It seems that alot of early Wii U adopters are getting nervous. Why not just wait and see before buying?
- JustPlainLucas
- Rank: Castle Crasher
- Member since: Jul 19, 2002
- Last online: 05/19/13 9:18 pm PT
My Achievements:
see more »
My Friends
-
horgen123 online
-
tempertress online
-
biggest_loser online
-
MaddenBowler10 online
-
TopStarRacer online
-
Gaming-Planet online
-
harry_james_pot online
-
Munchgun online
-
ghoklebutter online
-
david_lck online
7Dec 12
http://www.gamespot.com/news/pachter-activision-needs-to-charge-for-call-of-duty-multiplayer-6401226
"I'm an analyst! I know what I'm talking about!"
Although the link's title is about CoD and multiplayer, I will not talk about it just yet. What I want to touch on is his comment regarding the Wii U.
"I think you're going to see now with the Wii U, notwithstanding its early launch support, nobody's going to support it," Pachter predicted. "I don't think we're going to see every game on the Wii U next year. I think when next-gen consoles come out they're going to be better than the Wii U."
Honestly, this is my greatest fear regarding the future of the Wii U. We all know Nintendo does well for themselves. That's been their problem ever since the N64. The only company that does extremely well on a Nintendo system is Nintendo, and that's primarily because they're so stubborn to work with either business or hardware wise. Their choice to stay with cartridges on the N64 lost them third party support. Their choice to use proprietary storage media holding less data than DVDs and the general design of the system cost them support on the GameCube. Their grossly underpowered Wii saw the system's library pockmarked with missing spaces where a multiplatform game should have gone. Now with the Wii U, they're off to a great start, but can they go the distance?
I really hope so, but what Pachter said has an eerie amount of truth to it. Tom McShea wrote an article on the necessity of hardware gimmicksand in that article, GearBox said they didn't feel the need to port Borderlands 2 onto the system, because they couldn't see how to really utilize the WiiU's special features. The WiiU's off to a bit of a slower start sales wise compared to the first Wii, but that's largely due to a negligent lack of marketing. In any case, third parties may not see the WiiU as a viable option even considering the fact that the system's on par with the current consoles.
Take a look at Assassin's Creed III. The 360 and PS3 game forums at GameFAQs are abuzz with activity. The WiiU board? You could go hours without seeing a new post. I would really love to see some sales numbers and compare the WiiU version sales to the other two. To be fair, the system just released. There isn't even a million Wii Us in households here in America yet for there to be a million selling game. We should visit this sales comparison in a year, but therein lies a problem
The PS4 and the Xbox 720 (whatever their official names will be) are coming out around a year's time. People who have invested in the PS3 and 360 are already anticipating them, and a good number of people have passed on taking a chance with the WiiU knowing that it will already be outclassed by then. These gamers want the power, and both platforms will already yield a far greater selection of third party support than Nintendo may ever get with the WiiU. So I forsee third parties playing ball with Nintendo for the next two or three years, maybe even four, but we'll see history repeat itself. Third parties will grow tired of having to scale their games down for another Nintendo system.
Now, I know it's not all about power, as Nintendo's ace in the hole is innovation. But honestly, you have to ask yourself: is the Wii U gamepad REALLY that innovative? Now, I love the system. Have been since day one, but even I can see that it isn't THAT necessary. For a title like ZombiU, they've made some great use out of the tablet... by taking inputs and displays off the TV screen and putting it on the controller. Other games have relegated the tablet controller to nothing more than map duty. You can even make the argument that the controller isn't innovative, but rather counterintuitive as it's making you take your attention off the TV screen where your eyes should be the entire time. People will view that as a disruption.
So then, what can Nintendo do to secure their future and try for the first time to reclaim their market dominance, something they haven't had since the SNES? As much as I don't want to say this... Nothing. There is nothing Nintendo CAN do. They can claim innovative as much as they want. Not enough gamers want it. They wanted a more powerful machine. Nintendo didn't give it to them. "We want more third-party support!", said the gamers who planned on buying the Wii U regardless. They will have it, but not enough gamers will buy the Wii U for games they can buy on systems they already have. And then, that third-party support will dry up, and it's the N64 again.
Please note that I'm only saying this in a worst case scenario, but if it does happen, I will totally not be surprised. I REALLY want Nintendo to succeed this time, and even against looming juggernauts cresting the hills of a not-to-distant horizon, I think the fact that Nintendo's system being able to display in HD might be just enough power that the third-parties will need, but the biggest hurdle they have is getting the rest of the gamers to care. This could be the Dreamcast all over again. Nintendo, like Sega, finally getting everything right, but no one taking chances on it because they're waiting for the competition.
We'll just have to wait and see...
Now, as for CoD, I really think Pachter's comment about Call of Duty failing is quite interesting. In theory, Activision has cost themselves a large amount of lost revenue, but as I said, "in theory". The thing about the World of Warcraft analogy that doesn't quite work in his statement is that World of Warcraft is... well, a world. It requires a great deal more time and energy - and yes, money - to get yourself hooked into. There are many, many new places to go, things to do, and people to meet, all of which are different, and the interactivity of the people you game with is far deeper. MMO =/= MMORPG. World of Warcraft can get away with it. Call of Duty can't.
Call of Duty essentially is too shallow to be worth paying monthly for. You shoot. You run over there and shoot some more. You get shot, respawn, and do it all over again. You have no character to grow attached you. You don't care if your character gets wiped off a server, because you never took him thousands of miles across the ocean and met up with random strangers to delve into the most dangerous of dungeons and fight off a really nasty dragon. No, you shoot, and shoot, and shoot. Your only character progression is unlocking bigger weapons with which to shoot.
There's a reason why Activision knows to keep its multiplayer free. They're already making money hand over fist in a three-pronged attack. The first prong is the initial purchase of the game. With Call of Duty breaking records with each release, they're already good in this department. The second prong is their online passes. Although I don't know if they still sell them, charging people who bought the game used to play MP is a great way, albiet shady, to "recoup" loses from used sales. The last prong is DLC, and that is pure profit. Since DLC can't be resold, it can't be sold second-hand, thus you incur no loss from used sales. Plus, you can sell the DLC to a new game, and then again to the exact same copy if the first buyer sold it to someone else.
Activision is greedy, we know, but they're not entirely stupid, and that's what I think charging for CoD multiplayer would be. Sure, you'll still have people who will buy the game and then pay the fee to play online, but just how many people would not buy the game because of it? Not only would they lose money on initial sales, they would lose money on DLC, and then lose more revenue from online passes and DLC as those copies continue to sit on the shelves, never being resold in a used games store.
So Pachter, what you say about the WiiU might be an inconvient truth that no one wants to see materialize, but I'm afraid you are just plain off with your assessment of Activision's business model. I can also say that if gamers don't start buying more WiiUs for the next Call of Duty, there's no way Activision will even think to charge for that platform's multiplayer, considering there won't be enough people to play with.
72 comments
When it comes to me, Nintendo can make a console out a trash can, and I would still buy it cause I love Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Smash bros, and other Nintendo franchise.
If they get the third party games as well, then even better, as I wont need a PS4 (even though most probably the Tales games will be PS exclusives, in which case I would have no choice but to buy a PS4 as well)
I don't fear for Nintendo since they can sell consoles with the Zelda or Smash Bros. names alone, and thats enough for them to make money. But if they get more games, then it will be even better.
I better not buy a WII U i DO NOT WANT TO INCREASE THEIR SALES. you are already bored of your Xbox360. I do not want you to get bored of your PS3 too. Idiot.
2 Like @mokototornado English obviously isn't your first language, as you fail to comprehend anything I've said. Idiot.
The big problem for the WiiU in games like Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed is that people will have played previous games on other machines, the fanbase just isn't there, why would people buy a WiiU to plat ME3 when they'll have played ME and ME2 on a console they already own?
Their 3rd party record is dreadful... they wouldn't even give Rare a development kit so they had to reverse engineer their won version to write games... and that's a company that gave the N64 some of its best titles.
Basically Nintendo are paying the price for ignoring 3rd party developers and gamers in the past... serves them right in my opinion.
I think Pachter said there was no way in hell The Walking Dead would win GOTY at the Spike awards show the other day and it was just there to please fans or something to that affect.Guess who won GOTY?The Walking Dead.You never know what could happen.I think Nintendo doesn't really care about 3rd party support because there are enough fans of Nintendo who will buy there consoles.It seems like thats where they put there focus on.
@williebazerka The guys paid to guess so i would think being right only has to happen 30-40% of the time for him to be regarded as legit.The day you don't hear anything from him means he's out of a job.
My question would be does analysis outside of medicine and science even warrant a paycheck?Someone obviously thinks so.
@JustPlainLucas @williebazerka
Probably not.It was just another example of his predictions not coming true.Again.
I disagree with you on this the Wii u absolutely will not be as bad as the wii. Why I say that is Nintendo is actively participating in collaborations and getting convincing people to make exclusive hardware. Exclusive hardware is the key because it convinces more people to buy a wii U. The wii's problem was developers didn't make hardware that would take advantage of the system, instead shoehorning an extremely downscaled version. Nintendo is actively pursuing indie studios and has gotten praise from how easy they are to work with and the freedoms they are given such as not paying for patches and setting the prices on their games (also it is said they get a larger revenue slice that XBL and PSN no source to back that up now). They have made a partnership with Unity bringing the engine over to Wii u ( very indie friendly) this will allow for a huge amount of Indie developers to bring content over to the Wii U. Nintendo knows they are at risk of losing support from AAA so they are insuring they have indie and exclusive deals if that were to happen. The controller is innovative. I think being able to drag your game down to the smaller screen while someone watches TV is pure gold. I also cant wait until fighting games take advantage of the screen for move list since you cant pause or look at them when playing fighting games online it would help a whole lot to be able to look down at it for a few seconds. Simple things such as inventory can be enhanced with the gamepads touchscreen. I played through Borderlands ( haven't got to the second yet) and said ?man this would benefit from being on the Wii u". If I could look at the map without pausing or compare guns on the fly that would highly improve my enjoyment. I feel its the little things that add up.
1 Like @Epictacosam I agree, I think that part of what irritated me about the Wii was a visual issue. Put a 480P pic up on a 1080P plasma and you get some eyestrain, at least after playing my 360 on it for almost two years. In a perfect world, Nintendo would be the best software maker for other hardware (at least to me) and ultimately their software is what drove people to buy their machines since the NES. I feel the same will happen here, I do think as well though that much like the NES/SNES days that they want so much control that it pushes developers away. If they were to open up their network the way that XBOX Live does that would be a plus. I felt they should have allowed more demos so their games could be tried before purchasing and this is part of why my Wii is sitting in a box and my 360 is connected.
Note: wrote this on my phone it was 2 paragraphs but gamespot seems to hate phones......
Nintendo's problem will be that it's a much harder sell than the Wii, coupled with PS4 and Nextbox probably aiming for easier multi-platform production, as well as most likely being approximately equally powerful, but far more powerful than the Wii U. Thus benchmarking games will find a harder sell in the Wii U and most likely require more resources to port over. Might be they skip it completly.
As for the paying for multi-player thing, Pachter does have some point. Some people basically spend a ton of time on CoD, meaning its value could possibly allow for getting consumers to gradually accept subscriptions. I find it more likely that they'll put a rather modest subscription fee (replacing the online pass) and do further DLC and microtransactions. The only thing stopping this though is the fact that they can't do it because of the possibility of losing a lot of customers to EA/Battlefield. But a industry-wide push could prove me wrong as well.We do after all have to remember that Activision, EA and Capcom are at the frontline in milking gamers for their money. To some degree I can't blame them considering how costs have skyrocketed and retail prices haven't moved much in comparison. The way this has been sustainable is because of an expansion of the market, more gamers, and higher purchase frequency than in the old days.
Then again, since most of the production costs revolve around the production of the game itself, expanding the market is a satisfactory solution, since there's much less cost in simply producing more discs and covers. One does have to wonder how far one can push it though.
Pachter also said he thinks Activision will buy out Take-Two - but god I hope not. Activision having control of GTA, Red Dead, Borderlands, Bioshock, Civilization, among others... the end result could be disastrous.
Game forums for wii u will be dead because of the miiverse.I'd argue that the miiverse is actually more integral to the wii u than the gamepad.Other than that a good read.
@esk1m00k There's a problem with MiiVerse, though, and that it's structured poorly. It's just a string of comments, not a thread system like an actual forum. This means you can't search for particular topics, and you're not always notified when someone replies to your post. It's a great concept, but the execution is lacking.
@JustPlainLucas 2 weeks in and i'm already using it as a proper goto for internet use(a console first for me).I agree it's not perfect but then there is no set standard for searching forums anywhere anyway,most often you'll be forced to sign up just to even use a search feature.
I was originally meaning to point out that the miiverse will be integral to the wii u's future,granted the degree is unknown but to not mention it seemed like a missed issue.
1 Like It won't be like the Dreamcast for one simple reason. Before the Dreamcast was even released Sega had years of losses. Nintendo made one small loss (relative to what Sony lost) last year, but that followed years of profits in the billions. Even if the worst comes to the worst for Nintendo with the Wii U it'll still be more successful that Sega could ever have hoped the Dreamcast would be. But hey, what do I or anyone else know at this point? Just give it time and see. As for Pachter, I always ignore what he has to say.
@widdowson91 I have to agree. Comparing Nintendo and Sega is a lousy point as Sega always was the company that made great games but had the underdog status in the marketplace. Nintendo started out strong and at worst was middling in its success. The worst Gamecube sales days were probably still better than most of Sega's good sales days.
I haven't even played the Wii U, so I can't say whether or not the tablet has the chance to be really innovative or not.
I wouldn't read too much into the Wii U's sales, though. It is hard to repeat the success of the Wii, but even though I am sure Nintendo would have liked to move more hardware than the Wii did on its first month or so, I think they are quite happy with falling just 50,000 units short.
@Pierst179 Yeah, but the thing is, even you can acknowledge the fact that Nintendo did very little to market this machine. Retailers even went weeks without advertising it in their circulars. And because of the inherent design of the console, other people don't even realize it's a brand new machine. They think it's an add-on or a portable tablet device. I can guarantee you things would have been better had they named it the Wii 2. Nintendo thinks too hard sometimes,
I too have yet to understand what they will do with the tablet to make it worth using over the other new consoles. The hardcore crowd of course wants the graphics and big name games. The WiiU has graphics on par with current gen, but not so much with next gen, so without the ability to play the upcoming big games, how do they expect to get the hardcore gamers and games to come to their system? And I would be one of those people who wouldn't buy cod if multiplayer is subscription, since I'm already paying for XBL. That and 60 bucks for the game by itself is up there in price. These next few years will be interesting...
one thing that killed the wii was the ability to mod it, but hell, i bought it on release day to play a gamecube game. power and tech aint everything. and nintendo knows business strategy.
I agree with you on both cases. I think the loss Activision would take for charging for MP would greatly overshadow any gains.
People assume all this but they dont realize how budget costs and the economy arnt doing any favors. And yet, people still believe we need to progress in tech and Graphics only.
Sony isnt even sure their making a new console next year, and even THEY know the next step is innovation. People arnt aware of what costs are destroying and as far as thats concerned the Wii U is a step in the right direction to preserve gaming. We will need to wait and see but this wont be like Dreamcast times, its gonna be the total opposite.
What do you mean Nintendo hasn't had market dominance since the SNES? In case you so quickly forgot, the Wii was the best-selling console of the last generation. It may not have grossed the most playtime as I know a lot of Wiis sit dusty on gamers' shelves, but it did manage to push more units than the other two consoles because of its broader appeal. I do agree with your points that they need to gain more third party support, but I generally take Pachter's opinions with a grain of salt as he's seemed to have a chip on his shoulder against Nintendo for a while.
1 Like @Derpalon I think, concerning the Wii, the sheer number of units sold by Nintendo is irrelevant, because the software sale dried out pretty quickly; and that was unsurprising, because casual gamers are not willing to shell out for AAA titles every month.
@Derpalon @bmart970 @675T There's nothing inaccurate about what I said. Number of units sold =/= dominance. If that was the case, every game sold on the Wii would outsell their competitors. The only games that sold exceedingly well on the Wii was Nintendo's own. As for Wii Sports, the only reason why it sold so much was because it was a pack-in game. In order for market dominance in my eyes, third-party game sales need to be just as high, which just didn't happen on the Wii. Both MS and Sony performed well first and third-party wise. In fact, one could even argue Nintendo failed to compete well enough against their competitors in past years that they had to create an entirely new market, which would explain the vast amount of casual and shovelware games found on the system. Again ,just so we're clear, unit sales don't automatically equate to dominance.
@Derpalon @bmart970 @JustPlainLucas @675T I do understand your point, and that's a fact that they sold more units than ps3 or xbox 360, but I think the dominance that has been mentioned is more about this pre-N64 era when you could buy Nintendo system as your only system. That was the problem with wii, it wasn't an all-in-one box. I believe that's why they have changed their strategy to have the gaming console, not just a party curiosity.
@bmart970 @JustPlainLucas @675T I think some of you are missing my point. The author of this article inaccurately pointed out that the last system Nintendo held market dominance with was the SNES. Regardless of software sales on the Wii, it was the best-selling system of this generation, ergo it has market dominance and that statement is false. Now you can debate about how successful the system was in terms of its appeal to hardcore / casual gamers, but that does not change the above facts. I was simply noting an inaccuracy.
@JustPlainLucas @675T @Derpalon This is most likely because as you said they don't cater to 3rd party well, and more hardcore gamers are the ones who buy more games typically, and most hardcore gamers don't play the Wii U.
@VampireLord123 @JustPlainLucas @Derpalon There is reason why you can't find L. A. Noire and Battlefield 3 on wii; Nintendo's strategy with Wii was to gain profit on the hardware, and not the software, unlike MS and sony. Just considering the sheer number of 3rd party games sold on PC, xbox, and ps3 shows the difference; I think Nintendo acknowledged that by trying to persuade gamers that Wii U is, in fact, suitable for hardcore gaming.
Also you should consider the nature of games like Wii sports and Wii fit: these games can be the first and the last game for their owners, and that's the problem with targeting casual gamers; because they can be quite satisfied with one or two games for two years.
(Note: I don't use the word "casual" as a derogatory term at all; I am a casual gamer myself when playing with my ipod in the bus. I am merely remarking upon the nature of casual gaming.)
@JustPlainLucas @675T @Derpalon You are somehow wrong, Wii sports and Wii Fit are one of the most sold games this generation. And those are Nintendo exclusives.
The only question I have about the WiiU is does the controller make a good Frisbee? That's one thing that consoles have always lacked.
4 Like Pachter Is a corporate sucker who pretends to be down with gamers and all the Sheeple on GT praise him. I stopped listening to his show a few years ago after he began bragging about his Porsche & house.
Pachter & his corporate cronies would have us pay much more for everything gaming related, he's a Wolf In Sheep's clothing.
1 Like I also find it funny that processing power has anything to do with console wars still. After last generation's best sellers were the graphically inferior systems. DS wasn't as powerful as the PSP. Wii didn't have HD yet they sold more. Never mind how the Gameboy with his monochromatic screen killed every bright, colorful competitor. Or are we just going to use "stupid casuals" as a scapegoat again?
@kbaily Hardware sales are one thing, but lasting appeal seems more important to me. If I buy a system for a couple hundred, I would hope it had enough good games to keep me occupied and entertained. My Wii sits unused, as most games I enjoy come out on Xbox, PS3 or PC. I enjoy nice graphics, but they aren't everything. For example, The Walking Dead is amazing, but pushes no hardware boundaries. If the Wii had had more amazing games that I could enjoy for longer than a few minutes then I would have spent much more time on it. I do feel like Nintendo is a more household name, and is aimed more at everyone, so of course more people bought their system. But, they are not all the hardcore gaming crowd, and the hardcore are the ones who really are looking for the best games, which have mostly been on other systems lately.
Well you are saying "a couple hundred dollars", do you really believe the next generation is going to cost that? At least it will cost four hundred dollars that would be my guess.
The reason are country is screwed up is greedy people like this. Never enough money, always thinking of ways to screw the people who got you where you are.! These games play like crap from a connection standpoint for probably half of the player base. I know because I face it all the time. To me the first Modern Warfare was the best. Adding all the stuff they have only makes it worse. The weapons are dummied down to where a pistol is as good for some as an assault rifle. Start charging and lose half of your player base ! Jackasses!!!
2 Like Pachter is just a troll who just wants a little publicity. Or he's a troll who likes a lot of money.
Pachter usually talks trash, is he ever right?, if he thinks the Wii U will fail then I think it might just do rather well
You forgot to add another reason.The Wii U online is joke to me. The Bluetooth Headset restrictions, you can only log on Wii U with one account and now for 20 hours in Europe you cannot download or watch M Rated games on the Wii U. Also regarding Patcher the less people say about him the better. Seriously the Blogs on Gamespot provide a way better anlysis on gaming that guy can provide.
@JustPlainLucas Nope the Wii U online have been making news on GS recently these days . The latest one is the M rated restrictions .
@JustPlainLucas @kbaily Exactly DD is suppose to make consumers life easier. Putting these restrictions will cause a consumer to be a hesitant about purchasing a Wii U. Also the Wii U online must fix itself if it wants to attract the hard core crowd.
3 Like @kbaily @firehawk998 It doesn't make sense, though. If you allow M rated games to be published on your console, don't restrict the digital sales of those software.
Well Nintendo is really the only game company that markets itself on a family friendly image. Thanks to horrid, hatred spewing trolls giving XBox Live a bad name. Nintendo doesn't want to get angry letters from some mom because her child was repeating homophobic slurs some tool online was yelling.
Conversation powered by Livefyre
