Nintendo Trying To Win Back Core Gamers With Wii U

Speaking at a shareholder meeting yesterday, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata discussed the company's goals for the Wii's successor, which aims to pick up the subset of gamers turned off by imprecise motion control. He said, "Wii was not accepted by core gamers because they did not want to abandon their preferred control approach. Additionally, Wii did not use HD because HD cost/performance at the time was low. Wii U makes it easier to use conventional controls. Also, the Wii U controller is not as big or heavy as it looks." Earlier comments from Shigeru Miyamoto indicate the new console will have more to offer in terms of online capabilities, but Nintendo isn't going to focus too heavily on that.

Comments

Re:Online

[Narcocide]

Bullet-proof, double-opt-in unique id exchanges required for P2P messaging and you call it "nonsense." I like the way you put that right out there to make it super obvious your vested interests lie entirely in SPAM and malware distribution. Good show, Sir! I welcome the bright future you envision where I will never again feel alone because cheap whores and porn bots nag me just as encessently from within the latest Zelda game as they do every time I accidentally log onto ICQ.

Games not technology

[the_raptor]

"Core gamers" flock to the console with the best games. The reason gamers like me abandoned Nintendo was because even the first party titles were pretty crap. The third party titles were largely unmitigated crap even when they were, bad, ports of PS/XBOX games.

Nintendo used to have a reputation for quality games, which they abandoned with the Wii.

You reap what you sow.

Re:Games not technology

[Xest]

I dunno, I think the controller was part of it too. Really, when I come home from work after a stressful day I just kinda want to veg on the couch and blow some stuff to peices. The last thing I want to do is jump around like a retard with reminders about how I should take a break getting in my way every 5 minutes

Even on a weekend though I didn't find it particularly great for deep immersive experiences, partly because well, the Wii just didn't have any, but partly because it's easier to mindlessly use a controller with your thumbs whilst you're transfixed on what's happening on screen than it is to again have to jump around, take breaks every now and again, and sometimes fight the imprecise nature of the original Wii mote as it fails to do what you wanted it too.

It's a great console for when you have friends over, you can have a real good time playing the party games, but you just can't really veg and chill too it, or get deeply immersed in games with it like you can the 360 / PS3.

The Wii U does look set to fix this but I'm not really confident Nintendo are going to pull it off right. Their displays of games were all footage taken from 360s/PS3s and when asked whether the Wii U would be able to look as good graphically as the 360 / PS3 rather than give a straight "yes" Nintendo instead gave an evasive "We're not sure"- that'll be a no then? A PR release from a company no one's ever heard of then followed this a few weeks later with an "estimate" that it'll be a billion times as good or something like that, but with that uncertainty from even Nintendo itself initially, I think I'll wait to see what it's actually like before I get too excited. I'm concerned about the talk of how the game can migrate to the controller too if you want the screen back- a controller wont be specced as well as the console so that means all games either have to have a very low detail mode, or the console isn't going to be that well specced in the first place after all.

Now they come forward with "Oh we don't care about the internet too much" or whatever it was they said and it sounds like they're being half arsed on that too.

I dunno, maybe it'll rock, but thus far signals from even Nintendo themselves don't seem terribly encouraging.

Re:Games not technology

[Eponymous Coward]

"Core gamers" is a small market, but I think they are chasing it because that's the market that is willing to pay $50 for a game. I really don't understand the reluctance by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to drastically lower prices. If new games were $20 instead of $50 or $60, I'm pretty certain my game library would be more than 3x as big.

I've been burned by too many crappy $50+ games that I'm very reluctant to buy any more. I've been pretty happy picking up bargains on Steam and playing games on my phone.

Re:Games not technology

[Seumas]

As someone who buys a lot of games every year and owns every console and over 400 games on Steam and has shelves of old game boxes, let me say what most disappointed me about Nintendo's future via their E3 press conference:

+ They announced a Mario game.
+ Another Mario game.
+ Another Mario game.
+ Another Mario game.
+ Another Zelda game.
+ Another Zelda game.
+ Another Zelda remake.
+ A pokemon game.

After thirty years, I think it's time to start doing new things instead of rolling out another iteration (or worse, a remake) of the same two or three franchises. Yes, they're cute. Yes, it's nostalgic. No, it's not enough to justify buying a console. I want that Nintendo pinache and a focus on fun games, but not necessarily in the form of the 800th Mario or Zelda game. And yes, there are other games for the Nintendo platform: shovelware.

Re:Games not technology

[ifrag]

Now they come forward with "Oh we don't care about the internet too much" or whatever it was they said and it sounds like they're being half arsed on that too.

And that statement right there shows just how serious Nintendo is about getting the "Core Gamers" back, which is not at all. A couple generations back with the PS2 and Xbox1 was the time when not caring about the internet was actually moderately acceptable. Things didn't really work too well, and the PS2 required special additional hardware, and add that to the fact there was only a handful of games actually worth playing online on either console, it wasn't a platform killer to not focus on it. In fact, I think the Gamecube actually did have some kind of network adapter, but for the one or two games that used it, not a big deal.

Now look at Xbox360 and PS3, where network play has been a much larger focus. I'd say overall, Microsoft actually has the better online offering at this point despite the premium fee to actually use it for anything, although I have used PSN a bit and it seems somewhat functional, recent trouble aside anyway. In fact, Sony probably should have at least provided some kind of low quality headset right with the system like Microsoft does, although there is the benefit of using pretty much any Bluetooth headset on their system.

So without Nintendo providing some kind of significant core network services, which 3rd party developers can easily jump on, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot yet again. And even if it can stand toe-to-toe with the others on graphics or control, it will still be the less desirable port of the title if multi-player doesn't hold its own. No matter how much Nintendo tries to be unique or innovative in other areas, failing to provide on some basic services like full featured multi-player with voice communication puts it firmly back in place as the developer shunned platform.

Re:Games not technology

[metamatic]

My N64 gathered dust. My Gamecube gathered dust. My Wii gathered dust. Why repeat the process?

Absolutely. Look at Metacritic's game releases by score by year for the Wii, for 2011, and you can see what the problem is. Count up the number of "green" games, and total by year.

2007: 19.
2008: 42.
2009: 64.
2010: 44.
2011: a miserable 10, if the current rate continues.

In comparison, the PS3 has had more good games than the Wii every single year, and its lead has increased every year.

So the Wii had three years where there were a decent number of good games. And a lot of those were ports of older games. And even then, other consoles had more good games, and when games were multiplatform, the Wii versions were usually inferior.

I have no interest in Wii U at this point. What I want from Nintendo is for them to either ship games, or get third party developers shipping games that don't suck. Or ideally, both.

Ironically, with the DS it's the opposite problem. There's a ton of good DS software, and I have no interest in the 3DS because they're moving in the direction of stupid gimmicks. I'm actually more interested in Sony's offerings for my next handheld game system.

Re:Lost touch

[Jurramonga]

Bingo. The first console I bought this generation was the Wii. When I had friends over it was a lot of fun, but everyone else owned a 360. I ended up buying one myself just so I could play with them online, and my Wii stopped seeing use altogether for years until we got Netflix (now that's the only thing it's used for). The other problem Nintendo is going to have is getting back the market share that Microsoft and Sony already have. Are you going to buy Call of Duty 9 for the Wii U, the Xbox 720, or the PlayStation 4? More people will be playing on the Xbox/Playstation (based on this exact same logic...), why would you even consider it for the Wii U? I don't think Nintendo stands a chance at gaining the hardcore gamer back. Good luck to them anyway. I really hope they can prove me wrong.

not going to work

[Gravis Zero]

a HUGE chunk of core gamers want a good online multiplayer system. if you are not going to put much focus on making your online capabilities very good or popular then you are just ignoring what the core gamers want.

then again, maybe if they offered the console in a few more colors...

Re:Online

[Tridus]

Yeah, and the most secure server on the planet is the one that's locked in a bunker and not plugged in. Not terribly useful though.

The system you so love because it blocks spammers also acts as an effective barrier for normal communication. It's a PITA that people just don't bother with. Usability matters, and Nintendo doesn't have it.

Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[Rogerborg]

Hands up everybody who just posted that.

Now, put your hand down if you said exactly the same about the Wii.

Anyone still got their hand up? Didn't think so.

Sure, you might be right this time, but Nintendo's massive gold swimming pool chock full of million Yen bills, hookers and blow says otherwise.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[Lysander7]

This article pertains to hardcore gamers, which is not included in the original and probably not even the Wii U's demographic. Sure, it had the best sales and made a lot of money, but we're referring to the "hardcore gamers". In this regard, the Wii did not sell well.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[Qzukk]

If they want hardcore gamers, they're going to have to bring the hardcore games.

Anyone with any interest at all in RPGs has a PS3. Anyone with any interest at all in shooters has an xbox. Only people with an interest in party games, cooking mama, golf, or old school nintendo gaming have the Wii.

Re:Online

[Seumas]

When was the last time you received spam on PSN or XBL? After several years of using both, I have never received one piece of spam on either one. At any rate, it's a lame excuse for not having a way to play with other people online or chatting while you play in 2011, without going through a bunch of ridiculous hoops.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[pecosdave]

I really think Sony is making a mistake not updating the PS3. I really think people might be willing to shell out for a new version that had new unheard of features like backwards compatibility with PS2 games, maybe a couple of extra USB ports, and maybe even memory card readers.

Not everyone has cable or fiber Internet

[tepples]

Valve has shown that lowering prices increases revenues.

For one thing, this is true in the case of urban gamers, who have access to with triple digit GB/mo transfer allowances. Gamers in rural areas depend on cartridges or discs because all they can get for Internet access is satellite or 3G, whose cap generally isn't high enough for a dual-layer DVD's worth of data in a whole month. Production of cartridges and discs adds a fixed overhead to the price of each copy.

For another, some games are based on a work of authorship or setting licensed from another party. This includes any book or movie tie-in, any sports game whose player characters represent real life athletes, or any rhythm game (e.g. DDR or Rock Band) or sandbox game (e.g. GTA series) with a licensed soundtrack. The licensor may insist on a fixed fee in dollars per copy sold, which likewise adds a fixed overhead.

Re:Online

[Abstrackt]

You could try a game-related forum. It doesn't seem like an elegant solution on the surface but if none of your friends are gamers it's a good way to meet people you get along with.

It looks like Nintendo's new console...

[mark-t]

.... is just a DS, where the top screen is your TV. Although the resolution seems respectable, the hand-held display is single-touch only, which only further makes it seem like the bottom half of a DS to me.

Also... from what I've heard... the console can't have more than one of these special controllers connected to it at any time, so it doesn't even open up any new multiplayer potential.

On another note, I can find absolutely no indication that Nintendo might be finally loading their upcoming console with a respectable amount of internal memory, which if they repeat the maneuver that they did with the Wii in that department, and don't have at least a comparable amount of general purpose and video memory that can be found on competing consoles, they are probably just going to end up frustrating 3rd party console game developers trying to develop sophisticated stuff for it to the point that they simply won't bother... and will just do stuff for nintendo's competition.

Re:Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile

[CronoCloud]

What is with your focus on everything being for everyone?

Tepples has Aspergers and IIRC used to babysit to make money before he got some job placement assistance.

As an RPG fan, I say it's too little, too late.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I had a SNES as a teenager, and I loved it. It had Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger, Axelay, Cybernator, Megaman X, Shin Megami Tensei, Wizardy V: Heart of the Maelstrom, Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Super Mario RPG, Super Metroid, Castlevania IV, A Link to the Past, etc.

I skipped the N64 because the only RPG available was Quest 64, and I didn't give a shit about Ocarina of Time.

I bought a GameCube, but the only games worth playing were Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2, Eternal Darkness, Tales of Symphonia, and Viewtiful Joe.

I bought a Wii, and it collects dust unless I feel like replaying Trauma Team, No More Heroes, or Muramasa: the Demon Blade.

I'm not buying a Wii U. Since Nintendo of America has no intention of releasing games like Xenoblade, The Last Story and Pandora’s Tower in the US, I have no further use for Nintendo.

Porting hardcore JRPGs

[hansamurai]

Nintendo of America just announced they will not be localizing Last Story, Xenoblade, or Pandora's Tower to the Wii, even though there was a huge campaign to bring them over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rainfall

This is pretty much the opposite of catering to the "hardcore" gamer crowd, though I guess they probably think that means people who play Call of Duty.