employees, cancel games in production, and possibly sell property just like THQ towards the end, or completely kill its console division and become a software company like SEGA did. They certainly don't have "enough money that it doesn't matter".
Luckily their mobile business is very good, but of course that is under threat from smart phones and tablets. If the WiiU fails they could find themselves embattled from all sides. If the WiiU fails they will likely end up as a publisher only.

This is just getting ridiculous. I'm sorry, but your economics here are completely off-base.

Laying off employees, cancelling games and selling property in the manner you're talking about only happens as a last resort. Companies only do things like that for financial reasons when they don't have the capital to keep those resources going.

Nintendo has currently got $13 billion sitting in the bank. That's $13 billion worth of capital. That means that if the Wii U struggles or fails to find an audience, they don't need to fire people or sell property, because they have the capital to essentially pay off the loss. When the 3DS struggled to sell at launch and was given a price-cut, Nintendo did not cut any jobs in order to finance that. They didn't cancel any games. They did the opposite in fact. They used some of their stored up capital from the DS and the Wii to fund the development of more games, to increase marketing and to offset the loss that the 3DS was being sold at. It worked, as the 3DS is now selling incredibly well, and at a profit. They spent some of their capital in order to bring in more capital. The only cut that happened was the 50% cut that Iwata inflicted on his own salary as a way to apologise for not doing enough. That's it. No job cuts. No real estate sales. No development studios were axed.

With $13 billion in the bank, they can afford to do exactly the same for the Wii U. They have no reason to axe jobs or development on the Wii U when they already have the cash to pay those salaries and for those games in the bank. They have no need to sell real estate when they're building a new Kyoto HQ.

Lastly, they have no reason to bow out of the hardware race when it makes them more money than being a software producer ever could be. They don't just profit from hardware sales and first-party games, they get royalties on all games sold on their systems. If they went third party, they would have to pay royalties to other hardware owners.

There isn't a third party publisher out there worth what Nintendo is currently worth. EA are worth $2.5 billion in total, assets included. Nintendo have got $13 billion sitting in the bank alone. If you add up all their assets, the company is worth even more. Not even Activision is worth that much.

Nintendo will keep making hardware, because that's where the big money is. Going software only would result in a huge loss of income for them. THQ went bankrupt because of a lack of high selling games, piss-poor management and the absolute financial disaster that was the UDraw device, a device they simply couldn't afford to bankroll if it didn't sell. The Wii U could flop entirely, and Nintendo would still have more than enough money to stay in the console race.

Look, Nintendo is doing well and are nowhere near in the same position as THQ, I brought that up to show that any company that has a big enough flop can get into a bad situation where their revenues do not cover operating expenses and then hard decisions must be made. If the WiiU is a total flop and if Nintendo's portables, current big money makers, lose ground to the ever expanding iphone/android/windows phone market then the scenario I describe is not so far fetched.
I have no dog in this fight and while I find this stuff interesting I don't care one way or another which company goes bankrupt and which becomes king of the gaming world. That being said if anyone is being honest the WiiU is in trouble and is floundering now. A lot of Nintendo's future success is going to be determined between now and the end of 2014. They will have to find a big enough market for the WiiU that is turns them a profit and the whole time fight off the PS4 and Nextbox. Whatever happens it will be interesting to watch.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Personally, I think it's completely fair to compare the Wii U to the Wii. Nintendo wanted to make a new console that, by virtue of its hardware, is not compatible with its predecessor. They can't be considered equals simply because of how they are constructed, and the fact that Nintendo aren't making Wii games any more. The Wii U is Nintendo's big push into the "next" console generation, and it strikes me as rather silly to say that an underwhelming performance is due to the fact that the last one was so popular.

Yes, the last one was popular. If it was so popular, Nintendo should have stuck with it.

I'm sure there's some point here that I may be missing, but this remark seems incredibly strange when talking about a console with near flawless backwards compatibility, and which, in entirely new games that only run on the new system lean heavily on re-using pre-existing Wii input devices as secondary controllers...

Yes, a Wii cannot run Wii U titles, but for all intents and purposes the Wii U can run almost all Wii titles, and re-uses a lot of peripherals for good measure. (Even the video out cable and sensor bar are fully compatible between the two.)

How you can then make a statement along the lines of this one: "new console that, by virtue of its hardware, is not compatible with its predecessor.", when as far as consoles go the Wii U is as compatible with it's predecessor as consoles get, is really beyond me.
Clearly, I must be missing your actual point, but taking the statement at face value is flies in the face of any established facts about the consoles in question.

 

[Apointicus]

EA really needs to shut the fuck up this point.At least Nintendo does'nt have two Golden Poo awards to their name.

Please people, stop mentioning that god-awful award as if it is meaningful.

The only reason why EA was awarded that (twice) was b/c of angry internet mobs, they're MUCH, MUCH WORSE companies in America (we're talking about outside the VG Industry, mind) that deserved that award more than EA.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

Good publicity!

This is just what Nintendo needed after the horrible youtube gaffe. There must be a shady deal going on somewhere that Nintendo paid someone at EA to say this so they could take the ire of gamers off of them for a bit over Youtube and onto EA again. Bold move.

Thank you, EA, for reminding us, reminding us of who you are.

 

[TaintedSaint]

I agree wii U is a joke. Its a weak gimicky console. Typical Nintendo. An I bet we get another zelda that is exactly like the last one. People ***** about cod being the same thing every time but Nentendo has been shoveling the same damn game into the mouths of the Nintendo fanboys for decades now. Its time for Nentendo to evolve or die.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Nintendo is a children's company full of old Japanese people who think gaming is stuck in the 80's and every game they make is the same on every inferior-to-current-gen console they produce!

Rwarrrrrr!

Yup, feels good to get it all out, doesn't it? Fight the good fight! It will help you deal with the inevitable fact that these things will start selling one day, and your manly-man games will once again have to share gamestop shelves with cases that have more then three colors.

Nintendo's flashy bit is showing! Quick, use the missile launcher before it closes again!!

 

[JmezR]

Duty calls Jeffers. Into the breach once more!

...

Y'know, despite not having or particularly wanting anything to do with the WiiU, I'm not convinced that it's doing as badly as some people seem to think. Obviously it's not exploding like the Wii did, but that was something of an exception. Is it doing any worse than the 360 or PS3 did at the same stage?

Slightly off topic but is it just me or was the WiiU not marketed well/at all?

I can't recall having seen any adverts for the console itself or specific games for it (in the UK at least)

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of casual gamers don't even know its a totally different console from the original Wii.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

On the one hand, I still don't like Nintendo for having Monster Hunter and Bayonetta 2 (don't even argue with me. I know it's not their fault. I'm unreasonable on this issue alone), but on the other hand fuck EA. Hmmm...

But seriously. When I last checked the Wii U had a pretty good launch. Better than the PS3 or 360. And it seems to have some decent games shaping up for it (curses!). Nintendo are hardly gasping their last breaths here. EA, meanwhile, has been rushing out games on one-year development cycles and taking such a no nonsense approach to piracy that it's laughable (cwidt) for ages and still don't look too secure.

The golden poo isnt about who is doing the most damage to the world, or who is costing the world the most money and life ect, its about companies that treat their consumers like shit.

But even so, it is a biased sample of consumers because gamers are more likely to be on the internet and vote in the poll. I'm not saying they don't deserve it. I'm saying they didn't ask a representative portion of the population.

 

[Dragonbums]

Of all the people to trash talk Nintendo, EA- especially a developer of some of the most recycled trash series in gaming history, is the last company to have the privilege to call anything "crap".
EA revels in making crap and charging you $60.00 for it. Also he lies about the power of the WiiU.
I guess the company has short term memory because from what I remember many engine devs, and some EA employees themselves have said that the WiiU is stronger than the 360 and PS3. Not to mention that it can handle today's most powerful engines.
So not only was he acting like a childish fanboy, but he wasn't even telling the truth to boot.

 

[Snotnarok]

EA really needs to shut the fuck up this point.Atleast Nintendo does'nt have two Golden Poo awards to their name.

At least EA isn't going around shutting down countless fan games or trying to take all profits from LPers who use Nintendo games that were already bought and paid for, suing people for using means to copy Pokemon save data. Nintendo isn't exactly perfect either, they are perfectly capable of being giant assholes.

OT: The WiiU as interesting as the device is offers nothing that warrants buying it, it's on the same tech level as 360/PS3 which is sort of fine, I mean if it has other things to offer that's not so bad. But on top of 6 year old quality tech they have a 32gb or 8gb HDD...that would be decent if it was 2006 where PS3 had a 80/40gb HDD and 360 had a 20gb hdd.
You could buy Mass Effect 3 for 60 on WiiU...or the entire Trilogy+all the DLC for 60 on any other device and it ran better on the latter, also Arkam City, great except it ran worse and you could get it and it's prequel+DLC for cheaper.
Mario Land WiiU...Well you can get the same game on the Wii for cheaper too, okay an extremely similar game.

"But the second screen adds a whole lot!" No ...putting the menu on another screen really doesn't offer value when a start button did the same thing...Nor does playing games on said screen help either since that tech has been around.

The device is really neat and interesting, it just doesn't offer any benefit over the competition and that's the major issue here, you are ALWAYS better off buying another device, including the original Wii.

 

[MetalDooley]

How EA operates

- Release a stripped down version of Fifa 13 on Wii U which by all accounts is just a reskinned Fifa 12.Charge the same price as the superior PS3/Xbox version

- Release a port of Mass Effect 3 at full price 8 months after the other versions launched.Extend the middle finger to Wii U owners by releasing the Mass Effect Trilogy on PS3 at the same time for the same price

- Release a port of Need for Speed for full price 5 months after the other versions

- Wonder why nobody is buying your games on Wii U

Seriously the sooner EA go the way of THQ the better

nor have they done anything other than churn out the same games year after year.

Ah this old chestnut again.Here's a list of just some of the titles developed and/or published by Nintendo since 2006

Wii Sports,Wii Play,Big Brain Academy,Endless Ocean,Wii Fit,Wii Music,Captain Rainbow,Flingsmash,Fortune Street,The Last Story,Pandora's Tower,Magnetica,Maboshi,Art Style series,Lonpos,Bonsai Barber,You Me and the Cubes,Eco Shooter,Line attack heroes,Fluidity,Thruspace,Lego City Undercover,Electroplankton,Elite Beat Agents,Hotel Dusk:Room 215,Master of Illusion,Rhythm Heaven,The Legendary Starfy,Fossil Fighters,Glory of Heracles,Art Academy,Solatorobo:Red the Hunter,Inazuma Eleven,Steel Diver,Spirit Camera:The Cursed Memoir,Freakyforms

All either brand new IP's or reasonably obscure franchises.So no they don't just churn out the same games year after year

New Super Mario shit is getting pumped out more often than Call of Duty

There's been 4 NSMB titles since 2006 each one on a different console.In that same time there's been 8 CoD games.

 

[Lightknight]

I would personally argue against Daft Time's comment that the developer was right about the hardware. He wasn't, the Wii U is more powerful than the 360 by a fair margin even if it isn't anywhere close to what the ps4 has announced.

Ahh, I actually forgot about this when reading the developers comments. You're correct, though it's worth noting that being better than a console that was only about mid-range in terms of hardware when it was released in 2005 isn't really something to be proud of.

Well, consoles optimize their hardware entirely differently than pcs do. Saying any consoles were mid-range at the time of release is then misleading. This is how you can play a game like Skyrim on the 360 (512MBs of RAM with a 7 year-old processor) and the ps3 (512MBs of RAM partitioned into two 256MB segments and a 6 year-old processor that unnecessarily forces developers to split up assets into different categories) while still demanding the pc have a minimum of 2GB of RAM, a video card with 512MB of RAM and at least a dual core processor with 2Ghz. Even then, the consoles diplayed a better environment than the minimum requirement pc's did, though the ps3 clearly maxed out until the developers patched the game to resolve some of the asset bloating issues and is why DLC was not released on the ps3 until a new game of the year edition was created with additional modifications to make them all work.

Here's a comparison of 360, pc max, pc min (I just picked the top one, let me know if this one is unrealistic):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZmfHzqQxzw

Consoles optimize the hardware by a number of ways. From internal bandwidth to the OS. The Wii U, for example, allocates 1GB of it's 2GB directly to the OS, freeing up the rest. But those 6 and 7 year old CPU/GPUs are a lot more powerful than people realize.

With all this in mind, I think (like with the other two consoles) we'll find that the Wii U is even more powerful than we think since we can't legitimately compare the specs with on-shelf hardware. This relies on Nintendo understanding console optimization of course, but there's no reason to doubt it considering the hardware designers involved here. It may honestly be twice as powerful as the 360. But that's besides the point. Technologically it's the best of current gen while actually being part of the next gen. It's that being part of the next gen that is or will be its problem. Unless the sales pick up heavily before the ps4 comes out and unless the phasing out of the ps3 and 360 is drawn out then it will be in the same position it was before where nearly all it had was it's own IPs to keep the system afloat because it wasn't as powerful as the others. It really feels like a transition console more than a member of either generation.

Otherwise, I completely agree with your comments and you clarified my own intentions as to the nature of the titles better than I could have. Thanks. =)

It's really a fair point to make that Nintendo doesn't just fail to make new IPs, but they actively ruin new IPs by tagging them with old ones (Miyamoto actually stated this in response to the known criticism this past March). He says that he views the new gameplay as the new IP rather than the IP itself. Which would be great if that's how consumers saw it. New and fun gameplay is great but as long as you slap an old IP in there it'll still have that old element to it. This is a very short-term approach for Nintendo. Adding a popular IP into what should be an entirely new one gives them short term profit with stronger sales, but it stangles any new IPs that would have meant all-new merchandise, new games, their own spin offs and anything else (aka, long term profit). Maybe Mario cart doesn't have any more room for another driver?

They also have a hard time keeping and using some of the other IPs that was once their system exclusive. I mean, you see what Sony did with both the Final Fantasy series (ignoring where it's at now, I'm talking mostly VII-IX, maybe X here. Huge block busters before the franchize went rotten) and Megal Gear that they used to popularize the stealth genre.

It's best to think of Nintendo as just one Developer instead of the publisher conglomerate that Sony and Microsoft have become. The question to then ask is if it's worth having an entirely other platform for just this developer who

 

[rob_simple]

Though the tweets were hardly elegant, he is correct in his evaluation of the state of Nintendo's hardware. Personally, I couldn't careless about Nintendo at the point. They haven't made a console worth anything since the 64 nor have they done anything other than churn out the same games year after year. They are not a bad company, just a boring one.

I would contend that the Gamecube was a solid console that suffered from poor software support all around. Metroid Prime is one of the best games ever made, in my opinion --precisely because it didn't just rehash the same tired format-- but when you're only releasing one good game for the console a year (a problem I also had with the N64) it's not surprising that both developers and consumers lose interest.

I think it is eventually going to be apathy that kills Nintendo more than anything else, as more and more people lose interest in playing the eleventyhundredth iteration of Mario Kart or New Re-Imagined Super Ultimate Mario Brother All-Star Friends & Family Brothers WiiU Turbo.

 

[rob_simple]

Ah this old chestnut again.Here's a list of just some of the titles developed and/or published by Nintendo since 2006

Wii Sports,Wii Play,Big Brain Academy,Endless Ocean,Wii Fit,Wii Music,Captain Rainbow,Flingsmash,Fortune Street,The Last Story,Pandora's Tower,Magnetica,Maboshi,Art Style series,Lonpos,Bonsai Barber,You Me and the Cubes,Eco Shooter,Line attack heroes,Fluidity,Thruspace,Lego City Undercover,Electroplankton,Elite Beat Agents,Hotel Dusk:Room 215,Master of Illusion,Rhythm Heaven,The Legendary Starfy,Fossil Fighters,Glory of Heracles,Art Academy,Solatorobo:Red the Hunter,Inazuma Eleven,Steel Diver,Spirit Camera:The Cursed Memoir,Freakyforms

All either brand new IP's or reasonably obscure franchises.So no they don't just churn out the same games year after year

Hold on, I am certain that at least some of those games aren't developed by Nintendo. Just because they turn up on their console, doesn't mean Nintendo get to take the credit.

Also, Wii Sports, Play, Music whatever are hardly what I would call revolutionary new IP when they amount to little more than tech demos for their wonky motion control technology.

So, cut that list down to games exclusively developed and published by Nintendo then try and talk to us about this rich stable of bold new IP.

 

[MetalDooley]

Hold on, I am certain that at least some of those games aren't developed by Nintendo.

I never said that Nintendo developed them all.In fact I quite clearly stated that they developed and/or published them.If you're unfamiliar with the phrase and/or it means that every single game on that list was either developed and published OR just published by Nintendo

Just because they turn up on their console, doesn't mean Nintendo get to take the credit.

If they paid for the development,manufacturing,distribution and marketing i.e what publishing means then yes then can very well claim credit regardless of whether they were developed in house or not

Also, Wii Sports, Play, Music whatever are hardly what I would call revolutionary new IP when they amount to little more than tech demos for their wonky motion control technology.

Whether they were revolutionary or not is entirely irrelevant.They were new IP's.That's all that matters

The original statement was that Nintendo only churns out the same games year after year.My list proves that they release plenty of other stuff as well

 

[Nomanslander]

The system needs games, simply put. I don't think there's ever been any more simpler and truer lesson learned in the industry a long long fucking time ago, but yet, console makers still manage to fuck it all up.

If Nintendo doesn't start making deals with 3rd party developers, or create more 1st party... or spin out a mass of generic Mario games. I say it'll be done for. Wii 1 fooled everyone by promising to be unique, but in the end it become a dust collector. No one is going to be fooled with the Wii U here.

-_-

 

[Scott Rothman]

Nintendo is not walking dead, and they probably never will be. They have 100% dominated the handheld market since 1989 and after seeing that the 3ds has to offer/is going to offer, it doesn't look like that will be changing any time soon. Say what you will about Android and iOS sales, I don't think the majority of gamers will ever be totally okay playing full fledged games on smart phones. Touch screen interfaces work really well for some games, but absolutely terribly for others. This is the first major mis-step they've made in the console market. As much as 'hardcore gamers' hated it, it still outsold the PS3 by 20 million units.

 

[rob_simple]

Hold on, I am certain that at least some of those games aren't developed by Nintendo.

I never said that Nintendo developed them all.In fact I quite clearly stated that they developed and/or published them.If you're unfamiliar with the phrase and/or it means that every single game on that list was either developed and published OR just published by Nintendo

My bad, I only saw that after I replied. That being said...

Just because they turn up on their console, doesn't mean Nintendo get to take the credit.

If they paid for the development,manufacturing,distribution and marketing i.e what publishing means then yes then can very well claim credit regardless of whether they were developed in house or not

Utter bollocks. Unless they were involved in development they have absolutely no right to lay claim to that IP. Just because I buy a copy of Abbey Road doesn't mean I can claim I had a hand in writing it.

Also, Wii Sports, Play, Music whatever are hardly what I would call revolutionary new IP when they amount to little more than tech demos for their wonky motion control technology.

Whether they were revolutionary or not is entirely irrelevant.They were new IP's.That's all that matters

The original statement was that Nintendo only churns out the same games year after year.My list proves that they release plenty of other stuff as well

Yes, but the point the guy you quoted was clearly making was that, from a creative standpoint, Nintendo haven't done anything worth a damn in years; instead choosing to rely on shallow minigames (Wii Sports, Play etc) or the established IP's with a deluge of carbon-copy sequel releases.

It's a matter of quantity over quality; there's no point saying, 'nuh uh, Nintendo makes loads of games' if they're all either boring rehashes or a bag of shite. The last game Nintendo released I actually got excited about was Metroid Prime, and even that wasn't entirely developed by them.

 

[MetalDooley]

Utter bollocks. Unless they were involved in development they have absolutely no right to lay claim to that IP. Just because I buy a copy of Abbey Road doesn't mean I can claim I had a hand in writing it.

Sorry but your comparison is pretty dumb.There is a world of difference between what a publisher does and a consumer purchasing a copy.If you paid for the recording,manufacturing,distribution and marketing of Abbey Road then yes you could claim to have had a hand in the creation of it.To say that Nintendo can do all that for a game but not be able to claim even a bit of the credit is nonsense

Yes, but the point the guy you quoted was clearly making was that, from a creative standpoint, Nintendo haven't done anything worth a damn in years; instead choosing to rely on shallow minigames (Wii Sports, Play etc) or the established IP's with a deluge of carbon-copy sequel releases.

It's a matter of quantity over quality; there's no point saying, 'nuh uh, Nintendo makes loads of games' if they're all either boring rehashes or a bag of shite. The last game Nintendo released I actually got excited about was Metroid Prime, and even that wasn't entirely developed by them.

"Nintendo never release anything apart from the same games over and over"
"Here's a list of stuff they've developed/published over the last 7 years that proves that they do release plenty of other games"
"Nuh Uh.Those don't count because I say so"