Why is the Wii U not succeeding?

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Let me put it this way: You know how Nintendo posted a $200 million loss last year? They could afford to post a loss like that every year for fifty years before going bankrupt.

They're not going anywhere, certainly not third party. In fact, going third party would represent a huge loss of income for them. Do you see any third party publishers making money even close to Nintendo? Nope. If Nintendo went third party, and started having to pay royalty fees to Microsoft and Sony, that would be a huge drop in income for them. Not only that, but it would essentially be the death knell for their smaller franchises. Think there are too many Mario games now? Wait until Nintendo's third-party. They'd be pushing out annual Mario instalments on a par with COD. You wouldn't get games like Sin And Punishment. First party companies can afford to invest in niche titles like that in order to broaden their platform libraries. Third party publishers cannot, hence why everything is becoming more focused on homogenised, risk-free sequels.

Doomsayers claiming Nintendo will go third party always make me laugh. It ain't happening. Regardless of how the Wii U is doing, the 3DS is killing it for Nintendo right now. That alone will keep them more than afloat this generation. Right now, I'd worry more about Sony, as they're the ones whose credit rating has been downgraded to 'junk', and who have been struggling to turn a profit for years.

It is funny how Nintendo has basically become indestructible at this point. Sure, they were runners up for awhile but they never dropped out and they always posted a consistent profit. Furthermore, they were the first ones to realize that diminishing returns would hit game development and the way to sidestep that was to go down a different evolutionary path than the "more powa!" brute force method a LOT of devs tried to propagate. And because of that, they're pretty much the ONLY major game company in the entire industry without money troubles and are constantly expanding. It's pretty much gotten to the point where the 3DS can self-sustain on 1st party titles without fear of significant droughts. What happens if Nintendo gets to that point with their consoles?

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

Erm... I don't think you quite appreciate just how much money Nintendo has right now. Like, seriously. They're about as far away from Sega as its possible to be. They've got, last I checked, $5 billion cash sitting in the bank, and another $5 billion in bonds. That's not net worth, or assets. That's $10 billion they've got as spending money.

Let me put it this way: You know how Nintendo posted a $200 million loss last year? They could afford to post a loss like that every year for fifty years before going bankrupt.

They're not going anywhere, certainly not third party. In fact, going third party would represent a huge loss of income for them. Do you see any third party publishers making money even close to Nintendo? Nope. If Nintendo went third party, and started having to pay royalty fees to Microsoft and Sony, that would be a huge drop in income for them. Not only that, but it would essentially be the death knell for their smaller franchises. Think there are too many Mario games now? Wait until Nintendo's third-party. They'd be pushing out annual Mario instalments on a par with COD. You wouldn't get games like Sin And Punishment. First party companies can afford to invest in niche titles like that in order to broaden their platform libraries. Third party publishers cannot, hence why everything is becoming more focused on homogenised, risk-free sequels.

Doomsayers claiming Nintendo will go third party always make me laugh. It ain't happening. Regardless of how the Wii U is doing, the 3DS is killing it for Nintendo right now. That alone will keep them more than afloat this generation. Right now, I'd worry more about Sony, as they're the ones whose credit rating has been downgraded to 'junk', and who have been struggling to turn a profit for years.

Those are good points. Though, I doubt they'd stoop to annual Mario cash-ins. Maybe my predictions were too early. I will get a Wii U someday, although, I would rather not have to buy another console for the five games on it that interest me, and I'm hoping that at least 2 of the big 3 eventually see the benefits of joining their console efforts together to so gamers have money to buy more games they want instead of the only system that plays a few of the games they want. That could be clouding my judgement a little. But, just because they have a lot of spending cash does not mean the investors are gonna like the fact that Nintendo posts massive losses year after year on even if it's just on the Wii U while the 3DS still turns profits. They don't have to cut the niche titles when going 3rd party. Nintendo could use all the cash to keep their lesser franchises relevant and maybe even more popular on the other systems, right now both of which is almost guaranteed to outsell the Wii U. They could be the most dominant 3rd party publisher out there, not making the horrible mistakes and bland focus-group directed games the others think are safe to make. I hate seeing the once top dog hit this low point, but this could be better for them and the fans that want to play their game but can't choose 2 or 3 systems and have more desirable games on the other console. Nintendo might not like being kicked off the top of the publisher-system maker hierarchy, but it could turn out to be the best thing for everyone at Ninty and their fans on the long run. I wish they would play that trump card they act like they have soon because Sony and even Microsoft after their back pedaling look to be more successful this gen than the House of Mario. Its gonna go from an uphill climb to uphill battle with 100+ lbs of gear on their back by November.

 

[Dragonbums]

What happens if Nintendo gets to that point with their consoles?

It's kind of, already gotten there with the Wii U honestly.

I mean, by next gen, the Wii U can still be the weakest console in terms of graphical power, and nobody would really notice a difference between the 3.

They are playing a very clever game here.

PS3 was the most powerful console when it came out, and it absolutely hurt when it was having poor sales. Because they was significantly more loss per failure to sell unit.
Xbox 360( or rather the entire Xbox line up until a couple of years ago.) were always selling their consoles at a loss. Not as bad as PS3 since they didn't use other worldly architect.

It's basically a case of letting the other two sink buttloads of money into the newest tech. So by the time next gen rolls around the corner they can not only get that same tech power for much cheaper, but it's less expensive to build upon that to make an even more powerful machine.

At some point, it will get too expensive to work on Sony and Microsoft consoles. Unless of course you are a dev with money to spend.
And perhaps Nintendo can basically be a middle ground for studios that don't have shit loads of money to pump into graphics.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

It's kind of, already gotten there with the Wii U honestly.

I mean, by next gen, the Wii U can still be the weakest console in terms of graphical power, and nobody would really notice a difference between the 3.

They are playing a very clever game here.

PS3 was the most powerful console when it came out, and it absolutely hurt when it was having poor sales. Because they was significantly more loss per failure to sell unit.
Xbox 360( or rather the entire Xbox line up until a couple of years ago.) were always selling their consoles at a loss. Not as bad as PS3 since they didn't use other worldly architect.

It's basically a case of letting the other two sink buttloads of money into the newest tech. So by the time next gen rolls around the corner they can not only get that same tech power for much cheaper, but it's less expensive to build upon that to make an even more powerful machine.

At some point, it will get too expensive to work on Sony and Microsoft consoles. Unless of course you are a dev with money to spend.
And perhaps Nintendo can basically be a middle ground for studios that don't have shit loads of money to pump into graphics.

That is the thing a lot of Western 3rd parties don't like to admit: the HD era came too soon. All it's done is cause a LOT of problems production wise. It's led to devs refusing to admit that they can't have their cake and eat with the current gen as if you WANT to do these blockbuster games without quality suffering and budgets getting out of hand they're going to take awhile and trying to force these games to get done in two years is kind of ridiculous. You'd think 38 Studios folding after one game and the collapse of THQ would have been wakeup calls for people, but they STILL perpetuate these habits that aren't helping anyone. It's going to take something MAJOR for people to start taking Nintendo's methods, probably the contraction of one of the big 3rd parties or the PS4 or XB1 flopping at launch.

 

[Lightknight]

And thus far, there has been not a scrap of news about Wii U console failures approaching the 10% rate, let alone the 360's legendary 33% failure rate, so I don't see why you're trying to spin this into an issue. As a general rule, when people try and hold failure rates as a negative against a company, the console has to have started breaking down in large numbers first.

A 10% failure rate wouldn't be news worthy. That's the industry standard. A news article would have to read "Nintendo WiiU is average where failure rates are concerned". That's not a compelling story. We likely won't know what the failure rates are for a year and they may not get reported for two years. I would be SHOCKED if Nintendo every released a console with the kind of problem Microsoft had. That's on them and will always be associated with Microsoft going forward. Sony at least had the advantage of being a hardware company and so knew how to test and build things properly.

Until that actually starts happening with the Wii U, which as I pointed out above I find unlikely given Nintendo's history of making shit Tonka Tough and the interviews they've given about reliability being a key issue, then pardon me if I think you're fussing about nothing here.

I still don't know why you're arguing this. The WiiU is likely to be less reliable than the Wii and even at the Wii's failure rate we're still talking about over a hundred thousand people right now who just magically lose their library. 3 out of 100 isn't bad. But none of us are impervious to that and this failure rate is only if Nintendo makes a mistake. That doesn't include theft or damage. These shouldn't make the library vulnerable. The process of redownloading games you've purchased from Nintendo should be simple and painless like it is for nearly every other service that is available today. Why are you defending their practice of making it exceedingly difficult to protect games you've purchased from their store?

It is not. The CPU likely has a lot of common elements with the CPU design of the Wii and Gamecube (though also being designed to be a multi-core), but the GPU is entirely custom, and based off AMD architecture that appeared years after the 360 or PS3.

Ok?

The PS3 failure rate was 10% according to a study done by an electronics warranty company. That's not the sweet spot. That's just inside the acceptable of failure rates that you yourself gave. Interestingly enough, the same study put the Wii's failure rate at 2.7% which is a phenomenal figure no matter how you look at it, and only reinforces the fact that Nintendo have, and always will take reliability seriously.

These are the numbers I've been saying. Why are you citing this as if you're debating me?

As for where I got the number of 10% being a good number, look at the market for the 3-4 year failure rate (the console failure numbers were at 2 years and so will be lower):

http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pop/lm_failureRates.html

The average electronics failure rate is 15%. 10% is well within that standard mark and is indeed a sweet spot. Please cite something indicating otherwise but that's about the most recent (yes, it's older but we're talking about product at the time the consoles were made).

What fucking nonsense? The 'nonsense' that Nintendo have yet to build a machine that is completely, totally, 100% failure proof? Well them and the rest of the human race. Be reasonable, for god sakes! And you don't lose your library when a console bricks. Nintendo customer service replaces your library as long as your orders are registered on your Nintendo Network account.

Which again, brings me to the question of why you continue to debate this with me? I'm not saying that Nintendo's failure rates are astronomical, or bad. They're well beneath the industry average and especially below its competition. I get the feeling that you're just defending Nintendo with no real thought to where I'm coming from. I'm not attacking Nintendo, I'm discussing its position. Nintendo what appears to be the least consumer-friendly games library policy of any of the big names in the industry. My presentation that Nintendo actually has a failure rate is only to explain that these are real people who may have suddenly lost their entire library for no other reason than Nintendo links the account to the console and not to an individual like the industry standard has become. So I don't get it, do you like that Nintendo does this for some reason?

So let me get this straight... you claim that Sony offers exactly the same functionality as the Wii U by allowing tablets to sync with their console. When I point out that phones and tablets lack any buttons, and therefore cannot offer the same experience, your response is to bring up the fact that you can now sync external controllers with smartphones?

Congratulations on pointing that out to me. Now if you would kindly explain how that is in any way, shape or form relevant to the discussion? Pointing out that controllers can sync with smartphones is redundant when the topic of this conversation point, the PS4, has its own Dualshock 4 controllers that Sony have been marketing pretty loudly. What is the point of syncing up a PS3 controller to a phone to play a game on a console that has its own damn controllers? And more importantly, how is chopping and changing between a controller and a smartphone the same as a controller which has a touchscreen built in? Answer: it's not.

I'm saying that Sony offers similar functionality and it's entirely optional. It does not force you to spend $140 on a peripheral you may not use. In fact, it allows you to use hardware that you likely already have. Nintendo forces the individual to purchase an unnecessary peripheral. Sony does not while still mandating the developers make games able to be played remotely. So it gets the same development support as the gamepad without incuring any additional fees on the user.

It's not a tablet.

Yes, it is. It is a tablet. It's a tablet that is supplemented with a gamepad. By the same turn you can say it's a gamepad that has a tablet in it. Either way, it is a tablet and it is a gamepad. I'm sorry if that somehow offends you or makes you think this is an attack on Nintendo. I just do not like tablets as an input method for mainstream games. For that same reason I'm concerned with the PS4's touch screen interface on the controller and I'm most concerned with the XBO trying to force a kinect on us.

For example, take a look at this consumer report on the Archos Gamepad Tablet.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/04/archos-gamepad-tablet-review-a-good-idea-with-so-so-results/index.htm

Long story short, the article starts with, "The Archos GamePad is a tablet designed specifically for playing games...". Emphasis added.

So it's a good thing that the Gamepad functions as a regular old controller then, as seen with games like Bayonetta 2 and NSMBU.

Yes, that is a good thing. It's an even better thing that they've released the Wii U Pro Controller which is what I want to play with. I can't, however, play with that controller as long as developers still make entire games that demand the tablet-based gamepad. I am also forced to buy a $140 device I don't want and then have to go out and buy another $50 controller that I do want but may not be compatible with several high-profile titles. Can you at least understand how someone who does not like other forms of input would be miffed about this?

No it's not. You'd be having to constantly put down the controller to pick up the tablet, and vice versa. That's not intuitive. That is the textbook definition of being unintuitive.

If it is literally the controller for the ps3/ps4, why would you have to pick up the tablet/phone at any point? All the necessary buttons would be there on the controller. Also, there are gamepads that wrap around the tablet/phone in the exact same way as the WiiU's does. You can also purchase higher end models but those are generally gamings systems all by themselves and have no need to connect to the ps4. The Vita for example, is a pretty flawless system and the premium model is now only $200. $60 more than the WiiU's gamepad and yet capable of playing ps4 games from anywhere that the individual has service, capable of playing its own games, storing and playing movies, storing and playing music, etc.

I'll also note that the Vita has sold more than the WiiU. Just to put things into perspective.

So in order to get the most out of the PS4's smartphone/tablet functionality, you're going to have to buy a peripheral add-on device for your peripheral phone controller? Weren't you slamming Nintendo just now for their focus on peripherals, or 'gimmicky crap' as you like to call it? How is the Gamepad a gimmick, but an optional controller add-on for an optional smartphone control method not?

What I'm saying is that Sony is doing the same gimmick for cheaper and as an option, not a forced purchase of $140. Surely you see the difference in price (most of the pads are around $10-30) and having the option not to get or use it?

No, they can't. I've humoured you up until now, but this is pure bunk. A touchpad is in no way, shape or form a valid alternative for the tactile response and feedback offered by buttons.

Hmm, that's what old people said when smart phones got rid of number keys.

If the functionality offered by the Gamepad is not worth an additional $150 in your eyes, then there is no way in good conscience you can then turn around and in the same breath make a virtue of the PS Vita' functionality for considerablly more.

Haha, yes I can. The gamepad isn't anything other than a controller with a tablet screen in it. The Vita is an actual console. The gamepad has no internal storage that you can access and can't play its own games or stream anything apart from the WiiU. The Vita can do all of that. The Nintendo 3ds XL is also around $200 new. Imagine if you could use that instead of the gamepad. Which would be better? The 3DS XL by far. The basic 3ds is just $40 more. The only difference here is that you can't use them to play WiiU games whereas you can use the Vita. Well, you also can't use the DS to do a variety of other media tasks but that's not the point I'm making here.

With actual buttons.

Not on tablets/touchscreens. The screen has areas with icons on them to perform tasks.

A function we have yet to see demonstrated in a real world setting, and thus have no idea how well the service actually works. Game streaming is notoriously laggy, and requires a huge broadband connection to work. If you think you'll be able to stream the next Killzone game lag-free over a Starbucks wi-fi connection, then I only hope you have a strong stomach for disappointment, because that's what you'll be in for.

What do you mean? We've already seen it in action from the PSP/PS3 generation. There just weren't many games that supported it so you sometimes had to use silly hacks to play those games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeDNKCFBzEg (this is playing Batman Arkham City on psp remote play)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYKutQ_QBBw (this is just basic video streaming stuff from the ps3)

Your home internet is the machine connecting to any servers. Your handheld is just the display and input viewing it. I would imagine that lag would show its face on games like COD but I find it hard to believe that such a staunch Nintendo advocate is using difficulty playing COD games as a deterrent. It has been historically much harder to play COD titles on the Wii since they weren't often ported to it and if so, were downscaled.

Allegedly.

Factually. Games are made for it specifically that you play on them. I'm not sure how you could bring that into question.

And is currently tanking harder than the Wii U, without any kind of comparable first-party push being made by Sony to actually turn things around.

Playstation Vita = 7 million units sold over the past fiscal year, WiiU = 3.45 Million Units sold in their fiscal year. If you're using the Wikipedia numbers to base your facts off of you should note that those numbers are from 2012. You have just called the WiiU a failure by association.

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2013/05/sony_doesnt_expect_to_sell_many_playstation_vitas_over_the_coming_year

Sony only forecasts being able to sell another 5 million in the next fiscal year. The WiiU won't come close unless something changes.

 

[Lightknight]

It's kind of, already gotten there with the Wii U honestly.

I mean, by next gen, the Wii U can still be the weakest console in terms of graphical power, and nobody would really notice a difference between the 3.

They are playing a very clever game here.

PS3 was the most powerful console when it came out, and it absolutely hurt when it was having poor sales. Because they was significantly more loss per failure to sell unit.
Xbox 360( or rather the entire Xbox line up until a couple of years ago.) were always selling their consoles at a loss. Not as bad as PS3 since they didn't use other worldly architect.

It's basically a case of letting the other two sink buttloads of money into the newest tech. So by the time next gen rolls around the corner they can not only get that same tech power for much cheaper, but it's less expensive to build upon that to make an even more powerful machine.

At some point, it will get too expensive to work on Sony and Microsoft consoles. Unless of course you are a dev with money to spend.
And perhaps Nintendo can basically be a middle ground for studios that don't have shit loads of money to pump into graphics.

That is the thing a lot of Western 3rd parties don't like to admit: the HD era came too soon. All it's done is cause a LOT of problems production wise. It's led to devs refusing to admit that they can't have their cake and eat with the current gen as if you WANT to do these blockbuster games without quality suffering and budgets getting out of hand they're going to take awhile and trying to force these games to get done in two years is kind of ridiculous. You'd think 38 Studios folding after one game and the collapse of THQ would have been wakeup calls for people, but they STILL perpetuate these habits that aren't helping anyone. It's going to take something MAJOR for people to start taking Nintendo's methods, probably the contraction of one of the big 3rd parties or the PS4 or XB1 flopping at launch.

This is a really faulty argument that I see a lot of people making. Having more options doesn't make a person fail. Poor planning and market forecasting makes people fail.

This would be like saying that a painter fails at making art because the canvas offers too much freedom. Or that because you can buy everything in the store all at once, you have no money immediately after each visit to the store. NO. That's completely backwards. These studios are falling because some kid from the forecasting department told their CEO that they could make COD money if they just spent enough on the JRPG title when that little asshat didn't know anything about the market he was forecasting in but did know how to present the forecasting in a business appropriate PDF. The CEO then over spends by millions of dollars because he wants to make COD money. Then, the game comes out and is lauded as the best in its class and it sells millions of copies but it still isn't enough because they were dumb about budgeting for the project from the get go.

You don't look at a game that sold over 3 million copies but lost money and shake your head saying, "Alas, the consoles are too powerful for developers to profit at making games on". Instead, you should start to wonder how much they had to spend on development and marketing to actually lose money on such a great selling game and how the heck they justified that choice. Therein lies the problem.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

@Hazy

No disrespect to you, but I'm not talking about average street casuals as they don't support the games industry (save for mobile), I'm talking about gamers that buy their consoles and a shed load of games across its life time. Those kind of gamers largely do care what their systems can do.

Its easy to think that when I say specs that some might picture a very picky person, but overall they are just dedicated to get the best purchase so they can experience games at their best. Skyrim and Battlefield are some of the best experiences in gaming, and any console that misses them is a little poorer. Would love these kind of games to grace a Nintendo system, but that's going to be a long way off from happening now.

Few things wrong with this post

1)Console gamers don't need to know specs outside of hard drive space because if it says made for Xbox One it will run. That's one of the perks console gamers have over PC. Hell Mobile Game players have to worry about specs more because there is more then one iPhone or Android device out there. Sorry your tablet can't play the tegra 3 game even though it's android, not a issue with consoles.

2)Those two examples you listed are better on PC because mods and dedicated servers. And Skyrim ran poorly on the PS3 because how it handled it's ram. So yeah Skyrim graced a PS3 console, but it was trash.

Out side of what does this game on this console do different, specs are never a issue in consoles.

 

[Lightknight]

Few things wrong with this post

1)Console gamers don't need to know specs outside of hard drive space because if it says made for Xbox One it will run. That's one of the perks console gamers have over PC. Hell Mobile Game players have to worry about specs more because there is more then one iPhone or Android device out there. Sorry your tablet can't play the tegra 3 game even though it's android, not a issue with consoles.

They may care about specs in relation to other consoles. For example, this past generation saw the Wii being largely passed over by nearly all of the AAA titles and when one was ported to it, it was greatly diminished by the scale down to fit within its capabilities. The WiiU will also likely be facing the same thing this generation as well. It's more powerful than the 360/ps3, certainly, but it is enough below the ps4 and XBO to require significant downscaling (not to mention it being the only non-x86 machine means porting to it will require the most work). Exactly how much downscaling remains to be seen. The XBO and ps4 are estimated to be very similar with the ps4 having a potential to be much higher when all optimizations are figured out in the coming years. The question there is if it boasts enough power to knock the XBO out of the race for some titles. But I'd down that'd be the case since downscaling from one x86 environment to another isn't all that horrendous.

But in comparison with pcs, consoles absolutely have the advantage dollar for dollar because of that standardization and because of developers designing games specifically with it in mind. A $500 pc nowadays has no promises whatsoever that it'll be able to play games on the lowest settings 5 years from now. I tracked down a "budget" power pc build from 2006 that was $1,500 that would not be able to play 2011's Skyrim on minimum settings or would just barely make it. People forget every generation that the moment a new console comes out, the pc market gets a significant boost because gaming is what pushes pcs more than anything else (word processing and most media playing is as good as it needs to be right now, photo editing and such software is very close to not needing more resources to make a difference while games continue to grow in size and complexity). In the pc vs. ps3/360 market we saw the consoles (512mbs of RAM and 6 year-old processors) playing games that required 2GB minimum RAM with newer processors and video cards just for minimum on pc. This is because the pc gaming demands do not match up exactly with the console market. PC games demands go higher and there's several reasons for that, the primary one being that optimization of a machine with standard components can really get the most out of the machine in a way that pcs with cobbled pieces (like they mostly all are) wouldn't be able to handle.

2)Those two examples you listed are better on PC because mods and dedicated servers. And Skyrim ran poorly on the PS3 because how it handled it's ram. So yeah Skyrim graced a PS3 console, but it was trash.

Actually, and this point helps your side of the debate, Skyrim did not fail because of the PS3's RAM. Yes, it being devided into two 256mb compartments was dumb and certainly made the issue more pronounced on the ps3, but Skyrim failed for the same reason that Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas had trouble on the same system. Bethesda's games/engine has a significant asset bloating issue. Sony, in all it's wisdom, made a proprietary system that required developers to divide their assets into various categories. According to the current CEO (who was a team lead at the time of the quote), said this was done on purpose to prevent developers from unlocking the full potential of the console right away and forcing an early retirement to the system (they should be so lucky if developers had been able to do that). If any one of these categories gets too bloated, the ps3 crashes. I've worked as a QA engineer and software with significant bloating issues and I got the ps3 version about a week after launch when the problem was known but the cause was not. So I tested it, heavily. It turns out that assets like nirnroot glow effects and all of the dungeons were not resetting. So the game was keeping track of dungeons and dropped weapons and every time a nirnroot was picked it spawned another bloom that took up more resources. This is how a game save could have 7+ dragons flying around Skyrim even though they'd spawned ages ago. Stuff just didn't reset. All of Bethesda's subsequent patches were spent fixing these problems and problems the patches fixed. I actually became aware of this being the problem early on and figured out that you could play Skyrim indefinitely if you avoided picking nirnroot and limited yourself to only a few dungeons and cities while picking up everything you can to store in bodies or sell to vendors. It helped a lot if you also avoided killing the first dragon which triggered all subsequent random dragon encounters.

Sure, that was no way to play Skyrim. But it wasn't the console's problem per se. This was a company who didn't test their stuff properly or did and then released it anyways, thinking a day-one patch would fix it. Bethesda was able to get the bloating under control in about 5-6 months after release and you should currently be able to play the game without issue after downloading a massive update. FYI, this game caused me to buy the components to and build a massive and powerful pc that I've been enjoying ever since with the ps3 and 360 now being relegated to party and exclusive machines and the wii being the dust collector it always was after having finally tired of Mario party (great game!).

This link [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-07-19-ps3-a-pain-in-the-ass-to-work-on] includes both the bloated assets issue and the quote of Kaz Hirai that I mentioned regarding doing this asset crap on purpose. Without this problem, bloating would still have been an issue on the ps3 just like it was on the 360 but it would not have been quite as pronounced. The RAM division and save files turned out to be a slight misdirect in this case even though those posed a similar problem in New Vegas.

Thankfully Sony learned from their mistakes and ditched this in the ps4.