I was with you until you said gimmicky motion controls. Every console, controller, and game is a gimmick. Consoles (great power, beautiful graphics, DVD/Blu-ray, and online capabilities) are a gimmick. Controllers(buttons, pad, sticks, motion, and touchscreen) are a gimmick. Games (FPS, RPG, Platformer, Movie based, storytelling, and action/adventure) are gimmicks. The talk of third party support makes no sense. All consoles have third party support or all games would be by first party and the rare second party companies. It isn't whether Third party support will be on the Wii U but what kind of third party support.

I'm sorry that you don't like my terminology, but that's really beside the point. What I was getting at is that motion controls tend to not really enhance the core experience. The WiiU on the other hand the potential to add depth to a variety of genres in ways that we've never seen.

I respect your point, but I really gotta disagree with you on this one... the 1st party content appeals to a certain type of gamer (mostly, the kind that was perfectly happy with the Wii, as well), but not to the audience of gamers currently on other systems, or about ready to go to other systems - both those that have left the Wii because they felt it ignored them, and those that never took Nintendo seriously in the first place.

The real problem is this. With the much lower install base of a newly launched system, and the recent memory of abysmally low sales for 3rd party games on the Wii, developers will, naturally, be hesitant to make anything truly original for the WiiU. 3rd parties need either big sales numbers or big Nintendo support to justify design risks. If all that the WiiU gets from 3rd parties is bland ports of games available on other systems, the WiiU may be looking at a repeat of the Wii situation, where 3rd party support evaporates and Nintendo is left with the only content on the system. Cross-platform games are okay... but they don't help the system itself succeed if there's no wide install base to buy them.

This is what Nintendo needs the 3rd party exclusives for. 3rd party exclusives draw wider ranges of new people to a system - get them in the door - and that allows all cross-platform games to sell well. If you can make a Sony fanboy break down and buy a WiiU for those two or three cool exclusives (like I bought an Xbox for Mass Effect and Gears of War), then you've got them for the cross-platforms, too. If you don't have them, then the cross-platforms don't sell at all.

The people who are all OMG'ing for a new Animal Crossing are NOT the same ones obsessing over the latest COD zombie mode DLC. The difference makes a big difference in a systems financial viability...

If Nintendo wanted to make those types of games exclusive to the Wii U then they would hire a renowned studio and publish the games themselves. The original Mass Effect was exclusive to the Xbox 360 only because Microsoft was the publisher, and the same goes for the Gears of War trilogy. There's a reason why third party exclusives are practically non existent on the PS3 and Xbox 360. You can't expect third party publishers independently to spend millions upon millions of dollars to create exclusive games for a system and therefore miss out on a TON of potential revenue.

What needs to set the Wii U apart is its control scheme. Third parties should enhance multi-platform games sold for the Wii U by incorporating the uniqueness of the touchscreen, and the potential it holds. That would set the Wii U apart from the PS3 and 360, and would give gamers a reason to purchase a Wii U. The situation with the Wii is much different for 2 primary reasons: 1.) The system is significantly less powerful and therefore unable to handle most third party content. 2.) The motion controls are much more gimmicky then the Wii U's touch screen, and didn't do much to enhance the core experience.

Your not so subtle foreshadowing sounds promising.

Nintendo does not need third party exclusives. Their plethora of first party content is all that they need to ensure that their console stands out. Among home consoles, practically every big AAA third party title is multi-platform anyhow. The amount of money required to convince publishers like EA or Activision to produce Wii U exclusive AAA titles would most definitely not be worth the cost.

What Nintendo should focus on is the assurance that all major third party multi-platform games come to the Wii U.

Now that we've actually seen it I can safely say that Yes, the next Xbox and PS systems will be considerably more powerful than Wii U.

We still haven't seen what the machine is capable of, just very early gameplay footage by some third party developers.

The press conference itself was disappointing. The new 3DS software looks great, but I was expecting more out of Wii U. I don't understand why they couldn't have showed early development gameplay of some first-party software. That said, I believe that the new controller holds a ton of potential, and the possibilities are exciting.

I'd give the press conference a 7.5/10

Some news on the PS4.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34869/Sony_Reduces_Investment_Cost_For_PlayStation_4.php

"It is no longer thinkable to have a huge initial financial investment like that of the PS3," he said, allegedly in response to a question about whether the games division would retain its profitability.

The company spent significant amounts of money designing the PS3's Cell processor from the ground up with IBM, and more on the plants to fabricate it.

"Significant cost reductions" for PlayStation 3 hardware was fingered as a major contributing factor to the division's approximate $435.5 million profit during the fiscal year ending March 31, up from a loss of $1 billion the prior year.

Like I said before, Sony has learned its lesson. They rightly aren't going to spend massive amounts of money on R&D, and will make sure that their console is reasonably priced.

It would be a smart move if it were showcased as a release title. Even some of the biggest Nintendo haters can admit that Smash Bros. is a great series.

Exactly how did they learn that "fact" from this generation? By selling out every single console shipped for the first few months of production like they both did? By the 50+ Million consoles sold? The 360 sold over 10 million copies within it's first two years (only using the first two years because after that you need to start taking larger drops in price into consideration due to price cuts) the PS3 did the same, selling over 10 million units within it's first two years.

You truly believe Microsoft and Sony weren't/aren't happy with over 10 million sold in the first two years and over 50 million sold to date? Sure the Wii has sold more but since we're talking about price lets say the "average" price of every Wii sold was $200 and the average price of every PS3 and 360 sold was $300, in reality the Wii number is likely a bit lower and the PS3/360 number a bit higher but this will provide a fine example. Now, go ahead and do the math 70 Million Wii's x $200, 50 Million PS3's or 360's x $300. You may be surprised by just how small the difference in revenue is. Now factor in the fact that everything for the consoles right down to games and peripherals have those same price differences and you start to understand that while the Wii has sold more, it doesn't necessarily mean it's earned higher revenues.

And as far as this mythological shifted market, it's a complete fallacy. What proves it? Slower sales causing console price drops years after they are released just like every other console generation has had? Surely your not referring to the argument industry "experts" claim that Iphone games are replacing console games, no one is leaving their Wii, 360, or PS3 for Iphone games...your simply seeing people that would never normally get into console games playing Iphone games because they are so cheap and a good way to pass time wherever you are. Iphone apps will NEVER directly cut into the console market, personally I highly doubt they'll ever even cut into the handheld market.

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. Sony's Playstation division was operating at a loss during their 2006-2009 fiscal years. Their losses were pretty atrocious, and would've been much worse had it not been for the resilience of the PS2 and continued success of the PSP. Also, your Wii numbers are not correct. The Wii has sold approximately 85 million worldwide, not 70 million.

The shifted market I'm referring to is increased consumer demand for cheaper and inferior gaming that emphasizes innovation over processing power. No one would have guessed in 2006 that the Wii would take nearly 50% of the console market share, because no one believed that gamers would be attracted to the Wii's lackluster technical specs and performance. Personally, I'm not happy with the market shift myself, but it most certainly exists nonetheless.

This is another statement already proven wrong by the current generation of consoles. Were Move and Kinect not extremely obvious "me too" products to capitalize on what Nintendo started with Motion gaming? How bout the implementation of Netflix into all three consoles after seeing it debut on one? Were trophies not a direct answer to achievements? These companies could care less if people thing they are "ripping off the competition", if it will improve their consoles, thus improving their sales, you can bet they'll gladly rip anyone off. That's not even something that only applies to the gaming world, it applies to literally every industry and is commonplace, once a company establishes "innovation" it WILL be copied by their competitors.

Kinect was most definitely not a "me too" product, and instead offered a unique experience. Playstation Move on the other hand did not sell well at all because it offered nothing new, and bundling it with the Playstation 3 increased the price to nearly $400. People don't buy products that they can easily purchase for a much lower price.

Netflix on the other hand is a service that doesn't require millions of dollars in research and development, manufacturing costs, etc., so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, this ties in to the first statement and the last statement but to elaborate further, people said the same thing about the PS3, there was no way at $600 it would be sell at the same level as the 360, go ahead and look up the numbers of the 360 from '05 to '07 (it's first two years) and the PS3 from '06-'08 (again, it's first two years). You might be a bit surprised that the console outrageously priced $200 higher (the PS3) than it's closest competitor (the 360) was stride for stride with the 360 during the two consoles first two years on the market respectively.

You also need to look back at the previous generation. The Playstation 2 sold nearly 140 millions units, while the Xbox sold a mere 20 million or so. The Xbox userbase was tiny, and gamers trusted the Playstation brand. The fact that the Xbox 360 sold at the same level as the Playstation 3 is actually a testament to the DRAMATIC shift in market share between the two companies that resulted from the Playstation 3's lackluster performance and high price. Sony was dominating the market from 1996-2006, but they completely blew it during the Playstation 3's first few years.

If your asking yourself why I always leave the Wii out of the PS3/360 discussion it's because the PS3 and 360 do NOT target the same core demographic and thus are NOT direct competitors with the Wii, just because they are all video game companies doesn't mean they view them as direct competition. The PS2 and Xbox did not contend directly with the Gamecube, the 360 and PS3 do not contend directly with the Wii and the 720 and PS4 will not contend directly with Project Cafe.

That's ridiculous. If the PS3 and 360 weren't competing with the Wii then they never would have released Move or Kinect in order to attract the casual market.

The same is true in the video game world and has been for over a decade now, Nintendo took the role of the cheaper company that produced the cheaper product starting with the Gamecube and Sony and Microsoft take the role of the "luxury" manufacturer making the fancy high end models starting with the PS2 and Xbox respectively. Don't forget that Sony ALWAYS priced themselves $100 ahead of Nintendo ever since entering the market with the original PS and the PS2 debuting at $299 (higher than the Wii at it's launch) while still managing to dominate both generations.

The very key difference is that back then the Gamecube offered absolutely nothing innovative. It was merely an inferior product that didn't catch the consumer's eye.

Hopefully all of this helps illustrate the point that being priced significantly higher than Cafe would mean squat for Sony and Microsoft, even with higher prices and lower sales revenues can be even and gamers have already proven they are willing to pay for the bells and whistles.

Except revenues have NOT been even. I don't know where you're getting your info from.

Actually that's a common misconception, it was EXTREMELY profitable for BOTH of them. When you saw Sony losing money on every PS3 sold because of the development cost people didn't look at the larger picture. Many of Sony's biggest franchises are created by studios owned by them, meaning they make direct profit off of every copy sold, then you also have to factor in peripherals, etc...and the fact that Sony was still heavily pushing the PS2 (and heavily selling PS2s) early on in the PS3 lifecycle, not to mention the PSP. Sony knew full well that each PS3 they made lost them money and it was part of a larger plan, no one would ever make a product that loses money if they didn't have other ways to make up for that loss. With Microsoft they make enough money on LIVE subscriptions alone to offset production costs much much higher than what the 360's actually were and again, many of their biggest titles are made by Microsoft owned studios resulting in a direct profit for Microsoft on every copy sold.

People need to realize that in the gaming world Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo make MUCH more money on games, peripherals, online content, etc...than they do the consoles themselves, more than enough to offset extremely high production costs. Especially in the case of a company like Sony or Microsoft where gaming is just one division of a large corporation that makes profit in other areas as well. If Microsoft or Sony release a console where they initially lose money, even for a few years (as was the case with the PS3) the company can afford it until profit outweighs costs (which happened massively over the last couple years with the PS3).

The fact is, Microsoft and Sony can indeed afford very high production costs with initial losses on systems built and sold with no problem at all. That's the very reason that Microsoft and Sony do tend to go for overpowering systems while Nintendo goes cost efficient. Nintendo doesn't have kind of money from other products that Microsoft and Sony do to offset those costs, it's the reason that what project cafe is rumored to be is nowhere near as powerful as current tech allows for (if the rumors of it only being slightly ahead of the PS3 are indeed true).

Because of all that...yes, when the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony are released they will be considerably more powerful than project cafe as far as graphical capabilities, clocking speed, etc...are concerned. Especially considering some developers are specifically requesting that they be considerably more powerful (Such as Crytek pleading for at least 8GB of RAM on the next wave from Microsoft and Sony).

And for those touting that Nintendo will be okay going for Innovation instead of power, just remember that the 2 year head start has it's negatives as well as it's positives. While it will grant them a lead on initial install base and ensure that by the time Sony and Microsoft do release their next consoles project cafe will be considerably cheaper (especially if it releases at a max of $400 as rumored, which would likely already be below what the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony will be priced at for their launches) it also allows Microsoft and Sony to take any innovation put into Cafe and improve upon it for their own consoles. Similar to what we saw recently with Move and Kinect respectively, taking the motion controls of the Wii, making them better and then adding them to the PS3 and 360. Only this time, they'll be able to improve whatever innovation Nintendo puts into project cafe and have it ready for their own systems launch.

Ultimately I don't see much changing, Nintendo will sell higher numbers initially because of cheaper costs while Sony and Microsoft will sell lower numbers at launch but still sell more than enough to make high profits and eventually catch up to Nintendo towards the end of the generation. Same as we've seen with the Wii, 360 and PS3. I think ultimately all 3 companies are satisfied with that trend for now.

EDIT:

Another thing we have to remember is consumer expectations, people EXPECT that Sony and Microsoft will blow us away with technical specifications and capabilities on their next systems and if they don't, it absolutely will hurt their sales figures. People aren't going to be as excited to buy a new console if it doesn't meet their expectations which for Sony and Microsoft are extremely high.

There's no chance that Sony or Microsoft will price their consoles above $450 or so. The market has shifted over time, and consumers expect cheap entertainment. The casual consumer isn't willing to pay a hefty amount for a game console, a fact that Microsoft and Sony have learned during this generation.

In addition, if the rumors are true of the large touch screen on Project Cafe's control, there is no way in hell that either Microsoft or Sony will attempt to replicate that type of innovation. It will look just like a "me too" product, and most certainly won't catch the consumer's eye, especially if it's more expensive.

And no, Sony and Microsoft are not fine with the cycle you mentioned, and will work as hard as they can to gobble up as much market share as they can, as any company would. They're not going to approach this generation thinking, "Hey, let's create a system that maybe catches up to Nintendo 5 years down the road". They're going to come out guns blazing with prices that rival Nintendo. The gap will be $50-$100 maximum.

If the PS4 is $800 for instance, it will utterly fail.

Yeah, that just seems like a wishlist.

I was talking about how they don't produce great games because the risk of showing what they can do next to what nintendo can do would embarrass them.
It's far easier to hide behind an excuse like "Oh wii can't run unreal 12 engine so we're not going to have it telling the same story as the ps3 and 360 versions."
Like storytelling requires a hd game engine...

There is merit in the fact that the system has limitations, but work within those limits with the same story. Don't go off on a side story that's not even 1/9001th as good or thought out.
Actually try to implement the controls in a decent way rather than just thinking about it afterwards and saying "Oh well we can make shaking the nunchuk reload and the pointer can be the reticle".

Again, the problem is that completely redesigning a game to make it Wii friendly costs a ton of money. Many third parties believe that the costs don't justify the sales, which are pretty poor on the Wii compared to PS360 for many games such as Madden (even before they dumbed down the game).

Like I said, if third parties were confident that they could make money off of their games on the Wii, they'd do it in a heartbeat. The Wii just has too many limitations which look like they'll be fixed with Project Cafe.

These are some good points, and I agree that many devs have to completely redesign their games for the Wii because of its technological inferiority. Nevertheless, Assassin's Creed (Brotherhood? Don't remember which one it was) had some major bugs AFAIK, meaning they were even too lazy to make the PS360 version good, and SSFIV:3DE showed that a Street Fighter on the technological level of the Wii is theoretically possible. Of course this raises the question why we Wii users didn't get a Street Fighter IV - most probably due to online play.
Though, I do agree that Rockstar fans will never play Wii, which is sad considering that Rockstar themselves don't hate Nintendo at all.

On the other hand - aren't we all used to playing mainly Nintendo games on Nintendo consoles?
I hope that the Wii2 will have a significant power boost because it would finally attract third-party devs to a Nintendo console, offering us both excellent 1st- and 3rd-party games. But a Nintendo Console that only adds HD wouldn't be enough - the GameCube wasn't even nearly in the same position as the Wii and was still mostly ignored by 3rd-parties. If this case happened again, it would be nice if at least Rockstar pulled some "hardcore" gamers in for Nintendo.

EDIT: @Nollog: Funny idea

Agreed. A console with Nintendo first-party software supported with top third-party software would be the ultimate console in my mind.

Xbox 360: Gears of War 3 beta mostly, but I'm also always playing Madden online
PS3: Nothing right now, but I'm looking forward to Infamous 2
3DS: Also nothing, but I can't wait for Ocarina of Time and Starfox 64
Wii: Super Mario Galaxy 2 for the fifth time. It's seriously the best platformer of all time.
PSP: 3rd Birthday, which is a terrible game that I probably won't bother finishing

Favorite genres are sports, platformers, and open-world RPG's/action-adventure games

Sony and MS can't leapfrog Cafe in a way that would make the gap Wii-to-360-like without expensive hardware that overheats and sucks up alot of electricity so I'll say the gap will be small and won't matter much.

Exactly. As others have said, the focus of this next generation will be on innovative gameplay rather than amazing graphics.

Project Cafe will more than likely be outdated by the time that the new Playstation and Xbox roll around. But, I believe that the difference in graphics will be minor, and the gap will be tiny compared to this generation. If Playstation and Xbox were to decide to make consoles with graphics vastly superior to Project Cafe, they'd price their consoles out of the market.

Most multiplatform games are FPS, and if I ever wanted to play such a "hardcore" FPS, and the Wii version wouldn't be dumbed down, I would buy it for my Wii - because I can't stand dual analog controls.

Also, how can third parties complain about bad selling games if they dumb them down themselves?
I understand that developers like Capcom have every right in the world to complain about Okami selling bad, but most devs you're talking about already made dumbed down versions from the beginning. They didn't realize over time that they don't get revenue for their games, most of them didn't even try to make them good - or didn't make games for Wii at all.

This isn't due to the inferiority of the Wii compared to PS360, but only due to their laziness. Don't forget that there still are some devs who don't ignore the Wii. After all, games like Okami, Monster Hunter Tri, The Conduit, Red Steel 2 and Epic Mickey are some examples of good Wii-exclusive games that weren't made by Nintendo. These games might sell less than Crap Call of Duty, but they show that it's easily possible to make amazing games for the Wii.

Most multiplatform games are not just FPS. Yes, there are a lot of FPS games on the market due to the genre's popularity, but some of the best racing games (Need for Speed), sports games (NCAA Football), action RPG games (Mass Effect 2), open world games (Red Dead Redemption), action-adventure games (Assassin's Creed), fighting games (Super Street Fighter IV), etc are multi-platform third-party games.

Third-parties have to dumb down their games on the Wii due to the Wii's limitations. Graphics and online play are both inferior on the Wii, and third-parties have to spend a ton of money redesigning the game, making the game Wii compatible, and so on. When they decide to not publish a game on the Wii, they factor in a cost-benefit analysis. They ask themselves whether or not publishing a game on the Wii is profitable, and many third parties have come to the conclusion that it is not. Multi-billion dollar companies don't make these decisions because they're "lazy", they make them based upon very complex business models.

The fact is that a third-party like Rockstar doesn't see a point in publishing a game like Red Dead Redemption on the Wii. This is because they know that the type of people who play Red Dead Redemption want great graphics and great online competitive play, which the Wii simply doesn't offer. As a gamer, I still can't comprehend how Nintendo keeps screwing up its online play. The Wii's online capability isn't even comparable to the original Xbox Live back in 2003. Friend codes are a joke, and games like Super Smash Bros. Brawl lag far too much online. I'm optimistic for the future though because Nintendo has admitted their mistakes, and is planning on hiring other companies to manage their networking and online development. If Project Cafe can reach the level that Xbox Live is currently at, they'll win back a ton of hardcore gamers.

And yes, there are some good third-party Wii titles. But, the list you mentioned is miniscule compared to the amount of third-party games that are exclusive to the HD consoles and not available on the Wii.

I agree that Call of Duty is crap. Battlefield Bad Company 2 owns it.  

I'd like to see a new Starfox that brings back the rail shooter aspect of the game, and stays true to the original, successful formula that made Starfox great.

Nice to meet you Peter.

I agree that there are a good number of quality games that have been released for the Wii, especially from Nintendo themselves. The number is far too low though when compared to other consoles in my opinion. This is due to one central problem: lack of 3rd party support.

"Hating" probably wasn't the best word to use. How's "seething critique"?

Hello everyone.

My name is Vince, and I'm a 21 year old gamer who has owned every Nintendo console since the SNES. I have been a bit disillusioned by the Wii over the past few years due to the lack of quality software, but I'm hopeful that the Wii 2 will truly attempt to recapture the hardcore market and hopefully return Nintendo to its rightful place as king.

I'm the type of person that purchases every game system available, so I hold no fanboy allegiances. I will definitely criticize Nintendo harshly when I feel they are in the wrong, so don't be surprised if you see me hating on the Wii in particular.

The real reason will always be: Nintendo is quality.

Uh... no.

If there was profit to be made by developing on the Wii, third parties would have taken advantage of that. The problem has been that the Wii, due to its inferior graphical capabilities, has driven away the type of gamers that would play a game like Call of Duty. No one wants to buy a game on the Wii that they can play on their Xbox 360 in HD. Third parties began to realize this over time, and have thus either stopped developing for the Wii altogether, or have released dumbed down versions that have not sold well.

I bought a copy of Bioshock 2 at Gamestop for a little less than $8 only 6 months after it was released.