This Week In The Business: 'The Wrong Product For Consumers'

This Week in the Business: 'The Wrong Product for Consumers'

What's happened in the business of video games this past week ...

QUOTE | "We think the Wii U is the wrong product for consumers." — Analyst Michael Pachter, on why he thinks it's unlikely Nintendo will sell 8.5 million Wii Us between now and March 30 to meet its projections.

STAT | $US236.2 million — Amount of money Nintendo lost over the last six months; the company still expects to post a profit of over $US1 billion for the full year ending March 30.

QUOTE | "'It's not about the platform, it's about the experience. We're drug dealers of experiences." — Wargaming CEO Victor Kislyi, on the popularity of World of Tanks and how gaming culture transcends platforms.

QUOTE | "We are seeing the early indications of a console resurgence starting two to three weeks from now." — Former Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello, who predicts a big year for console games and growth for mobile games, too.

QUOTE | "Compared to past platforms, the pre-orders that we have received for this new platform is much, much, much higher." — Sony CFO Masaru Kato, being enthusiastic about the sales picture for the PlayStation 4.

QUOTE | "We're never going to build a chip that's faster than a console — in the truest sense." — Mike Yuen, senior director of business development for mobile chip maker Qualcomm, on the limits of mobile devices.

QUOTE | "I'm more scared of staying in AAA right now ... than anything about going indie." — Developer Thor Alexander, with other indie developers discussing why they left AAA console development.

QUOTE | "For the first time since I've been in the industry, you have access to a worldwide market without ever having to leave your office." — Game developer Teut Weidemann, who says AAA games are already out of fashion.

QUOTE | "Even though I've got 250,000 sales in six months, to get that the game needed to be seen by tens of millions of people." — Antichamber creator Alexander Bruce, explaining why indie developers need to market early and often.

QUOTE | "I think what you've seen is a consistent decline, and I think it's due to lack of innovation." — GameStop president Tony Bartel, on why he thinks the next-gen consoles will yield new innovations and better game sales.

This Week in the Business courtesy of GamesIndustry International Image by Heider Almeida [Shutterstock]


Comments

    I guess people expect the Wii U to either be the same as the Wii (i.e. wont buy it as they already have one) or just not the cool choice. My ten year old brother was saying how his friend was talking about the Wii U and how he thought it was kinda boring...
    \\Good thing my brother enjoys Zelda and is now playing through Skyward Sword.

    I think the only way to save the Wii U is to do one thing:

    Gut it. Literally gut it. Nintendo should make the executive decision to recall all Wii U's, gut them, replace the inside with a NEW console... one that is just as powerful if not more so than the Xbone/PS4. Also as easy to program as the PS4. Backwards compatible with all Wii U games... or offer a tradein for those too.

    Yes it would cost money. But the Wii U is behind, and these are the drastic steps necessary. If they're on a level playing field in terms of hardware, the games will also come. This is what it would probably take me to buy a Wii U(2).

      Your missing the point, the Wii U was never in competition with the 360 or PS3 nor will it be in competition with the Xbox one or PS4, just like the Wii it stands alone and as the games come (give it some time as it is just now over a year old) it will sell better, it will never hit the heights of the Wii in sales but it will do well in the long run and when the time is right (probably 5 to 6 years from now) Nintendo will move onto a new console.

      To summarize, Nintendo is not loosing anything (yes there sales could be better) the games are coming, people need to chill out with the doom and gloom.

        Of course it's in competition. If there were no PC and Sony/Microsoft consoles... I would buy Wii U! I have a PS3, 360, 3DS, Vita, and PS4(preordered). I find it hard to be able to justify buying a Wii U... because it looks like Sony and Microsoft(and PC) will do a better job this generation.

      I don't think that that's so silly.

      Given that the PS4 and Xbone are very much based on PC architecture, how hard would it be to develop a new console?

      I have no idea, but could imagine it being pretty simple.

      Maybe Nintendo should abandon the Wii U, bring out the WIi U 2 that is basically another PC based console but slightly better than PS4/Xbone. Make it Wii and Wii U backwards compatible. Get remote play on the 3DS XL Lite,

      Buy up a suite of third party developers.

      Pay Insomnia to create a new FPS franchise.

      Done. Back in the game.

      It's amazing how readily the gaming media has dropped the Wii U, and without the gaming media the Wii U is utterly doomed. The next gen is definitely a 2 horse race.

      Frankly i've been anti Wii U since it's minute of announcement. It's just too weak. We don't want weak. We want mega. We want Super.

      Give us super, we'll talk. Give us meh, we'll pass.

      Last edited 03/11/13 9:00 pm

        "Frankly i've been anti Wii U since it's minute of announcement. It's just too weak."

        If you take that stance, i assume you game on nothing but the cutting edge of pc gaming and upgrade every time new graphics cards come out, because compared to that, Xbox one, PS4 and Wii U are just too weak and you should be anti all three of them.

          I think the Wii U will have a shorter life span than the PS4 & XBone and that's by design. Cheaper shorter life spans is what Nintendo appear to be aiming for.

          So in 5 years the next Nintendo (who really need a better name since most people don't know the Wii U is different to the Wii) will release the Wii SR71.

            Five years? Yeah, that's what I'd expect too.

            ...Since basically EVERY console lasts for around 5-6 years before the replacement comes along. Wii U was out 2012, before that the Wii came out in 2006, then the GameCube in 2001, then the N64 in... 97ish? SNES around 91 here, NES... I don't even know, 87 or something.

            And similar on the handhelds, GBA was 2000, DS 2005, 3DS 2011. Sure looks like a pattern to me.

              Yeah but the life spans of consoles have been extending and there's already talk of the new gen having a longer life span than the current gen.

                That's certainly Microsoft & Sony's strategy but Nintendo have decided to do their own thing, I don't know if there's going to be a pay off for Nintendo in there, but I will not rule them out while they control the handheld market as it kept them going when their Consoles where fans only.

                  Yes I agree, and you make a valid point, that Nintendo seem to have stuck with the traditional 5 year plan.

                  It won't pay off.

                  It can pay off if they have a compelling product.

                  The Wii was a compelling product. That paid off.

                  The Wii U isn't a compelling product. That won't pay off.

                  The Wii U 2, released in 2017 (to 2020) (because they won't release one before then even if there is arguably good reason to), will be a compelling product if they make it so. If they again release an underperforming machine in comparison to it's direct competitors, centred around a fad like gimmick, and reliant on franchises that have failed to develop, and a lack of modern genre franchises then it will fail once more.

                  MS and Sony are pushing the industry forward.

                  So too is the Oculus Rift.

                  Nintendo can go off and have their own party but it's not going to define the industry unless they offer some new, or something better than the rest.

                  Based on the Wii U we shouldn't be that confident.

                Yeah, but... no.

                PS1: 1994
                PS2: 2000
                PS3: 2006
                PS4: 2013

                Xbox: 2001
                360: 2005
                Xbone: 2013

                They're all still releasing in the same time bracket. Sure, Sony *wanted* to have the PS3 live a ten year life cycle, but it just didn't work out that way. Nor do I see it working out that way for this gen - after that period of time, just about everyone who wants one of those machines will have one, so your sales are going to taper off, and technology will have progressed so far since your initial release that what you're doing starts to look dated compared to what else is going around. You *need* to create something new by that time.

                  7 and 8 are now equal to 5?

                  What is this strange maths that you speak of.

                  What do you mean the PS3 hasn't lived up to it's ten year life cycle. We're about to step into 2014. The PS3 is still being sold for $399. For sure it has 3 years more life in it.

                  And, to inform you about me and my preferences, I personally have several more years of enjoyment to squeeze out of my PS3. And I am not the only one to be in that position.

                  I've played FIFA once. I've not played NBA at all. I could easily sink a few months into sports games.

                  I've barely touched my racing games, and I love racing games. I haven't even finished a season of F1 2010, bought on day one.

                  I must and will dive deep into all of my 30+ racing games. I won't try to finish them, that would take decades, but I'll dive into them for sure.

                  I've not bought hardly any new releases in the last 18 months. I'll be picking up the following as and when they drop down to $20 or below. No, I won't buy unless they're that cheap as I already have way too many games to play...

                  Dishonored, Last of Us. the newest Ratchet and Clank games, AC4, Blops II, CoD Ghosts, GTA 5, Puppeteer, Call of Juaez Gunslinger, Goldeneye, Army of 2 3., Beyond

                  In addition to that there's plenty of games that i'll probably skip altogether - B4, SR4, Killer is Dead

                  In addition to that PSN+ keeps throwing games at me. I've got a huge Vita games collection now. I don't own a Vita.

                  Before long I'll have a solid PS4 games collection.

                  For me, and for many, the current gen will offer a lot of fun for the next several years. Yes the new gen is enticing and affordable, BUT many of us having invested a good few thousand of dollars into a games collection that we've barely touched, and as such many of us will try to enjoy those games before buying into a new round of consoles.

                  I'll buy a PS4 for sure. I think $549 is tempting. I think $699 including an additional controller and Killzone is tempting. If those prices come down a notch I might well pounce. But I shouldn't. I should just carry on with what i've got. And if there are any quality issues with the PS4, or if there's any other reason to hold off purchasing, I'll hold off purchasing.

                  @davedrastic

                  7 and 8 are now equal to 5?They've all released at the same times. 00/01, 05/06, 12/13. If you release at the start of one period and the end of the next, then of course there's going to be some fluctuation in size, now you're just getting down to needless pedantry.

                  What do you mean the PS3 hasn't lived up to it's ten year life cycle. We're about to step into 2014. The PS3 is still being sold for $399. For sure it has 3 years more life in it. I mean it's about to be succeeded. It's not longer their primary console, it's put out to pasture. Nothing's stopping people from playing the old consoles, just look at how many PS2s continued to be sold well into the PS3's life.

                  And, to inform you about me and my preferences, I personally have several more years of enjoyment to squeeze out of my PS3. And I am not the only one to be in that position.You sure aren't. I too have a tonne of unplayed games on my previous systems that'll slowly get worked through over time.

                  But surely someone like yourself who apparently has such a terrible problem with weak consoles couldn't possibly want to spend years with something that has now been relegated to the class of weak like the PS3.

                  Just because the new machine comes out don't think that's the end of the old ones life span, with only 3 more years till 2016, I think PS3 will hit it.

                  Not everyone can afford to rush out and drop $650 on a new machine and a game. Also PS3 games are going to get much cheaper so people who have them for the kids may not be willing to shell out for the new machine right away.

                  I was in an EB last year when a woman came in trying to buy Skylanders and Pokemon for PS2. Her son was telling her he needed a DS but she said the PS2 version will be just as good. The poor guy behind the counter got yelled at for ages for not selling her the PS2 version, but rather trying to upsell her.

          No.

          I just found the Wii U to be too weak.

          It's compelling feature, the tablet controller, is not compelling. The internals do not allow it to be a significant jump over and above the existing generation.

          The Xbone and PS4 have not based their console around one gimmick.

          The Xbone and PS4 are a significant leap over current consoles. Arguably not that much of a leap, which would perhaps explain why I'm not that excited at the moment about either of them.

          Hey man, you don't have to like my opinion, but there's no point in trying to drag me into an argument with you. You make your point, I'll make mine, mmmkay.

            You found it to weak, I find it to be amazing. And so does every one of my friends with a Wii U (and there are plenty of them).

            To me the Xbone and PS4 are completely uncompelling. There's nothing about them nor their game library that makes me want to throw a single cent in their direction, and it's completely irrelevant whether the Wii U can match them in terms or raw grunt or not. It just doesn't need to, because it can already produce incredible-looking games. Just look at anything out of Nintendo's stable, like NintendoLand, Pikmin, Mario 3D World or DKCR2. They all look incredible.

        "...how hard would it be to develop a new console?

        I have no idea, but could imagine it being pretty simple. "

        What you've just said... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul...
        -Principal Oblaski

          What you've just said... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.

          Where's your rational thought?

          Oh, and by the way, critterseyes above comment was reported and has not so far been dealt with.

          So it's perfectly fine to insult me by the look of it, great.

          Last edited 04/11/13 11:22 am

          Nintendo have been making consoles for DECADES. Sony and Microsoft have just made new consoles. For you(presumably) or I, it would be hard to make a new console. For Nintendo, it shouldn't be. Maybe with their current development team... idk. But if they went out and said "Okay we want someone to design a super console which trumps the PS4/Xbone, we'll pay you $10million to do it"... some tech designer could probably slap a new PC together and go BAM, pay up! You see people reverse engineering and selling clones of the 360 etc in asia... so it's definitely possible to take existing architecture(e.g. PC) and Nintendo-fy it.

          Even look at the Dreamcast. It was a fantastic console... and it is based on Windows(it even says it on the outside from memory).

            For Nintendo, it shouldn't be

            Yes, this is my point.

            Consoles have been around for decades. Even those pong based Binatone, Magnavox consoles that aren't considered consoles were consoles.

            If Ouya can make a console, I dare say Nintendo can pull out another rabbit.

      The Wii U isn't failing due to a lack of power, it is failing because until very recently there was no real point in buying one. There existed no console moving software, and the casualised audience Nintendo trapped with the Wii are not the types to spend money upgrading to a new console straight off the bat.

      Power might be a determining factor in the purchases of a very small subset of gaming consumers, but in the end it is software which moves hardware not power.

        There's a lot of fundamental truth in what you say. Also, there's a fair bit of fundamental inaccuracies.

        Can an underpowered console offer a fun and engaging experience?

        Yes. This is undoubtedly been proven to be the case by the Wii.

        So, unquestionably, software does trump hardware.

        However - what does an underpowered console need in order to offer a fun and engaging experience?

        It's needs either fantastic software, or some compelling reason to purchase / play.

        The Wii had a compelling reason to purchase / play - motion controls - or so we thought.

        The Wii U doesn't.

        Does that mean that the Wii U MUST fail? MUST? No. Likely. Yes.

        IF Nintendo offers fantastic software then their console will have a market, but Nintendo have their backs to the wall when they've handicapped themselves by producing underpowered hardware.

        I read an article or such the other day saying that a man in India (I think) single handedly dug a tunnel through a mountain. One person. A frickin tunnel through a firckin mountain.

        So, things are possible. But they're unlikely.

        Can Nintendo develop the best FPS ever on the Wii U? Sure, anythings possible. Are they likely to? Not a chance.

        Ditto any other genre you care to mention other than those that Nintendo have focused on for the last 30 years.

          Power is obviously an important factor in video games for a lot of gamers. However I think you're argument that Nintendo has handicapped themselves is fundamentally flawed.

          I will preface this by saying that my understanding of the power differences between the next-gen consoles isn't exactly flawless.

          Firstly, I do not believe that Nintendo has handicapped themselves in terms of graphical power. Or if they have, that handicap should not be showing any detrimental effects on sales just yet. It is unlikely that we will see a large graphical jump like we did this generation. Things will definitely look better, but the large graphics jump - which was a major impediment to third party Wii development - will not exist, and so Wii U third party development shouldn't be affected until much later in the console cycle.

          Secondly, I agree with your point that the Wii U lacks that mass market appeal that the Wii had. Motion control is sexy, but a controller with a screen in it (while cool) doesn't have the same appeal. Which is a major problem when the vast majority of the market you had before was enamoured with motion control.

          Nintendo needs to put one of it's major franchises onto the Wii U. It needs a Mario or a Zelda on there because that is software that will shift hardware. It doesn't need the best FPS ever, because no one would buy it. Nintendo needs to play to their strengths.

          They managed to start shifting 3DS consoles as a rapid pace once they got some decent software on the system, despite the fact that in terms of hardware the PS Vita trumps them in every respect. Nintendo should have held off on the Wii U release for six months and put out something worth buying the console for, because if they had I can guarantee you they would be in a much better position than they are now, despite their lack of power.

            I will preface this by saying that my understanding of the power differences between the next-gen consoles isn't exactly flawless.

            Me either. We're just talking here.

            Firstly, I do not believe that Nintendo has handicapped themselves in terms of graphical power. Or if they have, that handicap should not be showing any detrimental effects on sales just yet. It is unlikely that we will see a large graphical jump like we did this generation. Things will definitely look better, but the large graphics jump - which was a major impediment to third party Wii development - will not exist, and so Wii U third party development shouldn't be affected until much later in the console cycle.

            Your argument here is flawed.

            Graphics and power sells units. We want to buy better, not the same.

            The Wii U has shown that it can produce games that are roughly the same graphical capabilities of the PS3/360, whereas it ought to be showing that it can produce games that are roughly the same graphical capabilities of the PS4/Xbone.

            Even if we're disappointed by the PS4/Xbone, which we may well be, we're definitely disappointed by the Wii U. And that's not going to help sales.

            I do agree that all games will improve towards the end of the life cycle of the console. I'll also mention that given the lack of games Nintendo put out for the Wii (or even the Wii + 3DS) in the last few years that it ought to have made much more progress with Wii U games than it has.

            I'll also point out that the quality of Wii games (graphically and otherwise) didn't improve over the course of the consoles life cycle. If anything the quality of games slumped under the weight of shovel ware. My wife bought a game which I swear looked like a PS1 game at best.

            Motion control is sexy, but a controller with a screen in it (while cool) doesn't have the same appeal.

            At the time, motion control seemed to be the next big thing and would revolutionise gaming - and the Wii was at the epicentre of that. A tablet isn't new, it isn't unique. There just never was anything THAT good about the tablet controller. It would be unfair to say it's rubbish, but reasonable to say that it's unappealing and in at least some ways flawed. No need to agree with me on that. The market has already spoken. We're not impressed.

            Nintendo needs to put one of it's major franchises onto the Wii U

            There is Super Mario Bros isn't there, or Luigi Bros - or whatever it's called. You know the exact same thing that people played in the 80s which was re-released for the Wii and then re-released for the Wii U.

            The Wii U is also backwards compatible so all of the Wii Zelda and Mario games will work just dandy.

            Will the special Wii U made games be any better? Probably. Ever so marginally.

            It doesn't need the best FPS ever, because no one would buy it.

            Yeah this I disagree with. It DOES need an FPS. It needs all of the major genres. To be honest, I think this is at the heart as to why I'm so annoyed by Nintendo.

            They HAVE to have all of these genres or they simply won't be viable.

            Sure, there are millions of people that will buy Nintendo for the platformers, for the Smash bros, the Zeldas and be done with it, and that's cool for those purchasers - but that adds up to 3.8 million which is not enough.

            Black Ops II sold 25 million copies didn't it?

            Nintendo cannot ignore that market.

            Nintendo cannot rely on their existing customer base when that's growing and evolving into adult gamers.

            Especially when Android/iOS are perfectly capable of catering to the younger demographic. Not to mention Sony and MS being capable of doing that too.

            Nintendo's only hope here is that they manage to carve out the gaming fitness market for themselves, which they won't, and that that industry grows massively - which it should have done already.

            They managed to start shifting 3DS consoles as a rapid pace once they got some decent software on the system, despite the fact that in terms of hardware the PS Vita trumps them in every respect.

            AND despite the fact that the 3DS games are largely sequels.

            It is stunning how many people are satisfied with the same type of games. But fair play to them.

            Nintendo should have held off on the Wii U release for six months and put out something worth buying the console for, because if they had I can guarantee you they would be in a much better position than they are now, despite their lack of power.

            No.

            Nintendo should have produced a console that is capable of handling ports of multiplatform games at a quality at least matching that of their direct competitors (PS4/Xbone).

            They should have had all of their heavy hitters ready to be released within the first year of the consoles life, and for there to be sequels for each of the heavy hitters towards the end of the consoles life cycle.

            They should have brought some independent developers under their wings so that they can develop new franchises in the genres that Nintendo have largely ignored over the last couple of decades.

            If they had done that then at least they'd be in the market.

            Wii U $149 within the next 18 months. And it will still sell slowly.

        If you look at my original post, I said a combination of making it more powerful, and ALSO easier to program for. Whether you like it or not, the Wii U is struggling. A lot of companies are simply not interested in investing in it because it's hard to program for. The Wii U also CAN'T play certain games properly because it's hardware limited. If it's just software that moves hardware... then why are the PS4 and most of the Xbones sold out for preorder? They have FAR fewer titles than the PS3/360, which have absolutely wonderful gems like GTAV and the Last of Us.

        What Nintendo needs is consumer confidence. In terms of a console, how would you rank the Wii U? Like for reference sake... say the PS3 and 360 are "3" each and the PS4/Xbone are "4". 3? 3.5? It's basically Sega Saturn syndrome. Sega back in the day had the Sega CD, Saturn and Dreamcast all come out pretty chronologically close to each other. Why bother buying if the last console is going to be obsolete? And if their competitors look more viable? I think the Dreamcast was a wonderful console... and yet it went belly up. This is why I suggested that Nintendo should reclaim the existing hardware and made a new Wii U. Imagine if they did that. There are a lot of games simply NOT being released on the Wii U, and I challenge you to think of a way to truly save it rather than "they should make more titles" when they're in a Catch-22 situation. You might be happy with your Wii U, however there is literally no incentive to buy one. I think Mario Kart, Zelda, Zombie U would be great games to have... but even with +20 awesome games... I think most people wouldn't buy one at this point.

    “We think the Wii U is the wrong product for consumers.”
    Thing is, I was playing wind waker just last night and thinking "this console is perfect for me, why doesn't it have more stuff?" I started on the TV, switched to game pad only for 2 hours while my wife watched a movie, then switched back to the tv after (and loved the return to real time touch screen map and inventory it gave me).

    It's a shame that this unique feature IS what people like me want, but others feel that they would have to compromise and power and coolness (if they even know about it in the first place), which leads to less interest and ultimately less games.

    @ Gooky (wasn't able to reply in the proper format)

    of course there's going to be some fluctuation in size, now you're just getting down to needless pedantry.

    To be fair, it's more accurate to say that you're the one being pedantic.

    dknight1000 made the point that Nintendo are sticking with a 5 year life cycle, and promptly ceasing production of the phased out console, whereas MS and Sony have been ever increasing their life cycles, and Sony has been prolonging production as well as new release games several years after the launch of the subsequent console.

    Sure, you can argue that 7.5 years is "only" 2,5 years more than 5 years, or you could acknowledge that the difference between 5 years and 7.5 years is 50%. A significant amount.

    "Nothing's stopping people from playing the old consoles, just look at how many PS2s continued to be sold well into the PS3's life."

    Well yeah, that's my point.

    If the PS3 continues to be produced and continues to sell for 10 years, then it will have a 10 year life cycle.

    You're the one that's claimed "Sure, Sony *wanted* to have the PS3 live a ten year life cycle, but it just didn't work out that way" but have provided no evidence or logic for your conclusions.

    The PS3s life cycle doesn't just end because it's about to be superseded.

    But surely someone like yourself who apparently has such a terrible problem with weak consoles couldn't possibly want to spend years with something that has now been relegated to the class of weak like the PS3.

    What's the point of the above comment?

    Where did I say that I have such a terrible problem with weak consoles?

    Where did I say the PS3 was weak?

    Pretty sure I didn't say either.

    What I said was that the Wii U is (and was) weak in terms of offering something superior to its competitors.

    Why would I (or anyone else) get excited for a product that is no better, or very little better, than products that are already owned, and will be far inferior to other products that will soon be available on the market and which do offer something superior to products that are already owned.

    Look, if you have a problem with me, just state it.

    Don't claim that I have views that I don't, or have said things that I haven't.

    If you're not able to come up with a counter to my claims or opinions then just deal with it. Preferably quietly.

    "What I said was that the Wii U is (and was) weak in terms of offering something superior to its competitors. "

    I don't know about that, have you played Rayman Legends on the Wii U, the way they use the touch screen in that games is brilliant, you could argue that the PS3 and Xbox 360 have similar features with there co-op modes but the Wii U also has those modes as well, the games is clearly different and superior on the Wii U.

    You could say that's only one game, but before you do please understand that the Wii U has been out for just slightly over one year and more games are coming.

    "Why would I (or anyone else) get excited for a product that is no better, or very little better, than products that are already owned"

    Because it's the world we now live in, why do people upgrade there iPhone every year?

    "and will be far inferior to other products that will soon be available on the market and which do offer something superior to products that are already owned. "

    Why even bother with consoles, they are inferior to PC in every way, just about all games on PC come out at a cheaper price point, graphically all games look better on PC than there console counterparts, you have an option of controllers, you can use key board and mouse, PS3 controller, Xbox 360 controller, PS4 controller, Xbox One controller, even Wii controllers work on PC.

    In all departments consoles are inferior to PC so why even bother with them?

    Ill tell you why, because of exclusives, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Mario Kart, Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101, Gears of War, Halo, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Fable, The Last Of Us, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, God Of War, Ni No Kuni etc, etc, etc.

    I has nothing to do with the power of the console, if it did the Vita would be outselling the 3DS 100 to 1.

      You could say that's only one game

      That's only one game.

      the Wii U has been out for just slightly over one year

      One year is approx 20% of its life cycle. 3.8 million people have invested several hundreds of dollars into the machine. Tens of millions of others would have liked to have done.

      more games are coming.

      Sure, but will they be superior to games that we have / will have on our PS3 / 360? The answer should be categorically yes, but it isn't.

      why do people upgrade there iPhone every year?

      Because they're foolish slaves to fashion, and somehow Apple is the new house, car and 2.5 kids.

      Why even bother with consoles, they are inferior to PC in every way,

      Convenience. Cost. Simplicity. Exclusives.

      you have an option of controllers

      Yeah, but...

      Having said that, PS4 controllers being compatible is very interesting to me. I'm very unhappy with my logitech wireless controller. Can't get my PS3 controller to work.

      If the PS4 controller works almost perfectly with almost all PC games, I'll get one for that reason alone.

      Ill tell you why, because of exclusives

      Yeah, that's one of several reasons. For me the least important.

      I has nothing to do with the power of the console, if it did the Vita would be outselling the 3DS 100 to 1.

      That's a good point. People do love the Nintendo franchises. On their handhelds.

      People did love the Nintendo franchises on their consoles. I'm just not so sure that that still holds true.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now