Very good points. The main purpose of this concept is to see if the mobile concept could work. There would need to be tweaks to the model, but overall, it seems like you guys are saying it would be a negative situation.

I want to see risk come down for developers, and something like this seems like the only viable option.

I would imagine 2 versions of the system could be available. One that works without internet.

Ever played a Zyinga game?

I have watched people play them, and I never thought the ads were too intrusive. Let me flesh this out a little:

 

You buy a Wii U for $99.00 flat with ad support at retail. You then either pay the $200 difference at retail to receive an unlock code tied to your NNID and console, and you have no ads. Games at retail are full price (no getting around this with discs and cases, and shelf space has to be factored in). 

 

The games on the eshop are $0-10 dollars for every AAA, honest to goodness console game. The ads would be annoying, like an interruption between 20 minutes of playtime for this version. Almost like a limited commercial break. 

 

HOWEVER...you can pay MSRP at the store or on the eshop for the full game and skip the ads altogether. 

 

I saw Ouya being brought up, but this would be a little different, as Ouya would not really have the reach that Nintendo could have. Imagine, a Console and handheld within impulse range for many people (OK, credit card impulse range), with a flood of publishers eager to make ad revenue. Nintendo makes money every time the machine turns on. Alternatively, people like us pay full price.

 

Point being, the ads would not need to be obtrusive. Purist will keep buying. The people who bite at $99 will probably make enough ad revenue in some cases to buy 3 or 4 consoles. 

But unlike Ouya, you have everything available on the console. It would create a massive install base with all games. Nothing would change for those that buy games and consoles. We would have better third party support. Theoretically.

Hello Everyone,

 

People are buying phones/tablets, and playing the no/low cost garbage they have. This is taking away from, and arguably, changing the landscape of the industry. AAA publishers are also eating away at the industry by recycling garbage and making it impossible for the smaller devs to make headway with new concepts on consoles (spare a few). 

 

Those free games are ad based, and this makes up for a large chunk of their revenue. The hardware is subsidized with the data plans. Here is a concept I was toying around with and I was using Nintendo's product's as an example:

 

A $99 Wii U, and a $50 3ds. These are heavily ad supported, with mandatory time spent viewing ads, maybe 10 seconds between applications. You can pay the full price, and remove the ads. Games are priced at $free-10 with the ad scheme. Again, you can pay the full price to remove the ads. 

 

My hypothesis is that this would make the install base explode, provided Nintendo could secure the proper marketing tactics. The problem is that this is easily copied. However, Nintendo has an advantage with software, and an actual incentive to be very far ahead at first. 

 

So yes, you will get a bunch of crap software, just like with Droid/IOS, but you will also have the decent-to-great stuff that we have now. The only difference is, they have an optional way to adjust to changing market conditions.

 

This sounds insane to stupid. Just think about it for a second and then respond:).

I've slept on it a night but I have to say that if this was the case I wouldn't bother with Nintendo anymore. When I buy a console or a game I don't want to be limited in my activities. I don't want an 'incomplete' console for €99 and then having to pay another €200 just so I can play normally, the same with games.

The ad thing works, but it works on mobiles and why. On my iPad I don't mind ads during my play session, as it is only 5-10 minutes long. Because these are so short I don't bother with getting the full game as the ads are just there in the bottom and don't intterupt my game. An console is designed for long play session, this would mean that during my 4 hour play session I would get in total 12 ads of 30s to a minute long. Not only does it break your sense of emerging but that wait time is also deadly in multiplayergames like CoD. I'd get increasingly annoyed up to the point I'd drop the system and I think most of the (cassual)gamers would feel the same.

This makes sense-presuming it was done like that. I would hope that there would be an annoying, yet unobtrusive, bar across the bottom of the screen with ads, and a dedicated section on the homepage. Almost newspaper style. Something annoying enough to make people like us want to buy in, yet not so bad for the impulse crowd (I refuse to play those phone games-I have not tried one yet that was not concentrated garbage).

 

The market appears to be going in that direction, at least substantially enough to where an expensive home console will be back to a core fanbase (think gen 6). 

 

Nintendo is going to have to do something radical to compete for that core market at this point (the steps are listed elsewhere). I cannot think of a better way than for a low cost value proposition, or mass market trojan horse to earn revenue without actually needing to make sales. 

If you don't want the ads that's why you pay full price. But I get what you're saying, OP, this seems like a solid way to get people on board with Nintendo hardware. But I'm waiting for their inevitable NINTENDO PHONE. The one phone to rule them all

Yes sir! The ad revenue is for Nintendo and third parties. The full price customers, the market that is continuously buying stuff as it is, would not change a bit. 

 

However, the market is changing. Nintendo would not need, or want, to directly compete with MS and Sony on their terms. This would be a proverbial kick in the nuts. 

 

The Nintendo Phone would be in direct competition with the red ocean. I like the idea, but I feel like Nintendo would be in way over their heads (in everything but games). 

This is a good idea but poor execution would kill it. It would annoy people to death and it makes Nintendo seem like douche bags in the long run

Could you elaborate?

I honestly love the potential for the gamepad and TV integration for exclusive titles. Stuff like Wario G&W is really exciting to me, as this concept could carry on to the indie scene. Speaking of that, some of these IOS and Droid devs have a great deal of potential, but those games are limited by the lack of buttons (my opinion). 

 

(Nintendo's IP's+Indie Devs)^GamePad=excitement 

 

This will be interesting. I hope third parties end up on board. However, it will have to be a la Watch Dogs (separate development team), or it will always feel like tacked on half assery. 

Neither
 
#GoogleTV

Lol. I already run. A HTPC so the XBone disappoints.

But this post is from my Nexus.

Haters gonna hate
 
Doesnt matter if the X1 doesnt have used game fee's or not, people will always find something

Fanboys yes, but would you rather have MS or Apple in your living room? It seems like the customer is an after thought, and they have a reverse value proposition.

I dislike MS's customer service, so no. It roots back to a RROD with a purchased warranty, and getting sending them my 360 in mint condition. They sent me a stained one in return that died quickly after. Worse yet, they never refunded the paying warranty holders after everyone got a free warranty.

Then came Windows 8. So no. I think I will go PS4 or Steam Box if the need for a second console arises.

I dislike MS's customer service, so no. It roots back to a RROD with a purchased warranty, and getting sending them my 360 in mint condition. They sent me a stained one in return that died quickly after. Worse yet, they never refunded the paying warranty holders after everyone got a free warranty.

Then came Windows 8. So no. I think I will go PS4 or Steam Box if the need for a second console arises.

Well, I have not experienced any of the issues they are talking about. Erratic control? Not once. If anything, my accuracy is better than in other games, which surprises me (controller aiming is not my thing). 

 

FPS dipping from 32-28 is not a big deal. .875% of a dip will be unnoticeable during gameplay. Where it becomes an issue is when you end up bouncing 15-40% all of the time. That is hinders gameplay. 

 

Finally, Capcom probably did a 'lazy' port. If by 'lazy', they targeted the PS3 as the lead technical platform for the consoles, and made it work on the Wii U and 360, then we really do not have much to complain about considering the userbase and software attachment ratios.  At least both versions look identical, and the PC version, outside of tweaking settings, appears to have the same assets/engine settings. 

 

So, DF spins their conclusion with another subtle smear on the Wii U's technical capabilities, oh well. Remember when the die shots were released, and they proclaimed their forecast was accurate, only to have Chipworks come out and essentially refute everything? Time has shown Latte to be so customized that nobody really knows what it is (precisely). 

 

I really wish Nintendo optimized their tools a la Microsoft. Imagine multi-platforms running better at all times regardless of the lead platform. I am shocked that Nintendo did not learn from the PS3's early years (outside of not releasing a complicated architecture). Nintendo is in the position of helping third parties at this stage in the product's life cycle, not expecting them to figure it out. 

I want games to load, or at least hit the splash screen, as quick as the home button features load up. No more pauses. 

 

I also want to eliminate weird crash bugs where the OS is directly at fault. One of these I found:

 

• Downloading in the background can, once in a blue moon, hard crash the OS while playing a game. 

There are others that occur once in awhile, at random, but none of them come to mind. So yeah, more OS stability. 

You had a wii and a 360. You already know the answer to this.

The wii u is nowhere near as underpowered as wii was however, and its getting better third party support.... Just different 3rd party support.

Instead of crap crap minigames and dance garbage 70, its getting bayonetta 2 and wonderful 101.

You will want a wii u for the same reason you enjoyed a wii. There are awesome games on it you just cant get anywhere else, Like Monolith softs X.

For the cloned to hell and back homogenized aaa garbage fest thats about to finally die a hopefully excrutiating death this gen, you will want a ps4/xbox or a mid range pc (i5+ decent graphic card)

Id suggest ps4 since its smaller, cheaper, more powerful, and has Sce exclusives.

Your lips to God's ears in bold.

 

Personally, I would get the PS4 in the OP situation. If what Nintendo showed at E3 is not enough for him, he needs to look elsewhere first, and get a Wii U when he no longer has to ask the question.  

I don't believe the wii u version will look any better than the 360 or PS3 version and like Assassin's Creed 3 for the wii u (from the same developer) may look a bit worse. The important thing is how the gamepad is used and this could be where the wii u really excels to produce an enhanced experience. The idea that the wii u is going to offer a ps4 or xbox one version of the game is utterly ridiculous to be honest. Those versions will be much enhanced visually. I think the best we can hope for is marginal visual improvement over 360/PS3. However that said if the wii u has much enhanced gamepad features this may take a toll on other areas of the game. Even if the developer is now capable of pulling out a bit more performance out of the wii u that performance may be soaked up by the enhanced features of the gamepad so the main screen graphics may actually stay current gen.

 

This video shows the frame rate for all 3 versions of Assassin's Creed 3 and the wii u version is meant to be marginally weaker visually if you look at the eurogamer article. I can't see the visual weakness in this video but its clear the frame rate for wii u is the worst of the three but not by much.

 

Your using an apples-to-bananas comparison for AC3 and the Wii U platform. Remember, the dev kits were terrible when they made AC3 (most likely using 2 cores, plus they were porting a game made for the PS360 CPUs, which we know is bad because of the Wii U's weak SIMD). 

 

A better comparison would be to use Need for Speed MW U vs the other two, from the same developer. 

 

In this case, Ubi made the PC/Xbone/PS4 versions, and then made the Wii U version before starting on the HD Twins. I would expect the HD Twins to inherit a down port of the Wii U version. In any event, I am unclear on how the game will look on any platform outside of a PC like mine. The newest E3 footage was CGI (unless they had gameplay PS4 available). 

Wii u footage has been shown. Looks like ps4, but slightly less populated.

The old gen versions started development later.


Lol

Ac3, me3, batman, etc. are all stupid examples to compare wii u with old gen.

Batman added a couple things but nothing major.

Those games aren't going to look any better on wii u because they are using the same assets and a lot of the same code ( not meant for wii u)

Wii u versions look a little better just because the gpu renders cleaner.

Nintendo just showed some games at e3 that make 360/ps3 look like dooky.

It looks like wii u shares assets and geometry with ps4 with watch dogs.

Watch dogs is being developed by a different team for the crusty consoles.

Btw, nfsmw was made on other consoles and pc first.

But wii u is using pc graphics. The old gen consoles use much uglier graphics.

As it is, I don't see the fuss about watch dogs graphics. They're good but nothing to write home about. Regardless of platform.

The old gen consoles should be able to come close.

Have you noticed how the game keeps dropping in visuals with each showing? 

The Wii U version looks almost like the PS4 one IMO. Underneath the engine, it's just the same game. I'm getting most releases on the Wii U if available since I'm still saving up for a PC in November to replace my medium level laptop.

That is more or less my understanding of it. I have this test for a good game on my rig:

 

Play it with everything on very high for a bit, and then play it on low (if the game is a linear shooter or something that has not taken my interest. In this case, I will replay it on low for the same effect). If, after awhile, I do not realize the difference in graphic settings, the game offers something besides graphics. 

 

In this case, that footage looks close enough IMO to where it will not make a difference. If I like it that much, I will buy it on my PC (AMD 8350/7970x2) and most likely max it after patches. However, I am not against the PS4 version. I just need to buy one first, LOL. With all of the WII U/3ds stuf I have pre ordered (like, over a grand at this point), I can't justify it at the moment. 

Why am I seeing an abundance of the words 'PS4', '1080p', and '60 FPS'?

 

It is not in this thread specifically, but in many places on these forums, others, and in the comments sections of articles. 

 

I am not sure I can pin point one game, currently out, that meets this standard (not including re-released stuff). 

 

Wait, COD: Ghosts. I can think of one. However, everything else is 1080/30, usually upscaled. 

I was fooled, as were many others, I love Nintendo games, and I love third party games like GTA V, Skyrim and Mass Effect, moneys tight at the moment and Nintendo promised it was fighting to get the hardcore gamer back, they promised us a single machine where we could experiance the utter briliance of Nintendo IP's with all of our favourite third party IP's too. Well don't I feel stupid now, we've got NO third party games apart from Ubisoft's, Nintendo seems to be running round in circles confused and not knowing what to do, Iwatta keeps lying, how many times has he said third party games are coming and then NOTHING!!! So thank's Nintendo, you've cost me £350 as my Wii U at least for now is a giant door stopper, and on top of that you have cost me another £350 as I've now gotta go and buy a PS4. That's why I thought third party games would be good on Wii U, I wanted one console this gen, Nintendo said they could provide that, they lied.
 
Oh and don't say it's all the third party's fault, Nintendo knew thier relationships with third partys were rocky ones, Nintendo told us THE FANS that they were taking the right steps to remedy the situation, still nothing, the amount of money Nintendo have, they should have been throwing it to third partys, the results would have come, Nintendo are too busy bieng stuck in the 90s for thier own good, fire Iwatta, hire someone new, simple as.

Your right. They pulled a 180 with the Wii U from the reveal. They should have had the best tools and incentives to get third parties on board from day one, as they promised.

Now they they are back to being different, and not caring what the competition is doing, which is fine. I don't understand how 2013 big releases are not all heading toward the platform either.

Sad as it is, they need a wake up call. Luckily, Iwata being CEO of NOA now will probably get things fixed quicker. However, nobody will buy that third party game if it does not make use of the gamepad, and it has a better version on a machine they already have.

This is crazy. If you look at the top 10 selling games across the US, UK, and Japan, you can correlate 2013 to a bad year. The USA, sigh, has 2 COD games on the list. TWO! The UK, while slightly different, mirrors similar concepts that also work well in the USA. 

 

Japan is different, yet would you, as a publisher, focus on that market or the larger territories? Do we have data from a company that tried to? Wait, we do, and they are going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. 

 

2013 sucked for the first two top 10 lists, as the trend will continue. Play virtual paintball, dance like a prick, buy sequel number 39, but do not support originality in this industry. 

 

Look at the top 10 cross-platform sellers of the year for the US (http://segmentnext.c...g-game-2013-us/):

 

1. Grand Theft Auto 5

2. Call of Duty: Ghosts

3. Madden NFL 25

4. Battlefield 4

5. Assassin’s Creed 4: Black Flag

6. NBA 2K14

7. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2

8. Just Dance 2014

9. Minecraft Xbox 360 Edition

10. Disney Infinity

 

Now the UK (http://metro.co.uk/2...vealed-4265929/):

 

1. Grand Theft Auto V (Rockstar)

2. FIFA 14 (EA)

3. Call Of Duty: Ghosts (Activision)

4. Battlefield 4 (EA)

5. Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag (Ubisoft)

6. Tomb Raider (Square Enix)

7. FIFA 13 (EA)

8. Lego Marvel Super Heroes (WB Games)

9. Minecraft: Xbox 360 Edition (Microsoft)

10. The Last Of Us (Sony)

 

Now Japan (http://wiiudaily.com...s-of-2013-list/)

:

 

1. Pokemon X / Y – 3,976.829
2. Monster Hunter 4 – 3,923,312
3. Animal Crossing: New Leaf – 1,730,182
4. Friend Collection: New Life – 1,580,067
5. Dragon Quest VII Remake – 1,227,377
6. Puzzles and Dragons Z – 1,005,697
7. Luigi’s Mansion: Dark Moon – 982,737
8. Grand Theft Auto V – 605,882
9. New Super Mario Bros. U – 584,479 (bundle sales included)
10. Wii Party U – 518,776 (bundle sales included)

Not everyone is a hardcore gamer. COD is the epitome of most people's gaming exposure and advertising dollars play a lot into that. Also two COD games are usually in the top selling every year, as it releases late in November anyway. 

Exactly! The second sentence feeds the first. 

 

Not everyone was a hardcore gamer playing SMB in 1986. Same for those playing Star Fox in 1993. Ditto with Mario 64 in 1996. Same again with MGS in 1998. The original Halo brought something new in 2001, which had people playing DOA 3 along side it. Even 2005-2007 brought us Mario Galaxy, the first Crysis, and, unfortunately, COD 4 (at this point something novel). 

 

Since then, it has been a race to singularity. Almost like 2014's version of pong and space invaders with different skins. 

Sadly, the innovative thing about the PS4, other than the controller, appears to be Sony asking this question:

 

What do we need to give core gamers and developers, from a hardware standpoint, to create the maximum amount of utility within this budget for hardware?

 

Valve is the only company that seems to do this on the PC side. 

 

Microsoft and Nintendo tried to control demographics, and Sony catered to them. 

What would have happened had Nintendo released the Wii U weaker and at a lower price point and said like they did with the original Wii, that it does not compete directly with the other consoles but is a console you buy with them?

I as others have pointed out, they more or less did. The gamepad is in place of the Wii mote, and it is more or less positioned to be sitting next to the PS4 at this point. The only difference is the power disparity is less than before.

Speed. I want to boot up enter a game, and play within a minute or less. As we see, gamers, specifically the repeat buyers, should be focus number one. Their side activities, number 2, and everyone else will come.

I am going to come on here and make all sorts of complaints about it;). 

 

No, actually, I will be too busy trying to figure out how I will make time for all of the new games. I don't expect to be too concerned anyway. I was playing Crysis 3 maxed on 1080p the other day, and switched back to the Wii U and Sniper V2. Either I am blind or I am just not seeing a huge discrepancy.