Official E3 2011 Thread

[Rombie]

I don't get where you go on ranting that the WiiU isn't even half a generation leap, considering that its processor suggest otherwise. We do know that it is more powerful than the Cell and whatever keeps the 360 relevant these days. Yet not enough info is out there.

However, one developer just gave an interview today making the point that the console does use technology that is quite modern (I guess some want future-day tech, though). You even got Mike "Nintendo-hater" Rein impressed by the console. I mean, that alone says a lot (albeit not enough for tech geeks).

And that PR video of several multiplatform games for the WiiU really says nothing about the consoles capabilities since they were all obviously running on the PS3/360. I would rather wait to see a 1st party game (not the tech demos available today, though) before making any judgement in that regard.

You're missing the point, which was kinda extended into the later discussion below. The games shown are essentially the same as you'd see on the 360 and PS3 because that's what the Devs will do. Yes, there is 5 to 6 years of new technology in the Wii-U over the competition but it's up to the devs to use it and considering they already have issues with the differences between the 360 and PS3 now I somehow doubt they're going to just change this tact for the Wii-U. It's early days for sure, but I don't see a leap forward - I see simply Nintendo leveling themselves into a marketplace.

My thoughts on the tech benefits are probably more towards function than graphics or engine. For example it'll take more rendering power to have two players on the same Wii-U using two controllers with different outputs, it'll require more for certain features, etc. These are the things the devs themselves seemed to be excited by and I think thats where the focus will go. But to me extra control features and options aren't a big leap forward.

Besides, it would be stupid of Nintendo to ditch the Wii brand name considering the impact it had this generation and its installed user base. It would be as stupid as Sony letting go of the Playstation brand name after they made it big with the PS1.

Funny enough Reggie kinda discussed that in the GT stuff above, discussing why they didn't call it something else. It wasn't exactly as you said (he kinda further established his rambling about the We U thing as a core concept to what they wanted the console to represent) to them but I'd believe you're more likely to be right. The concept also is not a replacement as I mentioned above, an extension, Reggie even avoided calling it a console when he first started talking about it. So keeping the Wii name clearly fits into a bunch of things Nintendo wants to keep a focus on.

You make it sound as if 3rd party devs are placing all their eggs on the WiiU. They aren't. They are in fact going to cast a bigger net by making multiplatform games for 3 systems instead of 2. I wouldn't worry about them at all.

Again you're missing the point. Nintendo can't rely on one or the other. The 3DS is lacking in 1st party currently which people see as a reason why the sales have been not to Nintendo's liking, on the flipside too many 1st party games because it pigeonholes their sales base. This isn't about the success of the 3rd party developer, it's about the base advantage for Nintendo and the risk/reward of having another console out (especially one now that according to Reggie will be in competition against itself - like the DS is to the 3DS).

When it came to the Wii, especially in the past 3 years, the number of mature titles (for lack of a better word) dropped off, the number of 3rd party titles dropped off, and the ones who stayed there who'd made a good mix of games tended to focus more towards family friendly titles because they were the ones that sold better. They're following market trends and Nintendo's track record.

The Wii consumers you're talking about are quite different from the typical 'Nintendo consumer' or the ones Ninty had durin' the Cube years. These ones, they are not predictable at all. They can support stuff you wouldn't imagine that could catch on. Besides, everyone agrees that the Wii needed an upgrade or a successor to arrive as soon as possible. You got Michael Pachter, Sony, MS, gamers in general saying pretty much that in their own particular way.

I don't disagree, I just have particular questions left as if if Nintendo has done enough by extending out the Wii product in the coming year than say perhaps spending another year or so beyond that to bring in something that truly is next generation.

As for the consumers I think you're completely the opposite of me and giving them way too much credit. Again as I mentioned in my lower post, the cyclic nature of drop in sales, drop in 3rd party, drop in sales, etc. seems to have a big impact on the Wii, and this a repeat of Nintendo two previous consoles before it. By that nature it's hard for me to believe history won't repeat for a 4th time (even if for the first few years the Wii-U begins printing money for them again as the Wii did, it just hasn't had the legs the competition has built).

I guess the biggest thing that will change the success or not success is the fact that unlike the other 3 consoles, Nintendo is launching this alone and not in competition to other new/recent consoles, just existing ones. This will, to me at least, either pay off well or not. And I think that's entirely based on how many Wii owners, of the 36 million out there, will want to upgrade.

I do think that Nintendo, and even Sony and MS will have a difficult time making it these days.

The mobile market is just unstoppable.

Totally. Mobiles, Facebook gaming, etc. It's all new markets to compete with. It's clearly why, well at least Nintendo and Sony, are thinking of new ways to make gaming portable to various degrees. I complain a lot about the Wii-U because I have a lot of unsure questions about the tech (and Reggie is cagey about details until Nintendo officially details the specs, price, launch titles and release) but I think the ability to shift and play split screen or using the device is definitely cool. But I'm just not sure how much the consumers will go for it all.

[Dracarys]

I think the Wii U was shown too soon. They showed off the hardware using Wii games with a new gimmick to them, many people seem to be wondering if the Wii U is just the controller.

What really sells to people is the software, so apart from showing Wii games which was a big mistake they showed nothing from themselves, another mistake, and the few third party titles they announced were all multiplat titles that are all going to release on 360/PS3 before Wii U even releases, so it'll just be late ports for those games. By the time they release the PS3/360 will likely be cheaper as will those games.

I don't know who they are trying to target? Certainly not the hardcore gamer with the gimmicky crap or late ports, not the casual gamer by showing off Wii games, they still sell plenty of shovelware on the Wii.

[Pikminister]

You're missing the point, which was kinda extended into the later discussion below. The games shown are essentially the same as you'd see on the 360 and PS3 because that's what the Devs will do. Yes, there is 5 to 6 years of new technology in the Wii-U over the competition but it's up to the devs to use it and considering they already have issues with the differences between the 360 and PS3 now I somehow doubt they're going to just change this tact for the Wii-U. It's early days for sure, but I don't see a leap forward - I see simply Nintendo leveling themselves into a marketplace.

That's because the WiiU is an upgrade to the Wii. Thus why they kept the Wii name alive with it. They continue to use the brand because the damn thing (Wii) still sold 15 million units in the last fiscal year. Its appeal is still strong.

And more importantly, they don't have to re-introduce themselves AGAIN with mainstream consumers by adopting a totally new name that would only confuse them.

I do think that the devs will still try produce games that will play on the 360 (due to its popularity with CoD/'core' gamers), than to make games that take advantage of what the WiiU and PS3 offers. So the real problem with Sony -and soon Nintendo- gamers, is the 360 continuing to hold back this generation. Its no secret that the 360's limited format and capabilities have been annoying PS3 users for years now. And that will not stop anytime soon, considering that the 360 is very profitable for 3rd party devs.

So if you see crap ports to the WiiU, it will be most likely because they won't take advantage of its capabilities. Because they really make one version (360) that gets ported over to the rest. That won't change.

My thoughts on the tech benefits are probably more towards function than graphics or engine. For example it'll take more rendering power to have two players on the same Wii-U using two controllers with different outputs, it'll require more for certain features, etc. These are the things the devs themselves seemed to be excited by and I think thats where the focus will go. But to me extra control features and options aren't a big leap forward.

No, that alone isn't enough. Its what you can do with it and how it can enhance/change the way you play, what could count as a leap forward. That is something we have yet to see.

Funny enough Reggie kinda discussed that in the GT stuff above, discussing why they didn't call it something else. It wasn't exactly as you said (he kinda further established his rambling about the We U thing as a core concept to what they wanted the console to represent) to them but I'd believe you're more likely to be right. The concept also is not a replacement as I mentioned above, an extension, Reggie even avoided calling it a console when he first started talking about it. So keeping the Wii name clearly fits into a bunch of things Nintendo wants to keep a focus on.

Hey, the name has been established as a money maker. Even after slowing sales YOY, it still manages to remain on top overall. That alone is enough to keep the ball going. Its a no-brainer.

Again you're missing the point. Nintendo can't rely on one or the other. The 3DS is lacking in 1st party currently which people see as a reason why the sales have been not to Nintendo's liking, on the flipside too many 1st party games because it pigeonholes their sales base. This isn't about the success of the 3rd party developer, it's about the base advantage for Nintendo and the risk/reward of having another console out (especially one now that according to Reggie will be in competition against itself - like the DS is to the 3DS).

IMO the price point of the 3DS hurts its sales more than the lack of games. Only must-own games will beat that barrier. But will they come?

When it came to the Wii, especially in the past 3 years, the number of mature titles (for lack of a better word) dropped off, the number of 3rd party titles dropped off, and the ones who stayed there who'd made a good mix of games tended to focus more towards family friendly titles because they were the ones that sold better. They're following market trends and Nintendo's track record.

The lack of support had to do more with the strategy employed by most gaming companies - including Capcom. They concentraded on producing one version of a particular game and then porting it/adapting it to the PS3 and 360. That saved them production costs. Making a Wii version would only screw that strategy, because they would have to spend extra cash developing a totally different version. That was only profitable for them when the PS2 was still around. Since they could sell that watered-down version on two consoles. Once the PS2 died, Wii support went down.

As for the consumers I think you're completely the opposite of me and giving them way too much credit. Again as I mentioned in my lower post, the cyclic nature of drop in sales, drop in 3rd party, drop in sales, etc. seems to have a big impact on the Wii, and this a repeat of Nintendo two previous consoles before it. By that nature it's hard for me to believe history won't repeat for a 4th time (even if for the first few years the Wii-U begins printing money for them again as the Wii did, it just hasn't had the legs the competition has built).

The Wii became out-dated after 3 years in the market. It really was since the start, but after 3 years it became very obvious that consumers were ready to move on from SD and to adopt HD technologies. That's basically what some analysts have been saying and why they kept harping about the need for the Wii2. Well they got it.

I guess the biggest thing that will change the success or not success is the fact that unlike the other 3 consoles, Nintendo is launching this alone and not in competition to other new/recent consoles, just existing ones. This will, to me at least, either pay off well or not. And I think that's entirely based on how many Wii owners, of the 36 million out there, will want to upgrade.

The Wii installed user base is 90 million not 36 million. Even if only half of them still have one, that's a good chunk of people that Ninty could cash in on. The WiiU is basically designed to be an upgrade to the Wii. The whole concept of re-using the Mii's, wiimote, Virtual Console downloads, etc. on the WiiU makes me believe that theory... So that anyone that STILL hangs on to the Wii, will IMO seriously consider upgrading. I dunno why that theory seems so out there for you, dewd. Seems to me that updating to the WiiU would be the natural thing to do for any Wii owner.

I complain a lot about the Wii-U because I have a lot of unsure questions about the tech (and Reggie is cagey about details until Nintendo officially details the specs, price, launch titles and release) but I think the ability to shift and play split screen or using the device is definitely cool. But I'm just not sure how much the consumers will go for it all.

Well in my opinion... Nintendo wasn't actually ready to unveil the WiiU at this point in time. Thus the lack of games and why even the controller was still in its BETA form.

They only did this because they felt that they were forced into it. The Wii's popularity was going down. And waiting until next year to announce it (or even later in September) would not help their chances at keeping the Wii brand name alive. You see, Nintendo wants to cash in on that brand. And that's why they took this gamble of releasing info about the WiiU despite it not being 100% ready for showtime. So a lot of details have yet to be worked out. There is time for that, though.

In regards to how consumers will react to it, well... ppl did predict doom for the Wii. Remember that?

And then check it out... it turned into a virus for like 3 years non-stop. So anything could happen. Especially if it delivers.

[Kaneco]

That's because the WiiU is an upgrade to the Wii. Thus why they kept the Wii name alive with it. They continue to use the brand because the damn thing (Wii) still sold 15 million units in the last fiscal year. Its appeal is still strong.

And more importantly, they don't have to re-introduce themselves AGAIN with mainstream consumers by adopting a totally new name that would only confuse them.

I do think that the devs will still try produce games that will play on the 360 (due to its popularity with CoD/'core' gamers), than to make games that take advantage of what the WiiU and PS3 offers. So the real problem with Sony -and soon Nintendo- gamers, is the 360 continuing to hold back this generation. Its no secret that the 360's limited format and capabilities have been annoying PS3 users for years now. And that will not stop anytime soon, considering that the 360 is very profitable for 3rd party devs.

So if you see crap ports to the WiiU, it will be most likely because they won't take advantage of its capabilities. Because they really make one version (360) that gets ported over to the rest. That won't change.



No, that alone isn't enough. Its what you can do with it and how it can enhance/change the way you play, what could count as a leap forward. That is something we have yet to see.




Hey, the name has been established as a money maker. Even after slowing sales YOY, it still manages to remain on top overall. That alone is enough to keep the ball going. Its a no-brainer.





IMO the price point of the 3DS hurts its sales more than the lack of games. Only must-own games will beat that barrier. But will they come?



The lack of support had to do more with the strategy employed by most gaming companies - including Capcom. They concentraded on producing one version of a particular game and then porting it/adapting it to the PS3 and 360. That saved them production costs. Making a Wii version would only screw that strategy, because they would have to spend extra cash developing a totally different version. That was only profitable for them when the PS2 was still around. Since they could sell that watered-down version on two consoles. Once the PS2 died, Wii support went down.




The Wii became out-dated after 3 years in the market. It really was since the start, but after 3 years it became very obvious that consumers were ready to move on from SD and to adopt HD technologies. That's basically what some analysts have been saying and why they kept harping about the need for the Wii2. Well they got it.



The Wii installed user base is 90 million not 36 million. Even if only half of them still have one, that's a good chunk of people that Ninty could cash in on. The WiiU is basically designed to be an upgrade to the Wii. The whole concept of re-using the Mii's, wiimote, Virtual Console downloads, etc. on the WiiU makes me believe that theory... So that anyone that STILL hangs on to the Wii, will IMO seriously consider upgrading. I dunno why that theory seems so out there for you, dewd. Seems to me that updating to the WiiU would be the natural thing to do for any Wii owner.



Well in my opinion... Nintendo wasn't actually ready to unveil the WiiU at this point in time. Thus the lack of games and why even the controller was still in its BETA form.

They only did this because they felt that they were forced into it. The Wii's popularity was going down. And waiting until next year to announce it (or even later in September) would not help their chances at keeping the Wii brand name alive. You see, Nintendo wants to cash in on that brand. And that's why they took this gamble of releasing info about the WiiU despite it not being 100% ready for showtime. So a lot of details have yet to be worked out. There is time for that, though.

In regards to how consumers will react to it, well... ppl did predict doom for the Wii. Remember that?

And then check it out... it turned into a virus for like 3 years non-stop. So anything could happen. Especially if it delivers.

Unveiling/Releasing the system any later would put them at a disadvantage because that would mean the day where its competitors unveil the next-next Gen system will completely over-shadow the WiiU and the so called hardcore crowd they're trying to catter won't even give this a chance when they just see that this system is already inferior to what Microsoft/Sony announce next.

Well, Nintendo for what little they showed and talked they really took the cake with getting the crowd interested...with a promising future. Well, after all it was a tease of what's to come that's why they kept a lot of things under wraps about the New Wii U.

...and with the controller I think they want to appeal the casual into getting into hardcore gaming...

If that's how it is, then I'm going to say they're playing it very smart. Let's not forget they're also keeping the Wiimotes around for their next-gen system.

All in all, I wasn't really impressed with nintendo's conference but no doubt I'm in intrigued for what they hold for the future.

I can't wait for TGS 2011 to hear more about it.

[Scream]

So what does Wii U mean? What are they gonna call the next one? Wii U Bii Bing - just random syllables strung together? And why do they want to keep the brand name alive? No real gamer in their right mind would buy anything with the Wii name on it, think about it.

[Canas Renvall]

^ Because the brand name sold millions?

And again, who give a shit about the name? If it's a good console, it's a good console. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

I like to think of myself as a "real gamer", and I'm a proud Wii owner.

[Scream]

On the street brother, you can get killed for owning a Wii. That is giving a shit about name.

[Canas Renvall]

^ Um, on the street, having a "Wii" gets all dat street cred.

[/racist joke]

[Bertha]

^ Because the brand name sold millions?

And again, who give a shit about the name? If it's a good console, it's a good console. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

I like to think of myself as a "real gamer", and I'm a proud Wii owner.

Again...its sold millions...but how many people that own multiple systems use their Wii more than their 360, Ps3, or PC? I havent touched my Wii in maybe a year...and I find that my DS and 3DS give me much more amusement than the Wii ever did. I can count my Wii titles on one hand. Several of my friends owned Wiis as well...and if they havent sold them, they certainly dont get used.

[Scream]

Indeed - people who bought the Wii before won't buy it again. Fact. The sheeple of the last few years have grown up slightly, the only audience for the Wii U this time will be ten year olds etc. This is probably the worst new console in the history of the world I'm afraid.

[Kaneco]

So what does Wii U mean? What are they gonna call the next one? Wii U Bii Bing - just random syllables strung together? And why do they want to keep the brand name alive? No real gamer in their right mind would buy anything with the Wii name on it, think about it.

I believe the U stands for Utopia...Reggie said it in the interview with G4?

Indeed - people who bought the Wii before won't buy it again. Fact. The sheeple of the last few years have grown up slightly, the only audience for the Wii U this time will be ten year olds etc. This is probably the worst new console in the history of the world I'm afraid.

I beg to differ....

As they say, don't knock it before you try it.

[Scream]

OK well I've been talking to an anonymous hardcore gamer, here's our conversation:

Scream says:
yo, you getting wii u?

gamer says:
not sure :O controller looks dumb

Scream says:
but after the wii, do you think Nintendo will redeem themselves with wii U?

gamer says:
hmmm nope
I'll still buy ps3 versions of multiformat games and all the nintendo stuff is rubbish now

Scream says:
how come? what happened to make them so cack?

gamer says:
all family games now, with gimmicky controls

Scream says:
yah.. wonder why they called it wii u, what a ghey name. trying to carry on the gheyness of the wii i suspect

gamer says:
dont know why they keep messing around with the accessories, it messes up their games alot
all the multi format games are on everything except the Wii, and if there is by chance a Wii version it's really shitty and the controls are dumb
now they might pull off the games graphics on the Wii U but good luck playing anything good on that pad lol

Scream says:
no games either yet is there?

gamer says:
zelda, assassins creed and mario bros mii
those shitty Miis are still there lol

Scream says:
Wtf is a mii?

gamer says:
lol those little characters you make of yourself and they appear in games as characters you control
oh they sell clothes for their avatar to wear to milk more money out of stupid people

Scream says:
Yah, I understand everything now.. its all coming together

[Bertha]

Nintendo will have to find some way to lure the gamers away from 360 and PS3 with the games. Yes...they are getting Battlefield...they are getting Ghost Recon....but really I doubt it will draw any of the hardcore multiplayer gamers away from the systems they know already. For one...they pay for 360 services...for two...Kinect, as lame (to me personally) as it seems, is trying to offer its own unique features for these new titles.

Call of Duty games are already on the Wii....do any of you know someone that honesty, truly plays it? Star Wars: Force Unleashed 2? At the start of G4's coverage of E3 this morning, they glossed over how poorly Nintendo sales have been this year.

I'm not trying to say Wii u is not going to sell....unless Nintendo treats it like they have the 3DS. I love my 3DS...but I have 2 games for it that I care to play. The game selection is sparse and most things dont seem to appeal to older gamers.

[Member_of_STARS]

My E3 impressions.

Battlefield Bad Company 3.

Head hurts. DICE have proven to be morons with a lot of talk, yet again.

[Scream]

Dust 514 PS3 exclusive, kinda weird considering it goes hand in hand with EVE online.