Wii U - Page 9  

Nintendo could argue that the $$ genreated by Wii sales over it's lifetime (or most of it anyway) made having a "head in the sand" a profitable position.

They could, but they clearly made some missteps that have left them in a bad place. Theyre losing money now, and thats due to their own shortsightedness. The Wii wasn't sustainable, and I see the same fate written all over the Wii U. Had the Wii U come out in 2009-2010, it might be a different story.

As the above poster mentioned, it wasn't as profitable as it seemed since Nintendo has lost billions over the past year or two. In the past, when a console drops to "mass market" prices, the sales pick up dramatically. But in the case of the Wii, the price drop was accompanied by a massive drop in sales. That means that Nintendo was making less money per Wii and selling fewer of them. Having their "head in the sand" cost them quite a bit.

Their approach did, however, get them massively renewed mindshare among younger gamers.

Nintendo reported their first annual loss in April 2012. And it was around 460 million(USD). In April 2011 they reported profit of around 950 million (USD) and in April 2010 they reported profits of over 2 billion(USD). So their first annual loss of around 460 million doesn't even come close to wiping out their profits from the previous two years. (In April 2009 they had almost 3 billion(USD) in profits(2.8 billion)
Edited by aaronwt - 6/12/12 at 5:42pm

The Wii could've made more money in its last years. NoA managed to screw up imports for 3 games and many more before it. Pikmin 2 was released for Wii in Europe and Japan in 2009. Now they want to sell it at $20. They could've moved more games (Mario Galaxy 1 was still $50 when its sequel came out) by making gimmicks like "new play control" $20 and not $40 and releasing their hits after they were no longer profitable. Not to mention the cash they could've pulled down from potential DLC in mario kart tracks alone. They did some shaping up with 3DS but they've still got a ways to go.

aaronwt - You should know better than to use real numbers and research when making a post. This is AVS, not some place concerned with things like "fact"!

I stand corrected. The number I was referring to was the revised earnings for 2011 which fell by over a billion dollars. Not a "net loss," but certainly a massive underperformance.

In either case, it didn't come close to wiping out whatever net profit they'd earned over the lifetime of the Wii. Nor was that my suggestion.

I don't see a $99.99 pricetag for the tablet controller. Nintendo isn't going to want to be known as the manufacturer with the $100 controller.

I suspect it will be more like $79.99. Still a high price, but much more within reason with controller prices of recent years while still taking into account the obvious extra expense of the screen.

Nintendo isn't going to need to view this controller as an area to make money off of. Buying a replacement or an extra is going to be uncommon I suspect, so even if $80 is a slight loss, it's not going to be nearly as significant as something like selling a Wiimote for below cost would've been 5 years ago. For the average consumer, the only tablet controller they're going to have is going to be the one bundled in with their system.

The other "solution" is that Nintendo doesn't seem to be pushing for multiplayer games that use the GamePad. Judging by what was shown at E3, most of the multiplayer games use Wii remotes, and the tablet serves as a supplemental controller.

Remember, too, that at the original announcement last year, Nintendo said you would only be able to use one. So even though they've now added the ability to use two (at a performance cost), I don't think many games will utilize both. Or if they do, that won't be a major emphasis.

This exactly. I still think a (to my eyes, oversized) tablet controller isn't innovation, and asymmetrical gameplay sounds downright unfun, save in a few party games. The games previewed so far made the screen look forced and shoehorned in, really. Nothing I've seen does much to add to the experience, and there's nothing shown so far that gives me confidence anyone will give it the kind of thought we've been looking forward to since E3 2011.

Like Mongo mentioned in the E3 thread, this isn't a "WHOA" moment like the Wii controller was. Unless tons of games suddenly pop up utilizing the proposed functionality we've been shown for the last year- meaningful tablet controls, on-screen play functionality, interactive multiplayer experience- this controller will be another Wii Speak.

It brings out the crotchety old man in me, yes, but anyone with kids knows that young'uns are gonna argue over the damn controller constantly until the buzz wears off. It'll get tossed, dropped, and stepped on while switching turns, and frustration will ensue every time the player with the tablet is a sucky gamer... waiting on mom to move a platform or flip a switch on the controller screen will be prefaced with endless choruses of "C'MON! We're waiting on you!! Geez!".

$80 sounds like it would be a steal for a controller with a 6" touchscreen. The regualr wireless Xbox 360 controller is $40. So if they only charged $40 more to get a 6" touch screen for the WiiU it seems like that could make an extra controller popular with some people.

E3 Analyst Q&A Session

"Question: I understand for the Wii, Mr. Miyamoto designed a system with about five or six key titles in mind: “Wii Sports,” “Wii Sports Resort,” “Wii Music” and several others. Has something similar occurred this time? So far, obviously we’ve seen “Pikmin 3,” but is there a similar strategy of a range of titles that he is playing a role in to create that is the plan for the next two or three years for the Wii U?

Iwata:

First, what we’ve shown at the E3 show are both the launch titles that will be released with Wii U hardware this holiday season and the launch window titles that will be released early next year or not long after the hardware launch. We do have ideas of what kind of software we will be releasing after those two periods, and Mr. Miyamoto as well as I are both directly involved in the development process. Those include both our traditional franchises and of course new propositions as well. However, because we are now in the era when similar proposals can be made by the others just one year after we introduced a brand-new hardware system proposal, please understand that we really can’t say much about what else we are planning."

It explains why Nintendo didn't show much. It certainly makes sense though. It really is good we have Nintendo around to keep trying to push new things.

The tablet controller certainly isn't the revolutionary concept motion gaming was, but it certainly has it's opportunities.It will come down to how developers use it. ZombiU was a great example of using the 2nd screen not only as a tool but also way to create tension. The main screen going to 3rd person while you use the pad so you will be nervously trying to hurry while watching your back or scrambling to get in a passcode while zombies are coming. Ports I'm sure will keep it simple and it will be used for things like maps and inventory. Not revolutionary but having a map in front of you on a game like AC3 is a handy thing to have.
Edited by Monger - 6/13/12 at 12:07pm

It's also worth noting that a large part of Nintendo's loss is owed to the value of the Yen. Or, as the Wall Street Journal put it: "Nintendo's results also were dragged down by the strong yen. The company keeps much of its cash in foreign currencies, so a stronger yen amplifies paper losses on its reserves when converted into the Japanese currency. A strong yen also makes Japanese-made products more expensive overseas."

This same strategy hurt Sony, as well...but Sony's been in a rough place for some time. This is Nintendo's first annual loss in something like 30 years, iirc.

Just using the WiiPad to display a map or inventory sounds boring, and I would hate if that's all most games ended up using it for, but I think people underestimate what a nice little perk that would be for sandbox-style games. Recently, while exploring in games like Arkham City, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Red Dead Redemption, and Xenoblade Chronicles, I was thinking how nice it would be not to have to pause and then navigate to the map screen every 5 seconds. Not exactly a system-selling feature, but a little bit of immersion-preservation just the same, and basically the culmination of Nintendo's slow, steady erasure of HUDs over the past few years.

Has anything been said about the WiiU and the sensor bar? I'm assuming it will be used - has anything changed? Maybe wireless this time?

It's premature to worry about the price of the tablet (aka "GamePad"). As I suspected, Nintendo has yet to design/develop any games that use two tablets simultaneously. According to Reggie Fils-Aime, nothing that's set for the broad "launch window" will take advantage of two tablets, even among third-party publishers.

This is Gamasutra's write-up on the news: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/172190/Nintendos_FilsAime_outlines_Wii_Us_dual_GamePad_plans_value_proposition.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GamasutraNews+%28Gamasutra+News%29

So, who knows how much those things will sell for by the time they become relevant. Could be $60 in a year or two.

It's really just a normal modern controller with a $3 screen attached to it. I think you guys are overpricing it at $80. It's quite possible that that is the price Nintendo will go for, but even they would realize that that is a pretty tough sell. As Con says though, we are pretty much just wanking over the price right now. We still don't even know what the console will retail for, does the Pad price really matter in comparison?

Can somebody spell out this "asymmetric" buzzword for me? I got a B in Geometry.

Basically it means one person really plays the game, while the other person pretends to play by painting flowers and birds in the middle of their game. It's basically just a revised version of the kinds of things they did for "multiplayer" in Super Mario Galaxy. So, for example, in New Super Mario Bros. U, one or more people play (using Wii Remotes) while another person draws in platforms (using the GamePad).

"Assymetric" because the person using the GamePad isn't playing the game in the same way as the person using the Wii Remote. They're the support player. Nintendo would never say this, but it's the role you give to the younger kids or to mom so that they can feel like they're "playing" too. Kind of like giving a kid an old disconnected telephone to "make calls."

But if done well and creatively, it could actually produce some cool ideas.
Edited by confidenceman - 6/13/12 at 3:25pm

For a less patronizing answer, look at the Luigi's Mansion part of Nintendo Land. One person plays as the ghost, and can see everything on their hand held screen. The other 4 players use wii remotes to run their guys around and find the invisible ghost. It's asymmetric because while it is multiplayer, the players are doing different things, serving different functions.

Yes, this can absolutely be terribly implemented, adding nothing, but then so can everything you could ever care to name.

Symmetric multiplayer would be like Battlefield. Everybody is a soldier making shooty-bangs, doing the same thing.

It could be interesting in some games, but I mean, I was playing asymmetric multiplayer on the original XBox with Splinter Cell Chaos Theory's Spies vs Mercs mode. I just don't really see that as a huge draw when you can do the same thing over the internet far easier these days.

I have never, at any point, been playing a game over the interwebs and thought to myself "Man, this is way better than having somebody here with me in my living room!". Even when a system works pretty great, as with Xbox Live, it still is nowhere as easy or interactive as having a human present.

Having something else besides the tablet controller filling out a multiplayer roster doesn't mean they can't have the same controls available. They exhibited a traditional controller that has everything the tablet has except the touch screen. And a Wiimote and nunchuck doesn't mean people have to use motion since it's equipped with buttons and an analog stick. And then there's the Classic Controller that can be plugged into a Wiimote.

Doesn't strike me as an issue. There shouldn't be any issues having a full multiplayer roster with comparable controls.

Heck, didn't I read that the MSRP of the DSi is now $100? Not sure why you think a touch screen with just enough extra equipment inside to communicate with the WiiU itself (Which will be handling all the processing chores) is so expensive.

And I thought controller prices for 1st party equipment was more like $60 for a wireless 360 controller (Not even sure MS makes wired pads now), Dual Shock 3's, and a Wiimote/nunchuck combo.

That was certainly the case at least earlier in this generation.

Not much to say about it. We know it's compatible with Wii controllers which means it has to have a sensor bar. And the pre 2011 E3 rumor about the WiiU controller being the sensor bar can be squished since we know that Wii equipment will be what's commonly used to fill out multiplayer rosters in conjunction with the tablet controller. And we know it won't be wireless since Nintendo isn't going to expect people to be replacing batteries all the time.

If you want a wireless sensor bar that you have to bother turning on and remembering to turn off when finished so that it will work the next time you play, there's a multitude of 3rd party options out there that have been available for years.

Exactly. We've already seen examples of standard multiplayer games. The deal with asymmetric multiplayer is that this is an initiative primarily for Nintendo's first-party games. They're taking the star-collecting portion of SMG and fleshing it out. But that won't come at the cost of regular old multiplayer.

The GamePad has its own Wiimote sensor bar built in, but seeing that we have seen games using Wiimotes + GamePad, I would assume WiiU will also include one for the main TV screen. And as Leo pointed out, a packed in WiiU sensor bar will NOT be wireless. But there are lots of after market options for such things.

If you look at the press photos, the sensor bar is present and looks exactly as the Wii on does.

I just wonder what the standard control configuration is going to be. It's so ridiculously fragmented at launch...there's the gamepad, the wiimote, and the classic controller pro. Multiples of each. How can they bank so heavily on asymmetric multiplayer when there's so many control schemes?

No joke. But it may not be too bad. The GamePad and new Xbox-style controller have the same buttons. The only difference is the screen and shape. The Wii Remote is the one oddball. The motion controls in the Wii Remote can all be replicated using the GamePad, but the tricky part would be the buttons. My guess is that third-party developers won't bother adapting controls for the Wii Remote--especially for multiplatform games.

So basically, keep the Wii Remote around for old Wii games. Otherwise, use one of the new controllers. Hopefully the new d-pads will be good for platformers and the like.