Nintendo Halts Wii U Production In Anticipation of Switch Launch (theguardian.com)

New submitter Shane_Optima writes: The Guardian reports that Nintendo has ceased production of the Wii U after a little more than four years. From the report: "In late January it was announced that Nintendo had ceased production of the Wii U console. The follow-up machine to the hugely successful Wii had sold fewer than 15 million units worldwide since its launch in 2012. PlayStation 4 sold more in a year. Wii sold more than 100m in its lifetime. What happened? How did Nintendo, one of the oldest and most respected companies in the video game industry, get it so wrong? And did anything good come out of the Wii U era? How will the machine be remembered, if at all?" Perhaps it could have something to do with the fact that the Wii U bundle didn't include a Wii remote-type controller, and the much-hyped secondary screen was most commonly used for solo gaming -- the exact opposite of the Wii's emphasis on a social experience and is an area where they have to compete with cell phones, tablets and their very own DS line. Nintendo still seems hellbent on selling a console-tablet hybrid, but at least this time it sounds like an interesting controller will be included.

Comments

I Use Mine

[MightyMartian]

I use my Wii U mainly to play Mario 64 these days.

Re:I Use Mine

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, you use a game console to play a game? thats fucking amazing, er wait that's not it, what is it? hmmm oh yea

no one cares

Re:I Use Mine

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you cared enough to post, felcher.

Re:I Use Mine

[Anonymous Coward]

The WiiU is honestly a great buy for anyone who didn't buy many Nintendo consoles over the years.

Personally, I never owned a SNES, N64, GBA, or Wii. As such, the WiiU package I bought this gen has been a great value proposition. There are enough games on virtual consoles and second hand Wii games that I can play a huge number of grat games I missed on the console, and even detach it form the TV where necessary.

And in retrospect -- having now had the opportunity to use it -- I confess that I was wrong about the Wiimote. It's a good system and it's a pity Nintendo let it go this gen. They really should release PC drivers and sensor adaptors for it.

Re:I Use Mine

[Narcocide]

I'm still convinced it only "flopped" due to fake news being parroted so widely about it by people who never tried one, never saw one, and never would have bought one anyway because they'd already decided to save their weekly allowance up for the then-completely-vaporware XboxOne or PlayStation4.

Re:I Use Mine

[93 Escort Wagon]

My daughter prefers to play Wii U single-player games on the GamePad rather than on the television. I have no idea why.

With the Wii U, it does feel like Nintendo just couldn't quite figure it out. Some of that may have nothing to do with the actual console - the best Mario Party, the best Mario Kart, and the best Zelda game are all on older consoles (and the new ones aren't even close). But they definitely missed the mark in other ways too. For instance, we bought the latest Mario Party, only to find that if a player was using the GamePad, they could only play as Bowser and basically be a secondary character - how does that make sense? My daughter plays on the thing a lot more than I do, but it seems as if that pad really only works optimally for single player games.

In any case, we're not buying the Switch. We might pick up a few more Wii U games as the prices drop.

Re:I Use Mine

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not misappropriate a new term that represents a grave and unfolding danger to society.

Re:I Use Mine

[Anonymous Coward]

Chill out grandpa, society evolves.

Re:I Use Mine

[Dogtanian]

My daughter prefers to play Wii U single-player games on the GamePad rather than on the television

I have to admit that I've never played the Wii U. However, I remember when it first came out it- and in particular, the screen-based gamepad- struck me as a contrived attempt to replicate the success of the original Wii.

That- of course- enjoyed success because it *didn't* attempt to go down the well-trodden, stereotypical path of reliant-on-graphical-specs hardware and traditional "serious" gamer demographics, but instead targeted the casual gaming market (which had already been opened up by the Nintendo DS which did much the same thing) and used a novel, interesting and more "active" controller- i.e. the Wiimote.

I won't accuse them of wanting lightning to strike twice- since that would imply the original Wii's success was pure luck the first time round, which I don't believe- but it's obvious that they thought they could pull of the same trick again.

Hence, the Wii had a novel controller, so the Wii U had a (contrivedly) novel controller. The Wii got away with being underpowered, so the Wii U would get away with being underpowered. The Wii was a success by targeting the casual market, thus its lack of traditional mainstream arcade games wasn't such an issue- so the Wii U would do the same thing.

One problem as I see it is the "casual" market that the Wii opened up had already moved on by 2012- towards "Farmville"-type Facebook skinner boxes and smartphone and tablet games- and that the Wii U's trying-too-hard controller was pretty expensive and hardly ideal for family and multiplayer games.

But the marketing was also pretty crap- failing to make clear enough that "Wii U" was an entirely new, next generation console rather than a tarted-up Wii or giving people who had a Wii gathering dust in a cupboard any reason to buy a new one. (And that was possibly another issue- the Wii seemed like a good idea to many people at the time, but I gather a lot of them ended up not being used, so they weren't likely to rush out and buy the next Wii).

Re:I Use Mine

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're in the wrong thread.

Re:I Use Mine

[93 Escort Wagon]

Hence, the Wii had a novel controller, so the Wii U had a (contrivedly) novel controller.

If you're right (and I think you are) - the Switch looks like it might be repeating this exact mistake.

Re:I Use Mine

[Dogtanian]

If you're right (and I think you are) - the Switch looks like it might be repeating this exact mistake.

Oh, indeed. That was my first thought when I saw the Switch- it was like deja-vu all over again. Another contrived attempt to create a "novel" console with a "novel" controller.

Re:I Use Mine

[ausekilis]

There are projects out there that allow a PC to use the Wiimote (and you can emulate the Wii/GC in Dolphin, anyway)

Multiple Screens

[MindPrison]

I remember it was (at least in the stores) hyped that separate screens (like the controller that comes with the Wii U) would be sold separately and we would be able to have 4 screens on it. Well that never happened.

Another bummer, was the fact that the launch came with an horribly slow OS and it took like forever to switch games. Plus the fact that the update was gigantic, so even on a 12 Mbit line it took like a good 5 hours to download the firmware update. This was a major setback, not to mention extremely annoying for kids expecting to play the games straight out of the box.

Just as a nail in the coffin, the good games didn't come out before 6 months after the launch and we where starved of good stuff, to top it off the Netflix application had a lot of bugs in it and rendered my Netflix viewing useless for 4 months. The Youtube app was hugely flawed as well, and the much anticipated Nintendo TV (which my unit kept promising would launch soon) never launched, but was an app...that never uninstalled - but gave us a message "No service in your area", enough to disharthen you every time you checked it out.

And the nails in the coffins kept coming, no new Zelda game, just raking in money on old-refurbs (Windwaker became Windwaker HD, followed by the next in the series, but still just HD remakes). Mario Maker was exciting the first 2 weeks, until I discovered that people just made simple "press-and-run" games that made all the good games "hidden", just to get scores so people could upload MORE levels themselves, of the same kind...and haul more votes. Mario Kart 8 was great, but I quickly got bored with it after a few weeks too.

Personally, the best games on the Wii U (for me) was Splatoon and Super Mario 3D world. It had awesome replayability and I ran trough it twice. Splatoon I kept playing every day for a month.Good times, as long as it lasted.

Personally, I don't think there's much wrong with the platform itself, the switch is gonna suffer the same fate if they keep people waiting for the big titles, and charge 60$ for 10 year old wiimotes. No more relaunches, we want fresh titles, and keepem coming if you want us to fatten your wallets.

Re:Multiple Screens

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The potential was there, just unrealized

To this day, I maintain that the Nintendo Land tech demo was still the best game for the WiiU. It offered up a fresh take on many existing franchises, it had several good single player games as well as multiplayer, and it used the tablet creatively to provide asymmetric multiplayer. More than anything else though, it was fun and different. The unique hardware allowed for gameplay that you just couldn't get anywhere else at the time.*

But, sadly, that's where the fun started and stopped. Games couldn't find a good use for the touchpad, and the whole thing languished.

*One game I've found recently that feels like it would have been perfect on the WiiU: Keep talking an nobody Explodes. WiiU could have utilized the second screen for the manuals and the TV for the bomb. Would've been amazing.

Re:Multiple Screens

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say the Wii U was successful in it's own right, but that's like saying you won a contest where most of the competition stayed home.

Truth be, the problem with the WiiU, after the Wii has more to do with not feeling like much of an upgrade, and the number of compelling games that Nintendo releases per console generation is kinda getting thin.

For example. The NES had two zelda games, the SNES had one, the N64 had two, the GC had one, the Wii had one, and the Wii U had one (that was also available on the Wii) and the other Wii U zelda was a HD port of the GC one. If anything the "second screen" was more of a detriment to playability in just about every game, though the idea behind it was actually really good. However Nintendo probably would have been better off writing a Smartphone/Tablet app that let you do the Mario Maker things, rather than trying to find a use for a second screen other than playing the game entirely on the second screen.

For example with Mario Kart, wow I can see the map. Yay... what was stopping the map from just being on the TV? Most "second screen" uses became this.

The Wii's motion controls were a sure-fire way to get young kids and seniors to play games by getting some physical action out of them, but for just about every other purpose, this doesn't work on the Wii U because the Wii U didn't come with the motion controller as the primary controller.

So here we are with the Switch, it's basically admitted defeat with the Wii U and just did what we wanted to do all along with the second screen, and use it as an alternate screen, not a second screen. And when you get 4 people together, now they can each have their own independent screen. Now the question will be if they have learned their mistakes from the 3DS/DSi/DS/GBA/GBC/GB about how local multiplayer really works (hint, think lan-party, where one person owns the game, and everyone else has a spawned copy (or pirate copy) of it), or will this be yet another fake-out where you can't play with anyone unless you take the Switch to schools and conventions.

Re:Multiple Screens

[rsmith-mac]

I remember it was (at least in the stores) hyped that separate screens (like the controller that comes with the Wii U) would be sold separately and we would be able to have 4 screens on it. Well that never happened.

There was never enough bandwidth for that to happen. Communication between the tablet and the console happened via 5GHz 802.11n; the system was designed with just enough bandwidth to support 480p60 at reasonable distances. Adding a second control would mean, at best, you're down to 30fps. And even then, that doesn't account for overhead from the console now having to split its time between multiple tablets.

4 tablets was right out, and as far as I know, no promises were made to that. Nintendo only ever commented on 2 tablets, and that was more of a "well, it's technically possible with some drawbacks..." kind of comment.

Re:Multiple Screens

[thegarbz]

Just as a nail in the coffin, the good games didn't come out before 6 months after the launch

This is one key thing right here. The launch titles have been abysmal and Nintendo appears nothing if not consistent with the Switch approach.

The Wii U ultimately ended up my favourite console. Actual challenging games like New Super Lugi U which didn't handhold the player, actual original and super fun games like Splatoon, the best Netflix experience to be had is now on the Wii U (unlike at launch) ... but none of this was available to drive early sales.

Re:Multiple Screens

[Anonymous Coward]

"10 year old wiimotes"??? You might as well call the PS4 controller a 22 year old controller. That's fucking stupid.

Marketed badly

[Anonymous Coward]

The first year it was marketed as if it was a Wii add on. By the time people figured out it was a stand alone console, third party games had abandoned it.

Also, while the Wii did sell really well, kids realized the third parties gave up on that console too, and had made their minds up they'd jump to Microsoft/Sony next chance they got.

Why I didn't bite.

[bob4u2c]

It seemed like an updated HDMI version of the WII at launch. The graphics didn't seem improved from what I saw advertised or in the store. The hand held controller seemed like an attempt to get me to buy another 3DS (which if it would allow existing 3DS units to work that way might have been a selling point). Lastly, launch games were not that great.

So in the end it didn't seem worth shelling out the money for what appeared to be a minor upgrade. As time passed there were some good games, but with rumors of a new console it still didn't seem worth it.

I'm holding out hope for the switch, but without a good line up of games I don't see a compelling reason to buy a new system.

Re:Why I didn't bite.

[sims 2]

From someone that deals in used goods the WII U was a PITA
Is that a tablet? No it's part of the WII U system.
So it's like a DS? No it doesn't work without the console it's not portable.

If one was on the shelf I'd get asked that several times a week

No one even knew what the thing was.

Re:Why I didn't bite.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The graphics didn't seem improved from what I saw advertised or in the store."

It's hilarious how blind some of you normies are. You wouldn't know the difference between PS2 and PS3 graphics if they came up and bit you in the face. I bet you're one of those people who just kept using your AV cables when you got an HDTV and couldn't even tell the difference.

It was a piece of shit when it came out!

[Anonymous Coward]

The WiiU was in part a spectacular fail because they didn't license the latest GPU tech from AMD when they decided to continue with them.

They licensed the R7x0 generation hardware and released JUST AS AMD DROPPED SUPPORT FOR IT ON PC! Additionally, since it didn't have OpenCL compatibility (RV7x0 could only support emulated OpenCL 1.0 because it and the RV6xx cards ended up not containing the minimum hardware for all OpenCL features, and almost no software was written for OpenCL 1.0, nevermind the 'Compatibility Profile', instead starting at OCL 1.1 and migrating to 1.2 before stagnating as a result of NVidia deciding 2+ wasn't worth supporting since they already had CUDA, which was far more popular and vendor lockin for them.) As a result, even excluding the 2GB RAM choice, they ended up with hardware that could be considered 'software obsolete' before it ever hit store shelves. And that was *5* years ago. Given that within a year it was obvious they had been hardware leaped by 2-3 generations in comparison to the Wii/360/PS3, they should have had a replacement console ready a couple years ago, instead of ending up with a shoddy rehash of the Nvidia Shield, or Razer Forge, both of which ended up failing in their own right. Combine that with online activation, huge updates because of shoddily written OSes, and prices comparable to their generation newer competitors and it was obvious they were going to fail before the hardware was out the door. The new console is not going to do any better.

Re:It was a piece of shit when it came out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the fatal flaw of the Wii U (specs wise, at least) was the CPU which was a tri-core version of the Wii CPU on steroids, which couldn't keep up with Xbox 360 ports, and a very low TDP target which gimped the GPU specs.

Re:It was a piece of shit when it came out!

[rakslice]

Excuse my GPU programming newbness, but isn't OpenCL an API for GPGPU stuff? How does that relate to a console?

Re:It was a piece of shit when it came out!

[tepples]

I imagine a given GPU's shader capability and its OpenCL capability are correlated.

Better headline:

[SeaFox]

Nintendo Graduates from Wii U and will Switch to Switch.

Re:Better headline:

[Shane_Optima]

Damn! That is nice.

The WiiU is what you make of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't believe the hype. The WiiU is a fantastic console. There are truly excellent games for the WiiU (Mario Kart 8, SM3DW, Paper Splash, Splatoon, Shovel Knight, Child of Light, DK). My family has had mindblowing fun with all four controllers playing these games, its a truly fun family console. You get the whole Wii library compatibility, its easy as hell to root, giving you the capability of installing EMU's of every single platform nintendo ever made. My Wiiu is juiced up with two 2GB SATA drives on the back, one drive with WIIU/Haxchii and the other shared for WII and GC using nintendont. There are plenty of games for all tastes. I am a JRPG guy so i like stuff like that, and theres plenty of hours i spend playing those games. Its a great system, i wouldnt trade it in for anything.

Re:The WiiU is what you make of it

[Anonymous Coward]

My family has had mindblowing fun with all four controllers playing these games

In what sense is it "mindblowing"? It's just a video game console and they're only video games.

Re:The WiiU is what you make of it

[Anonymous Coward]

how many mp3's can you store on that 2GB drive?

Re:The WiiU is what you make of it

[CronoCloud]

I am a JRPG guy so i like stuff like that, and theres plenty of hours i spend playing those games.

You're a JRPG guy....but you play on the WiiU? What kind of alternate universe do you live in?

If you want to play JRPG's the Wii aren't the systems you want, you want a PS4, Vita and PS3. The PS4/PS3/Vita have MORE JRPG's than any other system out there.

Re:The WiiU is what you make of it

[ookaze]

You're a JRPG guy....but you play on the WiiU? What kind of alternate universe do you live in?

If you want to play JRPG's the Wii aren't the systems you want, you want a PS4, Vita and PS3. The PS4/PS3/Vita have MORE JRPG's than any other system out there.

I'm also a JRPG fan and I believe I'm living in reality, and I also play on Wii U.
And the Wii and Wii U have the best JRPG games I've ever played (Xenoblades, Tokyo Mirage #FE). If you're a JRPG fan, PS4 or Vita are NOT the consoles you want. You'd better have a Nintendo 3DS for JRPG if you only want one, and PS4 is the worst of all (if not the Vita). Even a PC is better than those now that the JRPG makers have made their games available on GOG and Steam.
PS3 had some interesting ones, which is why I had a PS3 as a support for the Wii.
But I bought no PS4 in support for the Wii U, and the Nintendo Switch will have the few JRPG (Persona 5) that could make the PS4 interesting, in addition to the Nintendo Switch already being a JRPG heaven before it's even out.

I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope we find out eventually how Nintendo came up with such idiocy as the Wii U. Bad name, bad gimmick and awful specs really ruined the system.

Will be remembered as the "Wii HD"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I bought one last Christmas for the kids - was about $250 bundled with Splatoon and Super Smash Brothers. I picked it up largely because our last two Wiis had expired and I wanted to move to hard drive-based games. I really only invested in the upgraded party games: Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario World and they did a pretty good job with those. One of my son's also picked up Skyward Sword and played it (as a Wii disc).

I think what will be shortly be written on Nintendo's gravestone will be its inability to capitalize on its second tier franchises: the Metroids, Starfoxes, Sonics, Megamans, and Kid Icaruses of the world, and its inability to get on the DLC bandwagon. They'll also be smacking themselves for not fully building out the "Ocarina Zelda" line - almost indisputably one of the best games ever. (And when they tried...it was that shitty "Mask" game rather than the MMO or moar tunes that would have been huge cash cows.)

As Nintendo buyers, we've shown an incredible ability to buy more of the same - the gameplay is almost always excellent (except you Starfox Zero/3) - and we'd be happy to buy more levels, more worlds, more tracks. Nintendo finally got on the DLC bandwagon with Mario Kart (and yes, we bought them all...er both) but they've lately behaved like the DNC to American voters: we try to vote with our pocketbooks and they still try to feed us crap no one wants anyway.

Also, I think someone saw a pot of gold with the stupid Amibo doodads. I still haven't bought any of those and probably never will.

Re:Will be remembered as the "Wii HD"

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Sonic and Mega Man aren't Nintendo's franchises to capitalize on. They'd need Sega or Capcom (respectively) to bring those to their platform.
2) Nintendo won't have a gravestone anytime soon. (And I'm saying that as a life-long Nintendo fan that has every home console except the WiiU.) I'm actually looking to buy a Switch. You know they're just going to port the WiiU library to it anyway, so I might as well use it as the catch-up generation.
3) OOT was garbage compared to LTTP. Heresy, I know, but there it is. Zelda translated ok-ish into 3D. Certainly better than Metroid did. But I enjoyed Four Sword Adventures far more than OOT, personally. It just felt "right", even though it had that dumb "Mario level" format.

Agreed on most of the rest of it, though.

And I almost bought a Peach Amiibo for my aunt as we were teasing her about her new boyfriend, though. His name is similar to (but isn't) Mario. I wouldn't see much use for those otherwise, though.

Re:Will be remembered as the "Wii HD"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sonic and Megaman? "Fully building out the ocarina zelda line"???? "Shitty Mask game"???????????????

Holy Christ. You sound mentally challenged.

Re:Will be remembered as the "Wii HD"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

1) Sonic and Mega Man aren't Nintendo's franchises to capitalize on. They'd need Sega or Capcom (respectively) to bring those to their platform.

But they're being dumb-asses not to reach out to these franchises for more than the characters they lent to Super Smash Brothers. People want GAMES, not just another "hey, remember when you could actually buy and play MegaMan games" moment.

2) Nintendo won't have a gravestone anytime soon.

I'll bet the Switch will be Nintendo's last platform. That's enough of a gravestone for me.

Re:Will be remembered as the "Wii HD"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Sonic and Megaman? "

See reply above.

>> Fully building out the ocarina zelda line"????

Yes. The Zelda series evolved into one where there were multiple links acting in different time lines. The Ocarina Link's play was unique and innovative, and I bet Nintendo could have milked that timeline for a half-dozen spin-off games, maybe even an MMO when the Wii came out, instead of crapping out:

>> "Shitty Mask game"???????????????

Majora's Mask. Way too hard for many Zelda players with its three day time limit, and it required a physical expansion pack.

Nintend dropped the ball on surround sound, too.

[Miamicanes]

Nintendo was too fucking cheap to license Dolby surround, so if your amp didn't have working HDMI audio input (at launch, most of the few HT receivers that supported HDMI had broken implementations) AND support 5.1 LPCM, no surround sound for you. It couldn't even fall back to fucking ProLogic. The goddamn GAMECUBE had better surround-sound support (via ProLogic) than 98% of Wii-U owners ever got to enjoy.

To wit: in 2012, most home theater amps only supported DDS and DTS via S/PDIF. Nintendo decided to go with a standard that most amps (even ones that were only a year or two old) couldn't use... then, or EVER.

Lack of DD5.1 is a major reason why I always get the xb360 version of any game even though I also have a (generally unloved) Wii-U... graphically, Wii-U is no better than xb360, and the 360 has DD 5.1 surround sound & better controllers.

The xb360 is ALSO why I'm able to enjoy DD 5.1 surround with Netflix & Amazon... it's the ONLY platform allows you to enjoy surround sound with streaming video services if your amp lacks hdmi and DD7.1+

Oh, and let's not forget that Wii-U has a Blu-Ray drive, but can't actually PLAY Blu-Ray movies because Nintendo was too cheap to license the nessary IP.

What do you mean how did they get it wrong?

[LostMyBeaver]

I have a Wii U and I really like all 4 of my games for it!!!

Ok, let's be honest, the Wii U was a pathetic flop because :
    a) The controller (touch panel) was too big
    b) You couldn't reasonably buy a second touch panel controller. This means that when buying for children, their main audience, parent's would have to deal with fights over the pretty controller.
    c) The price was too damn high. This will be the problem with the switch as well. Nintendo does not target an audience who makes video games a religion. Instead they target children and casual gamers. They make the absolute best games in the world as well. The problem is, it's just too expensive. I would have probably bought a second Wii U (as my first is in my office currently) for the house and considered buying more games if the prices were closer to the casual gaming prices.
    d) iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, etc... if kids already have an iPod, iPad or iPhone, then why would they need a Wii U? My kids completely ditched Wii and Nintendo DS for iPad and iPhone. The games are far inferior, but if I could buy a proper Nintendo game for iPhone, I would pay $20. I would even consider buying a Nintendo branded Bluetooth game controller cover for the iPhone for up to $100. The point is, Wii and Wii U suck up the TV. But on iDevices, we can use our TV while the children play video games on their own screens. There is absolutely no value for a parent to have a game console connected to the TV. And Nintendo DS is soooo 2009.

I will buy a Nintendo Switch. I more than likely won't purchase many games for it as the prices are far too high. I also will share the device with my children instead of buying them their own. If it cost $199, I'd buy 3 on release day. If the games we $30-40, I'd probably buy quite a dozen over time. However at the current pricing point, I'll most likely only buy one device and then probably Mario Kart and Zelda. I imagine we'll grow bored of it quickly with only only one device and only two games. I also suppose we'll talk badly about it to our friends because it wouldn't provide enough entertainment with our game selection being so limited. I can easily imaging the device collecting much dust.

I think the most important thing to understand for Nintendo is that it would be far better to release a lesser device at the right price point and good affordable games than it would be to try and be another XBox or Playstation which both are devices designed for people who are too poor to afford PCs or too stupid to use them.

Re:What do you mean how did they get it wrong?

[CronoCloud]

try and be another XBox or Playstation which both are devices designed for people who are too poor to afford PCs or too stupid to use them.

consoles were around before the DOS PC was. They exist for many reasons.

Price/performance ratio. Remember this, in 1997 games like Diablo and Fallout 1 were 256 color sprites and tiles DOS games when PSone games were running 32-bit color with polygonal graphics.

Ease of use/lack of problems related to Windows. A console doesn't have to run all the services a general purpose Windows machine runs.

Game selection.

Re:What do you mean how did they get it wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

"if kids already have an iPod, iPad or iPhone, then why would they need a Wii U?"

Because iDevices are inherently shit for games. The lack of real controls, and the horrific market that requires each game to be a vapid fucking F2P shitpile, makes them utterly unsuited for anything good.

The only reason games even exist for them is because of "non-gamer" money. Billions of people who wouldn't buy a game device anyway, but they have a phone. And they wouldn't THINK of paying any money for a game. THAT is who you have to target as a phone game developer. If you don't, you don't sell.

All phone games are compromised because of this, and because of the lack of controls. You won't see a "proper" Nintendo game for a phone, ever. Not until the platform and its market stop being shit, which will be never.

Re:What do you mean how did they get it wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

"XBox or Playstation which both are devices designed for people who are too poor to afford PCs or too stupid to use them."

Hahahaha I'm sorry but NO. People buy consoles because they want games that are functional. They want fewer glitches, fewer crashes, no messed up visual effects, no fiddling around with bullshit options, none of those problems that happen because of your own special snowflake of a PC build so nobody else knows how to fix them.... just a videogame that plays exactly as it came off the assembly line.

Go on ANY Steam game forum, and chances are you'll see some variety of "black screen" or "game not starting" on the very first page of topics. This would be ridiculous on a console, but on PC it is simply the status quo. No, you're not smart for using a PC. You're just masochistic.

And yes, I'm saying that as a former avid PC gamer who simply got sick of it.

Re:What do you mean how did they get it wrong?

[Shane_Optima]

Ease of use, certainly. Price, not really. In the 90s, consoles were cheaper but in the 2000s and 2010s upgrading one's video card (and occasionally the proc/motherboard) has been cheaper.

Remember this, in 1997 games like Diablo and Fallout 1 were 256 color sprites and tiles DOS games when PSone games were running 32-bit color with polygonal graphics.

Uh no, neither of those two ran on DOS. They were Windows games. And I believe they had 16 bit colors. I'm not sure what the purpose is of comparing 3D PS games to 2D PC games. The Playstation 1 had 2d games, and of course Windows had 3D games. In fact, less than two years later Quake 3 offered curved surfaces before the Playstation 2 was even out.

Game selection

...is much better on PC? Yes, consoles have exclusive titles but that doesn't make consoles as a whole better. You can't get the latest Mario Kart on the Xbox or Halo on the Wii. And the PC certainly has plenty of exclusives.

Re:What do you mean how did they get it wrong?

[tepples]

In the 90s, consoles were cheaper but in the 2000s and 2010s upgrading one's video card (and occasionally the proc/motherboard) has been cheaper.

That's fine if you live alone. But if you have more than one person in the household, and one wants to use the PC for non-game purposes while the other plays a game, you need a second machine for the game. And I imagine it's cheaper for this second machine to be a Nintendo Switch than a gaming PC. Furthermore, if your existing PC is something other than a Windows tower, such as a laptop or a Mac, upgrades aren't quite so simple. Do you know anyone who has bought an aftermarket MXM GPU for a laptop or a Thunderbolt external GPU for a Mac?

Re:What do you mean how did they get it wrong?

[Shane_Optima]

But if you have more than one person in the household, and one wants to use the PC for non-game purposes while the other plays a game, you need a second machine for the game.

Same argument for "a second TV." And with cheap tablets and cheap laptops, the second TV may well cost more money.

And I imagine it's cheaper for this second machine to be a Nintendo Switch than a gaming PC.

Well, that's a Switch-specific argument, not applicable to other consoles. The Switch will be the first major semi-portable console to appear, i.e. has its own screen with multiplayer using separate, dedicated controllers. I can see how this may turn out to be useful for a lot of people, though I personally don't see it as being very important or interesting.

Furthermore, if your existing PC is something other than a Windows tower, such as a laptop or a Mac, upgrades aren't quite so simple.

If you're using a laptop for cutting-edge gaming, you have too much money and upgrade cost therefore shouldn't be an issue. If you're using a *Mac* for gaming, you're a masochist and you have too much money.

Do you know anyone who has bought an aftermarket MXM GPU for a laptop or a Thunderbolt external GPU for a Mac?

If you're using a *Mac laptop* for gaming, you're the reason why communists exist.

Seriously, I'm not even sure how this is relevant to the comparison. Do you know anyone who bought a portable TV and carried that around in a bag with their console to do some console equivalent of LAN parties?

Pre-Switch consoles were not easily portable. Neither are the gaming desktops that I'm comparing them to. Score: 0 - 0.

Re:What do you mean how did they get it wrong?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Buddy, in 1997, 3d graphics were all the rage in the PC space, with the 3dfx Voodoo, and offerings from ATI, NVidia, Matrox, PowerVR, and so on.

GLQuake was released in 1997, as was Wing Commander: Prophecy, Heavy Gear, lots of other games.

PC was doing 3d games like Wing Commander 3 and 4, and MechWarrior 2 years prior to that. Let alone games like Alone in the Dark even earlier.

In 1999, a scant two years later, Bleem! brought PlayStation emulation to the PC.

Lacking support

[Anonymous Coward]

Archaic bound-to-console eshop system, horrible netflix app, nes emulator looks like shit, hardly any software, not being able to use gamepad controls on wii games. I liked gaming on the gamepad but it honestly felt like nintendo did everything they could to make me hate it

Re:Nintend dropped the ball on surround sound, too

[CronoCloud]

To wit: in 2012, most home theater amps only supported DDS and DTS via S/PDIF.

I think you are mistaken, there were amps in 2006 that could do LPCM over HDMI. I know Onkyo had them.

Lack of DD5.1 is a major reason why I always get the xb360 version of any game

LPCM is superior, don't use DD.

The xb360 is ALSO why I'm able to enjoy DD 5.1 surround with Netflix & Amazon... it's the ONLY platform allows you to enjoy surround sound with streaming video services if your amp lacks hdmi and DD7.1+

It is 2016, don't buy an amp without HDMI.

Still waiting for my classic mini

[Anonymous Coward]

I still didn't get the Nintendo Classic Mini I ordered in November as a Christmas gift.
They could have made a real fortune in the Christmas season selling those. Cheap console with lots of old but fun classic games. Royally fucked that one up.

I might have pre-ordered a switch if they'd solidly delivered on the classic. Certainly not gonna order it now.

Wii U failed because Wii did not have HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

People got burned by Wii's lack of HDMI and they did not want to get fooled twice.

Where were you, Nintendo?

[PMuse]

I think I am their target market. Our Wii is aging and my kids are growing but not yet grown (oldest is middle school). I want a console with engaging, playable titles that won't bore them. On the other hand, I'm not ready to immerse them in the apocalyptic nightmare killiastic gore storm that I bathed in throughout my own 20's. Sure, we want all the new, awesome doodads, resolution, headsets, multiplayer, massive multiplayer, etc., but please with a plot that doesn't involve clubbing down either little old ladies or baby seals, or wielding bone saws. Maybe some scheming plumbers and giant megalomaniacal apes?

When I had to settle for a PS4 last year, what I really wanted was the awesome, high-powered, market-leading Nintendo console of my dreams. Where were you, Nintendo?

Game consoles have buttons

[tepples]

if kids already have an iPod, iPad or iPhone, then why would they need a Wii U?

Because not all game genres work well with a touch screen as the only input method. That's why the Wii U GamePad has buttons beside its touch screen rather than expecting developers to make a virtual gamepad.

The games are far inferior, but if I could buy a proper Nintendo game for iPhone, I would pay $20.

Super Mario Run exists. The drawback is that it doesn't run on an iPod touch or Wi-Fi-only iPad in a vehicle.

Re: Nintend dropped the ball on surround sound, to

[Miamicanes]

In 2006 there were amps that could SWITCH HDMI, but very few that could sit between the source and TV, extract the audio, AND spoof a 5.1-capable EDID. Go to avsforums.com & read the hundreds of angry forum posts from ~2008-2010 when Blu-Ray became real, and most people with "HDMI" receivers discovered that they had broken implementations that would NEVER be allowed to work as advertised.

Then, the HDMI people turned around & fucked everyone a SECOND time with HDCP 2.2. It's madness. They literally expect people to keep throwing away perfectly good amps every 2-4 years just to continue being allowed to have surround sound.

And I can assure you, prior to ~2013, almost NO amps supported 5.1 LPCM. They could do 7.1 DD+, 7.1 DTS+, and 2.0 LPCM, but NOT 5.1 LPCM.

Even NOW, support for 5.1 LPCM is a crapshoot.

Families probably already own a TV

[tepples]

Same argument for "a second TV."

If a household has an antenna, a cable box, a streaming box, and/or a DVD or Blu-ray player, it has such a second TV. As I understand it, the more common setup is for the family's largest monitor to be in the living room, with a smaller monitor on the computer desk in another room. I imagine that in developed countries with no recurring tax on TV ownership, households that either have no TV or use the household's only TV as a computer monitor are in the minority.

And I imagine it's cheaper for this second machine to be a Nintendo Switch than a gaming PC.

Well, that's a Switch-specific argument, not applicable to other consoles.

How not? I mentioned Switch because headline, but $299 will also get you a PlayStation 4 or an Xbox One S that connects to the monitor that's likely already in your living room.

upgrading one's video card (and occasionally the proc/motherboard) has been cheaper

if your existing PC is something other than a Windows tower, such as a laptop or a Mac, upgrades aren't quite so simple.

If you're using a laptop for cutting-edge gaming, you have too much money and upgrade cost therefore shouldn't be an issue. If you're using a *Mac* for gaming, you're a masochist and you have too much money.

I thought your claim was that adding a GPU to what you already use for non-gaming is a practical alternative to buying a game console. Adding a GPU isn't practical if what you already use for non-gaming happens to be a laptop, tablet with keyboard, Mac, or an eight-year-old desktop PC with a Core 2 Duo that still runs. If any of those is true, you first need to buy or build a recent Windows PC, and then that gets factored into the price.

Do you know anyone who bought a portable TV and carried that around in a bag with their console to do some console equivalent of LAN parties?

My aunt's son.

Besides, the console counterpart to a LAN party isn't necessarily a LAN party at all as much as bringing your own controller to use in someone else's living room for same-screen multiplayer.

Re: Nintend dropped the ball on surround sound, to

[tlhIngan]

In 2006 there were amps that could SWITCH HDMI, but very few that could sit between the source and TV, extract the audio, AND spoof a 5.1-capable EDID. Go to avsforums.com & read the hundreds of angry forum posts from ~2008-2010 when Blu-Ray became real, and most people with "HDMI" receivers discovered that they had broken implementations that would NEVER be allowed to work as advertised.

Then, the HDMI people turned around & fucked everyone a SECOND time with HDCP 2.2. It's madness. They literally expect people to keep throwing away perfectly good amps every 2-4 years just to continue being allowed to have surround sound.

And I can assure you, prior to ~2013, almost NO amps supported 5.1 LPCM. They could do 7.1 DD+, 7.1 DTS+, and 2.0 LPCM, but NOT 5.1 LPCM.

Even NOW, support for 5.1 LPCM is a crapshoot.

No it isn't.

In fact, I think you're confusing a lot of things, because HDMI supported LPCM from the get-go - it was in all the way when HDMI only supported 1080i.

Granted, due to the pixel clock, resolution did have an effect on the number of channels, sample rate and resolution, so if you have a low bandwidth video like 480i, you only could get 48kHz 2 channel PCM. Once you hit high-def 8 channel (7.1) 24 bit 192kHz was available - all you needed was a 720p or 1080i signal.

But 5.1 discrete PCM channels was definitely well supported. During the war, support for high def codecs like Dolby TrueHD, DTS HD, etc was iffy, and you could only really count on PCM, Dolby Digital or DTS. But by 2009, all receivers I saw were supporting PCM (it's in the basic HDMI spec), TrueHD and DTS-MA.

And by 2012, it was a non-issue.

Heck, 2012 Blu-Ray players often have multi-channel HD codec decoders, so if your receiver didn't support TrueHD or DTS-MA, you could set them and get 7.1 via LPCM. These days, no one bothers so Blu-Ray players have gotten cheap and only license a stereo decoder (with downmixer) if you try to set them to PCM only output. It's a super common problem on AVS Forums nowadays, in fact.

Sony's PS3 also only supported LPCM for surround sound gaming, and that was 2007. I still remember being disappointed when the Xbox360's HDMI out only could do encoded 5.1 and not LPCM.

Re: Nintend dropped the ball on surround sound, to

[SuiteSisterMary]

The Xbox and Xbox 360 could generate DD5.1 streams; the PS3 could play DD5.1 streams.

On the other hand, I specifically bought a Sony receiver that accepted 5.1 and 7.1 LPCM and very little else, and use a PS3 with the Harmony remote receiver as my HT bluray player; whatever sound format happens to be used, the PS3 happily decodes it and spits it out LPCM, and the receiver happily plays it.