General Nintendo sales/business discussion topic (previously: The Wii U Thread)

[Mr Loopone]

What's Splinter Cell blacklist on Wii U like? I don't have any first person shooters on Wii U, and it's only £19.99 on the eShop. Is there online multiplayer?

 

It's actually quite a good game where you choose to play like stealth like the original games (Splinter Cell was a noticable stealth game when it came out), panther mode that is stealth with some action [think Batman doing a takedown] or all guns blazing. There is a difficulty mode from Easy to Perfectionist as well. Controls very well with the Pro Controller (makes it like the other versions) but also uses the GamePad for quick access to your gadgets/weapons as well as using it to control your gadgets (actually yet to try this but last time I played the game, the GamePad had the default battery but it might change). Imagine that the GamePad would be better in most cases except if a couple of gadget controls bother you, switch to the Pro Controller. Graphics are quite good as well. Compared to the other console versions, it actually runs in 720p [PS3/360 runs sub HD] and there is no screen tearing making it a bit easier on the eyes. There is online multiplayer called Spies vs. Mercs that was popular when Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory came out but I imagine that the Wii U version would be hard to find players though and also online co-op with Briggs.

 

Only problems that the Wii U version has is that it is missing the offline co-op mode and the loading times are pretty long (about a minute) due to the port was rushed to make it in time with the other versions due to the GamePad features taking time to develop and no install feature. There are also a few framerate problems in the cutscenes but the game itself plays fine. It was handled by Ubisoft Shanghai who did develop a couple of Splinter Cell games (Pandora Tomorrow, Double Agent 360/PS3) instead of the new Ubisoft Toronto who worked on the game.

 

Oh and Splinter Cell is a 3rd person action game, not a FPS apart from the Spies vs. Mercs mode. Only FPS games that I know on the Wii U are the two Call of Duty games, 007 Legends, Deus Ex: Human Revolution (switches to 3rd person view for some parts such as moving between walls and it is also a stealth game with some action) and even though that isn't a FPS, the 1st person view in Resident Evil: Revelations.

[Kiah]

Actually it still kind of is, but I think I'm done with this pointless conflict for now.

Just so you know, the majority of your recent posts on this thread the past 2 pages haven't been contribution-worthy. So when you post please make sure your posts actually contribute to the discussion at hand which calls for explaining yourself, or you don't post at all.

 

Actually it isn't. Stop being ignorant...

 

While you are free to contest an opinion here, or even defend yourself, let's keep the jabs out of it. You are to express yourself, even in disagreement, in a respectful manner. Calling someone "ignorant" does not qualify as such and does not contribute to discussion whatsoever.

[Sami]

Of course they do. It doesn't mean that it would be good for the market, though. The gaming industry's creativity will thrive on competition. It's normal, it's healthy, and it encourages their developers to create high quality first-party games in order to make themselves look better against their competitors.

 

If one company blatantly monopolized the industry, there's no telling what could become of it. I'd rather there be at least three major players coming out with amazing and original games.

There actually is telling what would become of it, and it's... actually not bad at all. Not too long ago I would have wholeheartedly agreed with what you were saying while acknowledging the PS2 as a lucky exception, but a few months ago I read a post on GAF that completely changed my perspective on this. I actually bookmarked it in case the discussion came up again because I feel it discusses the situation very aptly and has an interesting perspective on it;

 

 

No, it's not. I don't understand where this is coming from.Competitive platforms are good for the consumer. Sales parity is completely irrelevant to the consumer. In fact, if one platform lags behind the other, it is because the consumer has decided that one platform is not actually good for them. That is how it works. The dog wags the tail. This "competition is good" thing has grown completely into a monster. Competition is the means by which a lessor is weeded out. If a platform is weaker, it should lose. That is competition. This whole "parity is good for the consumer"/"two platforms selling well is good for the consumer" sentiment is bizarre.

What you are espousing is not capitalism or competition but instead crony capitalism in which market competitors are propped up for the sake of having market competitors.

 

Kind of puts things into perspective, no? 

 

The entire consumer electronics market is competition enough as is, propping up inferior and unwanted products merely for the sake of "competition" doesn't benefit anyone at all, and it actually is better for the consumer to get all the games that they want to play on one single console without having to shell out several hundreds of dollars for another brand they don't necessarily care for. Wouldn't it be better for all Nintendo fans if Nintendo did get every major third party game? Of course, as it'd open a whole new market of games to that audience. Similarly, wouldn't it be good for the market to play Mario 3D World on a console they actually own? 

 

A consumer electronic is not an inherent household necessity. If one company is dominating and you're still not particularly fond of that console, then you just don't buy it. With the cycle refreshing every five or so years, companies can't afford to be complacent and arrogant, or they'll lose their market share. Look at Sony; within a single year they went from being the best of the best to the laughing stock of the industry, and lost almost half of the PS2's market to Microsoft. That is competition. 

 

When a company makes a good product that the market favors, they deserve success. If they make a bad product that the market doesn't care for (or, since I know we have a lot of Nintendo fans, a good product that the market doesn't care for), they do not. This is the all-encompassing rule of capitalism, whether that market houses one product, two products, or three. 

 

 

tl;dr - Even if the 360 did not exist, the PS3 still would not have been a success. It'd have still lost tons of market share due to it being an unappealing product, and Sony would still have lost a lot of money over it. Similarly, the Wii U did not tank only as a result of the PS4 and XB1, people just didn't want one. There's no such thing as a bad monopoly in this market, as it refreshes far too quickly for any company to grow complacent, and it's in constant danger from falling into irrelevancy thanks to Apple and Google. A "monopoly" can only exist until a better competitor arrives. See Sony, who stole away a ton of third party developers from Nintendo due to being better for them. From a business sense I mean - third parties stuck with Nintendo in spite of horrible practices because that's where the money was. Sony was better to them, so that's where they went. That's how this industry works, and that's a good thing.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

...and how many times exactly are you going to keep saying that when facts are shown right on your face? Where's your proof/evidence to support that the Wii U can handle AK that people here keep asking for?

Not yet seen any facts that confirm your stance. At best, speculation and claims on a hypothetical situation which doesn't cut it for me. As such, "ignorant" is an appropriate term to describe my stance.

However, I do apologize for calling your claims and posts BS. I went too far there and am sorry for such.

[Sami]

Not yet seen any facts that confirm your stance. At best, speculation and claims on a hypothetical situation which doesn't cut it for me.

However, I do apologize for calling your claims and posts BS. I went too far there and am sorry for such.

Would you kindly provide any possible reason to believe the game doesn't use more than 1.5 GB of RAM?

[Willsy]

By the way, when are we going to see some N64 games on the VC? Also, we need party chats that can be used in game. Emphasis on need.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Would you kindly provide any possible reason to believe the game doesn't use more than 1.5 GB of RAM?

Not much reason to since I don't believe such a thing, meaning I'm not really sure it wouldn't use that much, to begin with, let alone given what we actually know for certain about the game.

[Sami]

Not much reason to since I don't believe such a thing to begin with, let alone given what we actually know for certain about the game.

 

Why don't you believe such a thing? There's plenty of reason to, by the way, seeing as how this is a discussion board and Kiah literally just got onto you about showing up, saying "actually no I disagree", and leaving.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Granted, whatever the intentions, if you really want a reason to believe such, I guess Rocksteady is capable of technological wonders and phenomena, so there's that I suppose.

[Gabz Girl]

Jovah, I tend to agree with you a lot of the time but I can't now. It's impossible for Arkham Knight to be ported on Wii U because it's just not powerful enough to do so. There, end of story. I know it's annoying but that's all there is to it! There are some games that are just too powerful to run on Wii U because, whilst more powerful than 360/PS3 it's still not up to the Xbone/PS4 standards.

Besides we're getting lots of great exclusives, including some third party ones so I don't give a shit. =]

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Why don't you believe such a thing?

Because I can very well see it using more than 1.5.

[Wraith]

 One can make reasonable assumtions based on what we know about these PS4/X1 games. I mean, take one look at Final Fantasy XV and tell me a game like that on the Wii U is feasible. Just as you yourself can continue to claim that the Wii U Arkham Knight port is somehow possible, others can disagree.

 

The difference here is that you are providing no substantial evidence while others are, so their claims hold more weight than yours. Your habit of also just pointing out you disagree also just feels like you're vouching for Nintendo just because they're Nintendo. Quite frankly, Nintendo at this point just plain needs to be kicked into shape. Not some pity party.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Why have so many people missed the part where I stated I'm not sore and can actually see good reasons why Arkham Knight probably isn't coming to Wii U?

And that I'm pretty much okay with it?

And also the parts where I agree about Nintendo and call them out too?

UGH. These sort of situations can be very frustrating.

Then again, I have been sending rather mixed messages lately, so perhaps some of the fault for this mis-conception is on me. Sorry about that!

[Sami]

Granted, whatever the intentions, if you really want a reason to believe such, I guess Rocksteady is capable of technological wonders and phenomena, so there's that I suppose.

Wait, hold on, I don't even know what your point is anymore. Are you saying that you believe it would use more than that much RAM? If so, wonderful. I agree.

This of course means a Wii U port is impossible, which is what you've been arguing against for several pages now.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Wait, hold on, I don't even know what your point is anymore. Are you saying that you believe it would use more than that much RAM? If so, wonderful. I agree.

Yes indeed. Granted even with the Wii U's full capacity of 2.0 RAM-wise Nintendo's current console in current form could very well be insufficient to properly run this Arkham Knight game which looks to be the first Wii U excluded 8th gen game to live up to its promises and hopefully stick to its graphical guns.

If Nintendo wants a better shot at gaining access, they'll need to upgrade and optimize that Wii U as Sony will do for the PS4, or get it next gen like they did with Arkham City. And for that matter they needluck their business actions into the realm of actually getting shit done rather than drone on with the self - pity speeches.

Seriously Nintendo, buy your gaming divisions time with someone people really want:a GameCube VC on the Wii U for starters.

Don't waste your chances so trivially.

Jovah, I tend to agree with you a lot of the time but I can't now. It's impossible for Arkham Knight to be ported on Wii U because it's just not powerful enough to do so. There, end of story. I know it's annoying but that's all there is to it! There are some games that are just too powerful to run on Wii U because, whilst more powerful than 360/PS3 it's still not up to the Xbone/PS4 standards.

Besides we're getting lots of great exclusives, including some third party ones so I don't give a shit. =]

Actually, I can agree with that. I never doubted it outright anyway =/. Sigh, at least that's all cleared up now.

[Willsy]

Okay so now I'm really hooked on Arkham City. Which means I'm actually touching my Wii U and actually playing on it for long periods of time. Haven't done that since Lost World came out.

By the way, I need some advice. I have £20 worth of eShop funds. I have three options; A. Buy Rayman Legends. B. Buy another USB stick and download Splinter Cell Blacklist. C. Save the £20 for MK8.

What do you guys think I should do?

[Sami]

Actually, I can agree with that. I never doubted it outright anyway =/. Sigh, at least that's all cleared up now.

 

But you...

 

I'm rather sick of that notion. And that's really all it is currently: a notion. The possibility of it being downright impossible with severe mitigating for the Wii U is as hypothetical as the Wii U getting Arkham Knight. Let's agree to disagree, move on to a new subject and just end this merry-go-round squabble..

 

... Whatever, okay. At least we don't have to talk about this shit anymore. 

 

Okay so now I'm really hooked on Arkham City. Which means I'm actually touching my Wii U and actually playing on it for long periods of time. Haven't done that since Lost World came out.

By the way, I need some advice. I have £20 worth of eShop funds. I have three options; A. Buy Rayman Legends. B. Buy another USB stick and download Splinter Cell Blacklist. C. Save the £20 for MK8.

What do you guys think I should do?

 

Splinter Cell Wii U isn't a very good port. I'd say MK8, personally.

[Willsy]

Yeah I think I'll go with MK8. I'll get to race with some of you guys.

[Wraith]

Mario Kart 8 looks so fucking great on SO many levels so I say wait for that.

[DarkRula]

Just to change the flavour of discussion a bit, since I know this has been talked quite a bit around here to, even if Nintendo wanted to stuff the WiiU and release trivial games for the rest of its life, we still won't be hearing about any new console until 2015 at the earliest - and even then it'll most likely be the handheld console that we see first.

Yes, it was six years between the DS and 3DS, but between both GBC to GBA, and GBA to DS it was roughly three years. For home consoles, between Wii and WiiU it was six years, but both N64 to GCN and GCN to Wii were roughly four years.

So, 2015 possible release for the next handheld, with a 2016 possible release for the next new console. That's at least two years for the WiiU to have to survive. I'd say that's possible with what we know to be coming within the next two years, and there's still quite a bit to go on new information for new releases.

Just something I've had on my mind for a while since discussion about 'Nintendoomed' returned.

 

Oh, and I'd definitely say Mario Kart to the question of what to get. Depending on how you like games, it'll keep you entertained for hundreds of hours.

[JaidynReiman]

 Are you for real? Even cross-gen multiplats look like ass on Wii U, PS3, and 360 relative to the PS4 and Xbox One. It's vastly inferior tech that delivers vastly inferior fidelity.

 

That this is even an argument is just ridiculous beyond belief. They're not close. They'll never be close. The gap will only widen with time, as games become further optimized and are no longer shackled to nearly decade old technology.

 

Arkham Knight is a game that is built with the hardware of the Xbox One and PS4 in mind - deny it all you want, but that won't change the fact that there are things these consoles can do on a basic level that the Wii U can not.

The... PS4 version really doesn't look that much better? Yeah, it looks a little cleaner, but I don't get what you're saying. Its not a significant improvement graphically. We're at a point where graphics themselves really aren't going to improve a whole lot at all, not with the same kind of improvement we got in past generations. There's some improvement, but its not as significant as you're implying.

 

I'm not denying a damn thing. X-Box One and PS4 are a lot better than last gen and Wii U. But the graphical capabilities aren't so significant of an advancement from last gen, especially when you consider how previous generation gaps were huge jumps in graphical capabilities. And the Wii U's graphics don't look "bad" by any means of the word, that was all I was saying.

 

 

Its the things OTHER than graphics that sets the current-gen consoles ahead of last gen (and Wii U). Framerate, memory, space. The graphics are improved, but its not nearly so significant as it was in previous generations.

[Kaabiitorori]

Okay so now I'm really hooked on Arkham City. Which means I'm actually touching my Wii U and actually playing on it for long periods of time. Haven't done that since Lost World came out.

By the way, I need some advice. I have £20 worth of eShop funds. I have three options; A. Buy Rayman Legends. B. Buy another USB stick and download Splinter Cell Blacklist. C. Save the £20 for MK8.

What do you guys think I should do?

 

Hands down, Mario Kart 8. Rayman Legends, while awesome, is not gonna offer the amount of hours and everlasting fun Mario Kart will bring to you in the long run, although you can always grab that game anytime later if you are not rushed at all to acquire it; as for Splinter Cell Blacklist, I find it very hard to recommend due to how gimped and limited the Wii U version turned out to be. So yeah, I'd personally stick with Mario Kart 8 without a doubt. Also, let's not forget: online Mario Kart is always a blessed bonus. =)

 

Out of curiosity: how often do you download eShop games? This goes from retail to smaller and Virtual Console games. If you are an avid eShop purchaser, have you considered using an external HDD instead of USB sticks?

[Willsy]

Hands down, Mario Kart 8. Rayman Legends, while awesome, is not gonna offer the amount of hours and everlasting fun Mario Kart will bring to you in the long run, although you can always grab that game anytime later if you are not rushed at all to acquire it; as for Splinter Cell Blacklist, I find it very hard to recommend due to how gimped and limited the Wii U version turned out to be. So yeah, I'd personally stick with Mario Kart 8 without a doubt. Also, let's not forget: online Mario Kart is always a blessed bonus. =)

 

Out of curiosity: how often do you download eShop games? This goes from retail to smaller and Virtual Console games. If you are an avid eShop purchaser, have you considered using an external HDD instead of USB sticks?

I've never downloaded a retail game from the eShop before. So there's really no point in me getting an external hard drive, as I usually go retail.

[Autosaver]

"Last gen versions look like ass"

 

Links to footage that don't show that much of a difference in next-gen AC4.

 

I lol'd

[Willsy]

The PS4 version has better textures and water effects, that's for sure. Framerate apparently never drops below 30.