well i got one from my brother, but i'm sure if they are interested in a wii u, they probably have decided that it's better off just waiting for a price drop and/or software support to pick up. To be 100% while i've personally enjoyed the console there really isn't a whole lot of reasons to invest $300-$350 in this console right now. Even the games slated to come out this spring aren't really the titles people buy consoles over (at least at a large enough scale). I'm sure when people start seeing footage of the next smash brothers and mario kart some will get hyped up for it. 

Who knows, maybe nintendo throws us a good curve ball or two. God knows they haven't done that in the software side for awhile (on home consoles anyways).

No on-disc DLC (it's an obnoxious practice, when i buy the disc i expect to have access to the contents of that disc. Not part of it and you can charge me for the rest later.

DD to expand - i agree, though mainly a more robust (and less restrictive) XBLA. Also steam-like stales would be just dandy

No more proprietary hard drives/external memory units- it's sad that nintendo is the only console maker today to get this right (you can plug in just about any external hard drive into it)... get to it sony/microsoft (at least in the vita's case, not sure if the ps3 has this issue though i have 250 gb inside my ps3 so i haven't had the need to expand). 

DLC - as much controversy as it's gotten, if there's a game i love playing and want to experience more i like the idea i can spend a few more dollars and get additional content to the game. As long as DLC is done right and not abused i think it's a great thing. 

AA gaming (for lack of a better term) - i would like to see more $20, $30, $40 games start popping up, maybe not with the AAA level development budgets and hollywood style acting, but maybe those fun 20-30 hour games that provide the A-AA experience that was lacking last gen imo. To me games have either gone in one extreme or the other (indie or AAA), and i'd like to see a medium somewhere in there that can thrive. 

[QUOTE="deomag4"]

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Nintendo banked on casuals which is their big mistake.  Casuals dont work like that.  They will stick with their original Wii and pull it out of the closet once every 25 years.  

Very happy to see the casuals abandoning Nintendo.  I ditched them the moment they released that piece of **** AKA the Wii.  

Fizzman

come on, the wii was disappointing after it's initial novelty, but don't lie and pretend like when you picked up wii sports for the first time a part of you didn't find some enjoyment in it. I think it was a mistake to go the direction they did with the wii u, and they should have killed the wii sooner, but gamers these days are way too butthurt about a $200 console that was pretty fun and interesting when it first launched. 

I bought a Wii hoping i would stop hating those god awful motion controls.  Unfortunately i was never able to get used to sluggish/inaccurate controls.  I hated Wii Sports with a passion because it was so one dimensional and boring.  

stop hating motion controls?? it's not like motion controls were all that prevalent prior to the wii (i had an eye-toy, though that sucked i'll admit)... i mean wii sports is not a deep game, it's meant to be a casual experience with friends while you are drinking or family members. In my opinion as a core console the wii was very lacking, but as a social console i admittedly had fun experiences with it. I was a bit disappointed with wii swordfighting (on sports resort), though admittedly i should have saw that coming seeing as it was probably to be expect that every game turned into a wagglefest rather than "legit" swordfighting. 

Nintendo banked on casuals which is their big mistake.  Casuals dont work like that.  They will stick with their original Wii and pull it out of the closet once every 25 years.  

Very happy to see the casuals abandoning Nintendo.  I ditched them the moment they released that piece of **** AKA the Wii.  

Fizzman

come on, the wii was disappointing after it's initial novelty, but don't lie and pretend like when you picked up wii sports for the first time a part of you didn't find some enjoyment in it. I think it was a mistake to go the direction they did with the wii u, and they should have killed the wii sooner, but gamers these days are way too butthurt about a $200 console that was pretty fun and interesting when it first launched. 

I do have some worries about the whole "nintendo salvaged the 3ds so they can do the same with the wii u" arguments. They did of course, but i think in this scenario the variables are much different.

For one, 3DS had no competition (outside smartphones) in it's market, as the vita hadn't been launched (and would not until the following spring). In the Wii U's case, the 360/ps3 are still being supported well, and it looks like consoles will be coming out next fall/holiday season.

Second, nintendo seems to have a much better reputation in the handheld market than in the home console market, so i think users were more willing to give the 3ds the benefit of the doubt. Their handhelds generally get very good 1st and 3rd party support, while their home consoles have had sparse 3rd party support and it's competitor consoles had features that made nintendo's lookng more unappealing.

I don't see the Wii U getting the same patience the 3DS did. Also the Vita ended up flopping early, essentially keeping 3ds momentum up even after the launch. i think it would be a huge shocker if both microsoft and sony blow it with their next consoles. 

Now I think Wii U will be fine. I think there will be an audience for it when the price comes down and software support ramps up (if it does). I think Nintendo has done a poor job marketing it, but the console does have some appeal. I think being able to play wii u games on the gamepad is an underappreciated feature that I think people will eventually begin to appreciate, and the tablet screen does offer a nice utility device when using entertainment apps on the wii u (though smartglass might be a more sensible solution, as you don't have to increase costs by adding a screen directly on the controller, instead using an outside device). 

If this device drops to around $200, with some interesting casual games, some new nintendo IPs and enough interesting exclusives for hardcore gamers, i believe it will be able to find it's niche this gen. Maybe not the ideal niche for nintendo, but then again maybe they should have planned the console better. 

For the last three generations and the future (not including the GBA and DS) I would have preferred for them to not release a console and to just make games. If their games were just released on another console, the PC, or any combination we really wouldn't lose anything, save some money and space by not having to buy a Nintendo console and still be able to play the games. No reason to want to needlessly waste money. Legolas_Katarn

to be 100% honest i'd prefer this too. I think my biggest worry is that the games will drop in quality and/or some of the ips i like will end up disappearing (similar to what happened with sega). At the same time i honestly don't see nintendo quitting the hardware business after this gen. I think they will acknowledge the wii u was a mistake (if it flops, which is very possible seeing as its off to a pretty poor start) i could possibly see a lot of changes up top, but i think i do see them giving in one last try. 

This is kind of a response to an older article talking about Nintendo merging their hardware divisions. My question is what do you see nintendo doing console-wise after the wii u and the 3ds? And this is assuming they don't go 3rd party

To be honest, i really have no idea. They are kind of in no man's land, where their product doesn't really cater to anybody but fans of nintendo (and even then there's probably some buyer's remorse until nintendo's 1st pary ips start being released). I could see a hybrid console, one where you can plug it in to your tv and play games on it, and also can take with you as a semi portable device (similar to an actual tablet, but with its focus on gaming). I don't think they will try to bring back motion controls full force, but they'll probably keep it around like the wii u did.  

I'm asking because 1) i kind of have a soft-spot for nintendo, probably can tell from my posting history (though honestly i was more a pc/xbox guy this past gen), and 2) i find it kind of interesting to talk about, since their once very highly regarded brand now is a bit polarizing, especially on these boards. And i always wondered if they should try to work themselves back into the picture, or should try to find a new niche somewhere. 

I don't know, what are your guy's thoughts? (If you want to talk crap about nintendo, go nuts though bonus points if you make it clever or funny (even in a lame kind of way)).

360 has a great library, but ps3 also has it's own share of fantastic games and exclusives. It's all a matter of preference, and i think each console has it's respective strengths imo. 

Honestly i can't say i regret owning either console (i got the ps3 for free so no im not rich and i didn't purchase both). I'm just hoping next gen is awesome, and hoping for a bit more diversity in the titles... i felt like this gen had way too many few ips (at least in the last couple of years) and too many sequels to those ips. 

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="Mrmedia01"]

I think PS4 and Xbox 720 won't be as doomed as long as they have the power for next gen and have great launch games that sell systems.

 

WiiU is underpowerd, lacking 3rd party support and the 1st party launch games were not all that great. Easy for PS4 and Xbox 720 to do better than what WiiU has done.

720OwnsPS4

By the time those consoles come out the WiiU would have built up a decent library of games.

you say that, but it kind of is in a wierd way

you got 3d mario, 2d mario, mario tennis, mario kart, mario golf, super smash bros (close enough, has bros in it), mario party. Hell now you just need Mario FPS and Mario RPG (i actually think there is such a thing) and u basically have a library. 

[QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

Wanting more than 2 or 3 quality unique games per gen in this day and age from a SINGLE studio is ridiculous. As technology increases, development times do to. It was easy for people to pop out games left and right in the SNES and N64 days, not so much anymore.

Madmangamer364

Agreed. More importantly, I don't think Retro necessarily needs to be a "new Rare" in order to make a similar impact. The two are compared because they are known for developing exclusively on Nintendo platforms and creating software using Nintendo properties. However, I think Retro's upside to Nintendo is actually greater if they are ever given the green light to create a new IP. Most of Rare's past concepts piggybacked off of Nintendo's established ideas, but I think Retro might be the Nintendo-owned development studio best-equipped to create a new hit series under the HD model of game design, given what they've accomplished with past hardware and with the recent expansion of the team itself.

One of these days, I'd like to see what Retro can do without having to live up to the expectations set by established IPs, like Metroid and Donkey Kong. Much like what Monolith has started to do, I think this is a studio that can give Nintendo's library of titles a unique set of quality games, and that would be huge moving forward.

I agree with this 100% actualy. I personally really want to see what Retro can do making their own new IP. I was pretty excited by early footage of raven blade so i know they can make something pretty awesome. 

Hell i wouldn't mind if nintendo tried to organize another studio like retro again.