Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

3DS fails will the Wii U console be next?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30-01-2013, 17:06
SimonB79
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,702
Don't they make money when a first party game is bought with the WiiU and Mario and nintendoland are the biggest

The bottomline for a company is profit and if they only sold one unit and made a profit of 1p then the machine is still a success
TBH ... I don't care about nintendo & their profit ... It's all about the games imo ... Preferably 3rd party ones which always seem 2 be lacking because of nintendo firing out underpowered consoles ... Christ!!! nintendo are gonna get buried when the xbox720 / PS4 hit the shelves.
SimonB79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-01-2013, 17:18
linkinpark875
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 21,946
The Wiiu seems dead here in the UK, my local asda doesnt even stock the bloody thing!! (and before u guyz start I've bought atleast 10 retail games so I've more then contributed 2 the cause thanks)
To be fair the first Wii took a year or so to take off so we'll see.

I just can't see why I'd want a Wii U. Really they flopped by not going for a motion controller free Kinect style device and Blu Ray.

What was needed was a Nintendo opinion to the PS4 and new Xbox. Exclusive games maybe some retro controllers.

Instead of carrying on from the first Wii they have taken this in a new direction. The touch pad won't work for me the reason is tablet gaming offers a much more solid experience. Consoles are for TV's not to watch on a small screen. I believe you can keep playing and put the TV on? But if that's the case it's still pointless given you can buy a cheap LCD spare and play the Xbox.
linkinpark875 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2013, 17:52
SimonB79
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,702
To be fair the first Wii took a year or so to take off so we'll see.

I just can't see why I'd want a Wii U. Really they flopped by not going for a motion controller free Kinect style device and Blu Ray.

What was needed was a Nintendo opinion to the PS4 and new Xbox. Exclusive games maybe some retro controllers.

Instead of carrying on from the first Wii they have taken this in a new direction. The touch pad won't work for me the reason is tablet gaming offers a much more solid experience. Consoles are for TV's not to watch on a small screen. I believe you can keep playing and put the TV on? But if that's the case it's still pointless given you can buy a cheap LCD spare and play the Xbox.
the wiiu should have had bluray movie playback ... especially considering it costs more then the ps3 does ... Big mistake IMO
SimonB79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2013, 18:31
fastest finger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heart of England.
Posts: 6,227
Don't they make money when a first party game is bought with the WiiU and Mario and nintendoland are the biggest

The bottomline for a company is profit and if they only sold one unit and made a profit of 1p then the machine is still a success
I'm afraid the reality of business is nowhere near that simple.
fastest finger is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2013, 19:19
MD1500
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12,642
Aaagh! It's the thread that doesn't die!

Well, it's not an ideal situation but 3.06 million Wii Us sold is far better than a lot of people expected. And two Wii U games have already sold over 2 million copies.

The "doomed" 3DS is very near the 30 million mark, and in under 2 years, it has now surpassed the lifetime sales of the Gamecube.

And, at the end of it all, Nintendo managed to claw back their losses and finished this quarter with a $160m profit.

Sure, Nintendo probably aren't popping champagne corks, and they reduced their sales forecast (probably owing to the Pikmin delay), but given the state of the economy, these results could have been a hell of a lot worse, IMO.
MD1500 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2013, 20:00
misawa97
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 6,946
Aaagh! It's the thread that doesn't die!

Well, it's not an ideal situation but 3.06 million Wii Us sold is far better than a lot of people expected. And two Wii U games have already sold over 2 million copies.

The "doomed" 3DS is very near the 30 million mark, and in under 2 years, it has now surpassed the lifetime sales of the Gamecube.

And, at the end of it all, Nintendo managed to claw back their losses and finished this quarter with a $160m profit.

Sure, Nintendo probably aren't popping champagne corks, and they reduced their sales forecast (probably owing to the Pikmin delay), but given the state of the economy, these results could have been a hell of a lot worse, IMO.
thats 3 mil shipped to retailers. We will find out how much its sold tomorrow.

Q1 2013 is going to be brutal as there is no major games. The drought is bad in the west but in Japan there is nothing coming out until March. That's just crazy and the Q1 sales are going to be terrible.

Currently they are selling under 15k a weeks in Japan which is close to what the vita does. It's not good but there is nothing coming out to change that.

Obviously the major difference between the wii u and vita is the Wii U still has big heavy hitters to come so its far to early to put it in the coffin.

Nintendo still shouldnt of allowed the software drought to happen again though. The same happened with the 3DS.

The 3DS @ 30 mil in 2 years is fantastic. With DQ, MH4 and pokeman all coming this year its going to have a great 2013!!
misawa97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 16:52
kobashi100
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,802
the wiiu should have had bluray movie playback ... especially considering it costs more then the ps3 does ... Big mistake IMO
I dont think it would have made any difference in relation to sales. Blu-Ray players are cheap and if consumers want movies they are perfectly happy with HD streaming.
kobashi100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 09:05
Ænima
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 24,070
the wiiu should have had bluray movie playback ... especially considering it costs more then the ps3 does ... Big mistake IMO
Sony has a patent on blu-ray, so I don't see how Nintendo could have done that.
Ænima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 09:24
SimonB79
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,702
Sony has a patent on blu-ray, so I don't see how Nintendo could have done that.
Sony are just 1 of many companies involved in the bluray consortium ... Panasonic own the biggest share iirc ... If Microsoft OR nintendo wanted 2 use bluray there would be a vote amongst the members ... That's how it works iirc
SimonB79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 10:34
Gormond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15,332
Sony has a patent on blu-ray, so I don't see how Nintendo could have done that.
Sony are just 1 of many companies involved in the bluray consortium ... Panasonic own the biggest share iirc ... If Microsoft OR nintendo wanted 2 use bluray there would be a vote amongst the members ... That's how it works iirc
All you do is pay a small amount of royalties like you do with DVD, I would bet Microsoft will use a BD drive.
Gormond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 10:41
gdjman68wasdigi
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 5,222
Nintendo are not intrested in movie playback, ok they offer NF and LF..

but not with physical discs

they are all about the games, and not rushing them

gdjman68wasdigi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 10:52
Ænima
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 24,070
Sony are just 1 of many companies involved in the bluray consortium ... Panasonic own the biggest share iirc ... If Microsoft OR nintendo wanted 2 use bluray there would be a vote amongst the members ... That's how it works iirc
Maybe there was, and they voted against it? Since blu-ray is/ was one of the ps3's biggest selling points, I can hardly see them voting to allow it. Or maybe they allowed it, but the cost was too high for Nintendo?
Ænima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 13:39
Gormond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15,332
Maybe there was, and they voted against it? Since blu-ray is/ was one of the ps3's biggest selling points, I can hardly see them voting to allow it. Or maybe they allowed it, but the cost was too high for Nintendo?
It's nothing to do with that, it's due to Nintendo not paying the license fee of $9.50 just like they won't pay $2 for DVDs either.
Gormond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 16:17
SimonB79
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,702
It's nothing to do with that, it's due to Nintendo not paying the license fee of $9.50 just like they won't pay $2 for DVDs either.
Sooo ... IF your part of the bluray consortium u get 2 use bluray free otherwise you have 2 pay royalties?
SimonB79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 18:24
Gormond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15,332
Sooo ... IF your part of the bluray consortium u get 2 use bluray free otherwise you have 2 pay royalties?
That's the same for any IP. For example, If anyone wants to make a cyclone cleaner they have to pay royalties to dyson.
Gormond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 04:51
Ænima
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 24,070
It's nothing to do with that, it's due to Nintendo not paying the license fee of $9.50 just like they won't pay $2 for DVDs either.
I said "maybe the cost was too high for Nintendo", you respond by saying it is "nothing to do with that", but then go on to say it is because they didn't want to pay royalties. Hmm....

And btw, I've no idea where you got the $9.50 figure from, but you do realise, that'd probably be per console, right? I mean, I presume you're not daft enough to think they could get blu-ray on ALL their consoles for a mere $9.50
Ænima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 10:11
Gormond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15,332
I said "maybe the cost was too high for Nintendo", you respond by saying it is "nothing to do with that", but then go on to say it is because they didn't want to pay royalties. Hmm....

And btw, I've no idea where you got the $9.50 figure from, but you do realise, that'd probably be per console, right? I mean, I presume you're not daft enough to think they could get blu-ray on ALL their consoles for a mere $9.50
Firstly it's evident that I was talking about your point that Nintendo were denied the use of Blu-Ray, which ofcoarse is untrue as not only would this be a massive story it would have serious antitrust aligations. Also this would make Sony more money than they would lose, I doubt people choose a PS3 over a Wii because it had Blu-Ray.

The $9.50 figure is how much you have to pay, look it up if you want and yes it is per console, just like all stand alone Blu-Ray players in the market. Also as mentioned this is no different to DVD. Also there is nothing stopping Nintendo making it an optional extra in their store for those who would want it like they could have done with DVDs on the Wii.
Gormond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 11:27
Ænima
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 24,070
Firstly it's evident that I was talking about your point that Nintendo were denied the use of Blu-Ray, which ofcoarse is untrue as not only would this be a massive story it would have serious antitrust aligations. Also this would make Sony more money than they would lose, I doubt people choose a PS3 over a Wii because it had Blu-Ray.

The $9.50 figure is how much you have to pay, look it up if you want and yes it is per console, just like all stand alone Blu-Ray players in the market. Also as mentioned this is no different to DVD. Also there is nothing stopping Nintendo making it an optional extra in their store for those who would want it like they could have done with DVDs on the Wii.
I put some suggestions out there and was right about one of them, so that hardly means my post has nothing to do with it. As for why people choose a ps3, you are just speculating. I know my brother chose it for blu-ray. Most of the games are the same on the 360, and he wasn't particularly bothered about the exclusives.

Exactly, it is per console- hardly a small amount when you consider the millions of consoles nintendo will be shipping out. I never said I didn't believe the figure, just wondered where you had got your information. Of course it seems like a tiny amount when you phrase it the way you did, but nearly 10 dollars per console soon adds up. Some execs obviously decided it wasn't worth it, whether that ends up being a mistake or not, only time will tell I suppose
Ænima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2013, 12:04
linkinpark875
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 21,946
A flop then?

http://www.t3.com/news/wii-outsells-wii-u
linkinpark875 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2013, 14:24
fastest finger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heart of England.
Posts: 6,227
I would normally say that after just 5 months it's too early to say, but with 2 sales forecasts missed, no release dates for new games announced and shiny new next-gen machines on the horizon it's looking pretty bleak.

I mean, their dismal financial results are released today and what's the best they can manage to fight the bad news? Announce that F-Zero and Super Mario World are coming to Virtual Console. ( At £5.49 each )

They should be bombarding every magazine and website with tons of positive PR, tentative release dates, trailers, news of new features, free VC downloads.... ANYTHING that buries this news.

What they hell are they playing at?
fastest finger is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2013, 14:52
Nolan Deckard
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 668
Ouch. That must sting Nintendo.
Nolan Deckard is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2013, 14:59
JaiJai
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 488
Hold your horses - waaaaay too soon to tell yet.

Nintendo has taken a battering from all sides and rightly so however the games ARE coming.

With E3 looming this is will have to be the biggest E3 in Nintendo's history - they must announce some amazing new games and deliver a strong Summer/Autumn line up.

I'm sure a lot of people are still holding back from picking one up until the software improves so it's now or never at E3.
JaiJai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2013, 15:10
Lathamite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 556
People should stop contributing to this troll thread. Beyond tedium. He pops up with some little factoid every few months to feed more negativity about a console he's obsessed with.

FWIW;

Motion controls were a fad. it's over now. Nintendo made a gaming generation out of it, but there was a ton of shovelwear and very few genuine classics. The Kinect and Sony's offering were meagre attempts to jump on the bandwagon. The bandwagon left. Nintendo have moved on.

BD is NOT the future. I say this as someone who owns more than 100 BD and loves High-Definition. But BD is just a stop-gap until downloadable movies truly take off. If people want the format, they will buy a specific machine for it. They don't need two of them in their lounge.

Nintendo completely ballsed up the release of the Wii U but not on the two topics above, so please stop sounding the death bell and assuming these are the reason why. I've barely played mine in months and have just three games. But as soon as the killer titles are released, it will be fine. Zelda, Mario, F-Zero, Pikmin...these are the games I want to play this generation, and every generation.
Lathamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2013, 16:35
Gormond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15,332
BD is NOT the future. I say this as someone who owns more than 100 BD and loves High-Definition. But BD is just a stop-gap until downloadable movies truly take off. If people want the format, they will buy a specific machine for it. They don't need two of them in their lounge.
I think It will be a while before we see the end of movies on optical media due to the constant increase in file size from:

1080p - 3D - 48FPS - 4k...
Gormond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2013, 16:52
Kal_El
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 3,927
I think It will be a while before we see the end of movies on optical media due to the constant increase in file size from:

1080p - 3D - 48FPS - 4k...
Actually I agree with Lathamite. Look at MP3. Small file sizes, users have not really much concern over sound quality beyond a decent bitrate, and the compromise is good generally. Similarly, people aren't crying out for huge file sizes for HD content. Decent high quality HD content can be viewed at a fraction of the size of BD. So yeah, my thoughts are the same. BD is somewhat of a stop gap until downloadable movies really take off. Just imho.
Kal_El is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:32.