With PS4 Announced, Do You Think Wii U Is In Trouble?

[Hero of Time]

Nintendo releases it's 8th console, Sony releases the playstation.... again! As if everyone and their grandma didn't already own a playstation.

Who cares if they got slightly better graphics, Nintendo has better games and characters, now if they'd just start releasing them it'd be obviously Sony are the ones in trouble.

Yfw all Nintendo did was add a U to their console name

Also, Nintendo having better games is very debatable, and the graphics are more than "slightly better."

 

[JuicieJ]

Error? Ehm, take a gander at the PS3. It had backwards compatibility, but it was later removed. Why? It costs too damn much to manufacture the technology required to emulate PS2 games. What do you think would happen if they had BC for PS3? Even HIGHER prices than PS3 launched for. Wii U "regressing to" (by that I mean emulating, if that's what the U does - I don't know if the U has some parts of the Wii in it or if it's just emulation) the Wii is nowhere near from the PS4 to PS3.

Then maybe Sony shouldn't have made as big of a step up in power as they did. That way they could actually afford it. Ahhhhhhhhh, didn't think of that, did you?

 

[Hero of Time]

Then maybe Sony shouldn't have made as big of a step up in power as they did. That way they could actually afford it. Ahhhhhhhhh, didn't think of that, did you?

Yeah, how dare companies actually strive for having the best technology? They should just settle for being as powerful as 7th gen. #NintendoSwag

 

[Ventus]

Then maybe Sony shouldn't have made as big of a step up in power as they did. That way they could actually afford it. Ahhhhhhhhh, didn't think of that, did you?

No, the thing is, PS3 games aren't made internally the same as PS4 games. It doesn't matter how stronger or weaker the PS4 would be to the PS3; the fact is, the games aren't internally the same and thus cannot be read by the PS4. Take a gaming PC into account; you can very well play some old school games from the 90s on a modern day gaming PC. But, the modern day PC has such a huge boost in power (seriously; there's no comparison to be had between a 90s PC and a '13 PC). Code is read in a modern day PC.

 

[JuicieJ]

Yeah, how dare companies actually strive for having the best technology? They should just settle for being as powerful as 7th gen. #NintendoSwag

Again, the misconception that more power = better console. It's a simple-minded thought process that has absolutely no merit to it. I have nothing against them stepping up their power, but they should NEVER forget one of the biggest things we want as gamers: backwards compatibility. We like to sell our old consoles in order to get more money to buy the new one and play the games from it on said new one. I'm completely baffled that Sony focuses so much on power as if it automatically means they're the best. It doesn't. They should have learned from that last gen.

 

[PhantomTriforce]

I don't think so, and I definitely hope not. I, for one, do not care whatsoever if the Wii U is behind in terms of graphics or the PS4 has the best graphics in the universe. Guess what - it's graphics - something which doesn't even matter that much. Guess what does matter - how fun the games are - something which I'm sure the Wii U will excel at and beat the PS4 at.

 

[Ventus]

Again, the misconception that more power = better console. It's a simple-minded thought process that has absolutely no merit to it. I have nothing against them stepping up their power, but they should NEVER forget one of the biggest things we want as gamers: backwards compatibility. We like to sell our old consoles in order to get more money to buy the new one and play the games from it on said new one. I'm completely baffled that Sony focuses so much on power as if it automatically means they're the best. It doesn't. They should have learned from that last gen.

a) More power does in fact = better console. Is a stronger PC better than a weaker PC? Yes. More power does not = better games, but games are secondary to the hardware. You need something to play games on, after all.

b)Backwards compatibility is only a recent desire; tell me, could the GameCube play N64 games? How about the N64 playing SNES games? SNES playing NES games? No, no, and no. I can tell you that I never once thought of selling my N64 to get a GC and play my 64 games on it. That was both an impossibility and a joke in and of itself; when I advanced to the next generation, I kept my previous consoles but also delved into the new games the next gen had to offer. Put simply: there was no need for backwards compatibility to exist because the games we'd get were as good as if not better than the last gen's. I'm not saying anything here, but from Sony's perspective, I think it's safe to assume two things: 1) the PS3 is cheap enough for the common consumer to go out and grab one, and 2) the PS3 has good enough games so that owning one will be justified, even alongside the PS4.

 

[JuicieJ]

a) More power does in fact = better console. Is a stronger PC better than a weaker PC? Yes. More power does not = better games, but games are secondary to the hardware. You need something to play games on, after all.

Consoles are defined by their games, though. Not their hardware. Therefore more power =/= better console.

 

[Ventus]

Consoles are defined by their games, though.

They aren't. The console's library is defined by the games, but not the console itself. The Wii U is a vastly outdated system (within the system of 'video game consoles'; we're excluding gaming PCs here) as it is truly on par with the PS3 as far as, well, everything is concerned. Same disc space (25GB for the U optical disc; 25GB for a single layer blu ray disc, as I recall). Lower memory capacity on the U side (like 3.7GB and around 27.7GB as I recall, Basic and Deluxe models respectively) compared to the PS3 side (20GB, 60GB, 80GB, 120GB, 250GB, 500GB models all exist).[initially; U can be expanded to, what, 4TB using external harddrives?] Clock speeds? I'm not tech expert, but check this out: Wii U slower than PS3 and 360 | playstation-techzone.com yeah, Wii U is slower than PS3 *and* Xbox 360. I could go on with this, but the point is, the console and the library are two distinct things.

The PS4 automatically is a better console. I don't think there will need to be a comparison of specs, because the Wii U is simply out of the PS4's league specswise. What sells the consoles is the library; as of now we can't concretely say much about either system's library, except that the U is clearly doing poorly as of now.

 

[JuicieJ]

They aren't. The console's library is defined by the games, but not the console itself. The Wii U is a vastly outdated system (within the system of 'video game consoles'; we're excluding gaming PCs here) as it is truly on par with the PS3 as far as, well, everything is concerned. Same disc space (25GB for the U optical disc; 25GB for a single layer blu ray disc, as I recall). Lower memory capacity on the U side (like 3.7GB and around 27.7GB as I recall, Basic and Deluxe models respectively) compared to the PS3 side (20GB, 60GB, 80GB, 120GB, 250GB, 500GB models all exist).[initially; U can be expanded to, what, 4TB using external harddrives?] Clock speeds? I'm not tech expert, but check this out: Wii U slower than PS3 and 360 | playstation-techzone.com yeah, Wii U is slower than PS3 *and* Xbox 360. I could go on with this, but the point is, the console and the library are two distinct things.

The PS4 automatically is a better console. I don't think there will need to be a comparison of specs, because the Wii U is simply out of the PS4's league specswise. What sells the consoles is the library; as of now we can't concretely say much about either system's library, except that the U is clearly doing poorly as of now.

A library is the reason to buy a console, not its power. Therefore the games define a console. It's not rocket science.

 

[Hero of Time]

A library is the reason to buy a console, not its power. Therefore the games define a console. It's not rocket science.

Then how do consoles sell thousands of units at launch with such a small library of games?

 

[Austin]

Again, the misconception that more power = better console. It's a simple-minded thought process that has absolutely no merit to it. I have nothing against them stepping up their power, but they should NEVER forget one of the biggest things we want as gamers: backwards compatibility. We like to sell our old consoles in order to get more money to buy the new one and play the games from it on said new one.

Whoa whoa whoa, speak for yourself buddy. I already own all these consoles, I don't give a damn whether the new one is backwards compatible or not. I'd infinitely prefer a (technologically) stronger console at the expense of backwards compatibility. I have no desire to sell my old consoles, it'd ruin my collection.

inb4 "but that's your personal opinion!", so was yours.

 

[Ventus]

Then how do consoles sell thousands of units at launch with such a small library of games?

Well, there are a ton of factors. One would be the promise to get new, amazing games. I'll explain that with a simple video from the past. Two would be blind fanboyism; something I'm affected bywith lots of Nintendo devices. If Nintendo makes it, it's going to be good. was the common expression back in the day, and it was true, to an extent.

Anyway, from the first thing I said:
[video=youtube;XCO1Tt4m5oQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCO1Tt4m5oQ[/video]

^ ^ That right there is not a demonstration of games, but a demonstration of the hardware that would allow good games to develop and flourish. In other words, the consumers extracted a "promise" from game developers to uphold to the standards of hardware demonstration. This typically lead to good games (FFX is one of the most noticeable titles for PS2, for example), or at the very least, sales of the hardware.

 

[DarkestLink]

Just because the hardcore flocked to PS2 and XB doesn't mean Nintendo quit aiming for them. The Gamecube had just as much hardcore titles the other two, but people chose them over it. Nintendo didn't start focusing on going casual until about the 3rd year of the Wii's lifespan.

...Ehhh...I don't know...maybe it's just me but when I hear "hardcore" I think of hard games. And...there isn't really anything in Nintendo's main library that's hard...particularly compared to the other console's standards.

Error? Ehm, take a gander at the PS3. It had backwards compatibility, but it was later removed. Why? It costs too damn much to manufacture the technology required to emulate PS2 games. What do you think would happen if they had BC for PS3? Even HIGHER prices than PS3 launched for. Wii U "regressing to" (by that I mean emulating, if that's what the U does - I don't know if the U has some parts of the Wii in it or if it's just emulation) the Wii is nowhere near from the PS4 to PS3.

I...agree with JuiceJ actually. Backwards compatibility can be a deal breaker. My friend is a huge Sony fanboy, has more than enough money, and still won't buy the PS4 solely because of this. Silly? I think so. But still, he's pretty much given up on gaming because the idea of owning more than one console is just...too foreign to him. And I see many others sharing this view.

Yeah, how dare companies actually strive for having the best technology? They should just settle for being as powerful as 7th gen. #NintendoSwag

...Sooo...3 extra libraries of games...or slightly improved graphics...hmmm....tough one.

 

[Castle]

Then maybe Sony shouldn't have made as big of a step up in power as they did. That way they could actually afford it.

This. If anything buries Sony in the video game industry it's gonna be this. The cost to develop video games for the technology they run on is already unsustainable, but Sony doesn't know how to do anything other than amp up their specs and "borrow" everything Nintendo's ever done. And badly. I mean, who actually made use of the Sixaxis motion controls? Much less good use.

The unsustainable cost of production is the root of all evil in the video games industry right now, and it is all driven by the ridiculous technical expectations of products that Sony and M$ have touted so exuberantly. It has given big corporate publishers too much influence. It has driven publishers and developers to nickle and dime players out the arse in times when people can barely manage to pay rent, much less afford the $60 (US) price tag (up $10 since last gen). Not that developers can expect to break even on a product at $60 a pop, much less turn a profit.

So what do we get? Sixty dollars poorer (to start with) in exchange for a mediocre pile of dump... Shiny dump, but dump is dump.

In the end, Sony's lauded tech is going to bury them. Eventually, consumers will run out of money to give. The best that can happen for Sony is for the Playstation to become a niche luxury item.

I honestly hope that would be enough for them, because one less player in the industry is a "Bad Thing" (tm)