What Is This MESS?!?!?

[ArchAngel]

No, DMR, you seemed to have missed what I have said.
If you don't have an HD TV, you simply aren't the market for the next gen consoles. HD TVs aren't some luxury item for the rich, they have been standard for a while now.
So, you are saying in order to get a pretty small piece of the market, they'll have to spend extra to include analog converters for each console, which would is dubious to return on investments, on a crowd that's most likely unable to afford many games at all, which is the main money maker (as Sstavix points out, they take a loss per console, but make it up in licensing), to the point of reducing graphic fidelity on their cutting edge system. That's like including carriage hitches on your car to hook up to horses for people who can't afford gas.
Not only does this not make business sense, it doesn't even make gaming sense. If you are bottle-necked by your TV, you probably should have spent your money differently.

DMR, you are not forced to buy anything. The next gen consoles are a luxury and a luxury that is more expensive than big screen HD TV. Frankly, I cannot see the point of your objection. If a person has enough to buy the new console, they have enough to get at least a decent sized HD TV. You can get a smallish one for your room for like $100. How is this a barrier when looking at consoles that are $400-$500? If upgrading your TV is so out of the question, how are you even considering the new consoles?

EDIT: I didn't even go looking for this. Seriously, a 47" for the price of the new PS4:
http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/108506/ ... p-led-hdtv" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JOJ650s]

I still have a CRT TV. (I am living on the edge. )
Haha, I doubt I'll upgrade unless it stops working.

As for sales, I think it's much to early to say the Wii U isn't doing well,
I still remember when people said the 3DS wasn't going to make it...
Then well... it out sold everything, and apparently has sold a total of 37.8 million units so far.
I think it's still too soon to judge.

I haven't played the Wii U but it seems like another wrong step. "WELL, look at THIS CONTROLLER HEH HEH, it has a SCREEN!! please love us"

I actually thought it's pretty neat, I heard the button layout is really good.
You can also surf the net, watch youtube videos, or look up a game guide in the middle of gameplay.
There's also that neat feature where you can play the game on the pad while the TV is used for something else.

Though yes, I hear it's also rather heavy,
and you pretty much need to leave it plugged in most of the time.
As it's battery life last for only about two hours.

Shrug, I never tried it myself though.

[DeadManReedeemed]

Tell me, DMR, did you flip out when cassette tapes were no longer supported and you were forced to buy a CD player or an MP3 player?

No, it didn't concern me. And if you're implying the fact that things get old and die, I have to say only this:

I have no problem with technology evolving. I have no problem in moving on. I understand what is happening with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. But there is one thing that still hooks me: accessibility. More accessibility means more credibility. More credibility means more people will buy your stuff. More people buying your surf means more money. More money means making more cool stuff. More cool stuff means bigger audience. Bigger audience means awesomeness.

Once again, I am fully aware of the situation. But hearing someone ranting on how something will fail because of some minor setbacks tick me off. I know this is called "marketing". I was originally going to get a PS4 or X-One, but they're beyond me. They said Final Fantasy XIV was a horrible game. Look at it now. People love that game. Who's to say the same can't happen for Nintendo? Sure, they have it rough. But hey, they made it this far.....right?

As for Arch: I get it. All right?

[ChickenSoup]

Tell me, DMR, did you flip out when cassette tapes were no longer supported and you were forced to buy a CD player or an MP3 player?

No, it didn't concern me. And if you're implying the fact that things get old and die, I have to say only this:

I have no problem with technology evolving. I have no problem in moving on. I understand what is happening with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. But there is one thing that still hooks me: accessibility. More accessibility means more credibility. More credibility means more people will buy your stuff. More people buying your surf means more money. More money means making more cool stuff. More cool stuff means bigger audience. Bigger audience means awesomeness.

Once again, I am fully aware of the situation. But hearing someone ranting on how something will fail because of some minor setbacks tick me off. I know this is called "marketing". I was originally going to get a PS4 or X-One, but they're beyond me. They said Final Fantasy XIV was a horrible game. Look at it now. People love that game. Who's to say the same can't happen for Nintendo? Sure, they have it rough. But hey, they made it this far.....right?

As for Arch: I get it. All right?

No, you don't get what Arch is saying at all, and yes, you do have a hard time moving on. If you understood it, you wouldn't have an objection. The fact is that so few people have SDTVs that the companies would be losing money by catering to the few people who don't have an HDMI connection. If you can't afford an HDTV, don't buy a 400-500 dollar console. I have absolutely no pity for someone who would buy a brand new console for half a grand and then complain that they can't afford an HDTV and that no one is looking out for them but Nintendo. Such opinions are nothing short of fanboyism

[LAVA89]

Please excuse me if I have basically reposted bullet point 13 in someone's post.

But here's my take on the Wii U's decline:

Console wars always boil down to games.

What they need to do is focus on proper hardware rather than gimmicks and recover a name for themselves.

I would disagree. Its the games and marketing that has changed for Nintnedo.

For one, what is one of the most popular games at the moment? FPS games like Call of Duty, and people will buy those kind of games on the systems they're the most popular on. Especially since multiplayer is in. They want to play the game on a system where other people are playing it. Whereas the Wii U is basically the flagship for platformers and Zelda. Something that's become a niche.

Secondly, in my opinion, on Nintendo's part, the Wii U had a horrible launch because they still haven't given us many dynamic games. Look at what they've released, they're all retreads, ports or remakes of existing games (With the exception of a few games, like Sonic Lost World, Zombie U and Lego Undercover).

So the demand for Wii U games is very low. They mostly cater to extremely loyal fans of Nintendo.

[ohnolookout]

Console wars always boil down to games.

I would disagree. Its the games and marketing that has changed for Nintendo.

For one, what is one of the most popular games at the moment? FPS games like Call of Duty, and people will buy those kind of games on the systems they're the most popular on. Especially since multiplayer is in. They want to play the game on a system where other people are playing it. Whereas the Wii U is basically the flagship for platformers and Zelda. Something that's become a niche.

Secondly, in my opinion, on Nintendo's part, the Wii U had a horrible launch because they still haven't given us many dynamic games. Look at what they've released, they're all retreads, ports or remakes of existing games (With the exception of a few games, like Sonic Lost World, Zombie U and Lego Undercover).

So the demand for Wii U games is very low. They mostly cater to extremely loyal fans of Nintendo.

I would disagree about the console wars part. At least for this new generation there was more to it than that. But perhaps that was an exception to the rule? But otherwise I think I agree by saying hardware and games are one in the same in this instance.

Most of my friends who play console games simply play for shooters. They buy every CoD out there, and aside from Skyrim, it's the only game they play, let alone recognize. Like Arch said previously, the fidelity in these games are getting to such a point where it truly is a waste to have them on anything less than a HDTV. Personally, I'm much more of a story-driven guy. I'll play FPS' on consoles every once and a while, but I like a good story-driven game. Last Christmas, I was given a PS3. Right away, my friend let me borrow some games like the Uncharted series, Heavy Rain, etc. They were all pretty great and I had a blast even though I claim to be of the PC master race. However, in the summer I bought a game called The Last of Us. What a game that was. Possibly in the top five best games I've ever played. Many things aside, what I noticed about it was the graphics. It was the most beautiful and engrossing game I had played in a long time. You can see scenery for miles and it looks almost real. The characters themselves had a detailed quality to it, that I think it has some of the best emotional expressions for that gaming generation. Everything was so precise and so modern that I can't fathom playing that game on anything but a HDTV. It would be a travesty. I would cry. I would buy you a HDTV myself.

Which also brings me to the point that you mentioned. Nintendo doesn't have games like that. They don't have games like Bioshock: Infinite and GTA V or The Last of Us. The Wii/Wii U isn't up to par to that. Not in a million years. Nintendo has made it this far because they previously offered games that bucked the trend. They had landmark games. However now it seems they haven't accepted that gaming is at a point outside of Nintendo's power house. Sure they may have the Zelda franchise, Animal Crossing, or the new Mario game, but it's not really what people want anymore. I think the uproar over the first three games I mentioned are a testament to that. I also think it's related to the hardware of the console. If you can't handle the modern graphics, then developers can't do business with you anymore. It becomes too much of a problem when you're trying to do something innovative, but have to keep lower hardware in the back of your head.

[LAVA89]

Great post and overall take on this. I really agree with the line "they previously offered games that bucked the trend.", which really has pegged Nintendo since the Gamecube games, since you pretty much got a Gamecube for Nintendo games.

And there's nothing wrong with that, really. I loved the Sega Dreamcast, but was it something that had a mass appeal and turned a huge profit for Sega? No way, it had a small amount of niche games and its actually memorable because of that.

So really Nintendo needs to get back to giving us great games that not many people want to play. Even if their console fails because of it. They need to stop giving us Wii titles and slapping a "U" on it. The Gamecube didn't have a stellar launch, but Luigi's Mansion and Star Fox Adventures were at least unique games.

Basically I would rather have Nintendo fail at capturing a mass appeal for unique titles than fail for being lazy.

[Sstavix]

Oh, one point I neglected to touch on earlier....

The Wii made Shooters impossible.

Really? Admittedly I haven't had too much experience with FPSes (mainly because I find the genre to be repetitive and dull) but I've played the first two Metroid Primes on my Wii, in both the GameCube format (with the controller) and the Wii version (with the Wiimote) and I greatly preferred the Wii settings. I found it to be a better experience to be able to point my controller at the screen and move it in order to aim Samus' weapon while using the thumbstick to move around. I had more control (loved being able to lock onto something and shoot at something else!) and it was much more immersive than simply twiddling my thumbs and pushing buttons.

Most of my friends who play console games simply play for shooters.

Aww, I'm sorry! Wait... you may not regard that as a bad thing.

Which also brings me to the point that you mentioned. Nintendo doesn't have games like that. They don't have games like Bioshock: Infinite and GTA V or The Last of Us. The Wii/Wii U isn't up to par to that. .... I also think it's related to the hardware of the console. If you can't handle the modern graphics, then developers can't do business with you anymore. It becomes too much of a problem when you're trying to do something innovative, but have to keep lower hardware in the back of your head.

I agree and disagree with you. You can make a good game without having to use cutting edge graphics. The whole retro-gaming scene that seems to be a trend right now can serve as a testament to that. But you are right in that Nintendo doesn't really have any deeply engrossing, truly moving games. The kind of games that linger with you for hours, days, years afterwards. The kinds of games that really seem to blur the lines between gaming as entertainment and gaming as an artistic medium. Sure, Nintendo's games may be entertaining... but are they memorable? (And I mean in a good way - not like a "they did WHAT with the franchise?!?" approach. Yes, I'm looking at you, "Other M...") If Nintendo really wants to shine, they'll need to try and do something like Braid or Shadow of the Colossus or Journey and make it unique to the system. Like Pokemon or Zelda, it's a must-have game that is only available on the Nintendo systems. While they may have something like that in development now, I doubt it. After the flop of "FlingSmash" (which likely sold only because it was bundled with a Wii Plus controller - I have that game and have barely played it) I think they want to stick with their old, familiar IPs rather than go out on a limb and try something different. This may turn out to be a bad move.

[LAVA89]

But you are right in that Nintendo doesn't really have any deeply engrossing, truly moving games. The kind of games that linger with you for hours, days, years afterwards. The kinds of games that really seem to blur the lines between gaming as entertainment and gaming as an artistic medium.

I would disagree with this. My problem isn't with the kind of games that Nintendo usually makes, its that lately they're not even giving us games like Mario Galaxy or Metroid Prime (which to me, were engrossing). Instead alot of the games for the Wii U feels like more like marketing gimmicks.

Let's look at their big games since the Wii U launched:
Legend of Zelda Wind Waker HD? Remake of Wind Waker on the Gamecube
New Super Mario Bros. Wii U? Rehash of New Super Mario Bros. Wii
Nintendoland? (the biggest slap in the face in the Wii U launch) Rehash of Wii Sports (since its basically a tech demo)

Mario 3D World is a good example of this. Having played this game with some friends, I thought it was fun. But what is it really? Mario 3D Land with multiplayer. It definitely doesn't have the dynamic pull Mario Galaxy had. Galaxy made me want to get a Wii. 3D World? Not so much....I'd get it if I'd ever got a Wii U, but it doesn't have the dynamics that Galaxy did.

[ChickenSoup]

I would disagree with this. My problem isn't with the kind of games that Nintendo usually makes, its that lately they're not even giving us games like Mario Galaxy or Metroid Prime (which to me, were engrossing). Instead alot of the games for the Wii U feels like more like marketing gimmicks.

marketing gimmicks

And we're back to my point

[DeadManReedeemed]

Fine, I GET IT. Sheesh........

[ArchAngel]

Why do you get so frustrated? Seriously, what did we do?
Do you think it's okay to talk to people like that?

[DeadManReedeemed]

Why do you get so frustrated? Seriously, what did we do?
Do you think it's okay to talk to people like that?

No, I don't. But it's just so frustrating. Everybody's opinions are valid. I apologize if I sound like I'm fuming (it's just the fact that people calling the Wii U a fail because they are either fanboys or skeptic of bright ideas; if you read one of my earlier threads, I also said the same thing about the Xbox One.......though I still find that highlight video pretty funny). The thing is that Sony and Microsoft don't have to downgrade anything. They just could at least have given SD quality as an option. You said it yourself: "Nobody is being forced to buy anything". But think of it this way:

If Sony said something like, "HDTV is the priority for the consoles, but we are giving an option for SD quality so the PS4 will be more accessible." Don't you think that would boost sales a little bit more than saying HD only? The PS4 and the Xbox One BOTH have a lot of hype behind them. The Nintendo Wii U may be failing, but it still has some things about it that make it relevant. That's all I'm saying. Sorry if I ticked anybody off.

.......Man, I got to try to make more sense when I'm trying to make a point.......looking at my previous posts....my brain is running at million mph.....so much going on in my life right now.....

[ArchAngel]

I don't think you ticked anybody off, it just seemed like you were. If posting feels overwhelming, take a minute and slow down. One of the benefits of debating on forums is that you have time to collect yourself. No rush, take a breather whenever you feel like you need one.

I think there's a fundamental detail on the subject of whether or not to include outputs for SD, and it seems like you are of the notion that it's a rather trivial choice to put it on or not, like "if you can, than why not?"
Now, I'm not an expert in video technology, but I think it's a bit more involved than order whipped cream for your sundae (which who wouldn't, it's awesome). HD and SD signals are fundamentally different. HD (HDMI, DVI, VGA, etc) is digital and SD (RCA, S, etc) is analog. If you haven't noticed before, it's easy to find adapters from HDMI to DVI, or even cables that are HDMI on one end and DVI on the other, but you can't find an adapter from HDMI to Analog. You have to get a converter. Now, there are some cases, but it's for very specific cases of HDMI carrying analog signals (I didn't know of this till now)
So, if you want to have both digital and analog outputs, you need to design the video card specifically to accomplish this, or include a converter ( a good one will run you $50-$100). There are graphics cards, for example, that have RCA out (ATI's TV Tuners), but it's an added cost that only certain people find useful.
So, realistically, they'd have to design it in and with every design decision, there is production cost and development costs to take in and I don't find it hard to see that they saw it wasn't a particularly high priority and it's not a cost that should be passed down to the majority of consumers who will never require it.

Also, I should point out, most monitors will be able to handle the HD output, and many come with HDMI inputs( if not, and hdmi to dvi/vga cable is not terribly expensive). For a while, I had a PS3 hooked up to my computer monitor.

[DeadManReedeemed]

Don't know if this is true or not, but according to a Gamespot forum poster the Wii U outsold the PS4 two weeks in a row.

This is what he said:

Uh, the Wii U has out sold the PS4 in North America two weeks in a row now. And in those same two weeks it's moved half a million units globally.

You sure it's dead, bud?