Why all the Nintendo hate? And why drop $400+ on a new console?

[DatN.O.Boi]

Every thread I visit that's partially Nintendo related, all I see are haters. "PS4 will devastate Nintendo" this and "XboxOne's still better than U" that. It's like ever since the N64 era, developers, publishers, and gamers are looking to bring down Nintendo. I'm no fanboy, but the Nintendo hate's seriously gotten out of hand. And quite ignorant. This sums up the excuse-making that devs use to avoid the Wii U:

Devs won't put games on the Wii U because
Financial risk on the Wii U platform is too high because
Wii U sales have slowed down because
There's not enough software available for the Wii U because
Devs won't put games on the Wii U.

Why did Sony get put on 3rd party life support when the PS3 nearly died at launch, but the Wii U gets tossed to the wind considering that it had such a good launch(relative to consoles in general)? Maybe devs don't want their games to look like shovelware in comparison to Nintendo's 1st party titles. Maybe putting games on the Wii U would force them to make actually good games, whereas MS/Sony's consoles take whatever is given.

Speaking of which, who would want to drop $400+ on a game console? A game console is meant to be the CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE to PCs, no more no less. I can buy a Lenovo Ideapad for $300 and have a bigger library a la EmuParadise(thanx, guys!) and skip on AAA games that I'd probably trade in after I'm done with them. Xbox Done's completely missed the whole point of what makes a gaming console what it is($500+XBL+features a smartphone has for cheaper) and PS4's just a glorofied mini-PC.

I have a Wii U Deluxe(got it for $300), and, to say that I was heavily skeptical about it, I thoroughly enjoy it.

[Sheik]

Well.
What happens when you see someone/something always successful no matter the risks they take? You get pissed and wondering why, that's what.
Most of these preteen/teenage lames have forgotten that Nintendo was the first to make their childhood games almost universally commercial, because they took risks that no one would sanely do, and still make money off it. Call it coincidence or a stroke of genius.
I would just say that Nintendo will always have a place in my budget, because I want them to stay alive.

[FlavaFlave]

Devs won't put games on the Wii U because
Financial risk on the Wii U platform is too high because
Wii U sales have slowed down because
There's not enough software available for the Wii U because
Devs won't put games on the Wii U.

Yeah, they don't want to spread resources too thin for a system that has barely sold a million units. There's also the other issue, the system is not powerful at all. It's barely better under the hood than our current 7 year old consoles, and in a few scant months we're going to have two new systems that will totally blow the doors off the Wii U. The Wii U can't run the latest Unreal Engine, or Frostbite 2, which is a big problem because 90% of the current games out there run off Unreal alone. If they want to port their fancy new game to Wii U, they can't just dumb it down..... they'll need to rebuild it with a new engine. Not worth it at all.

Why did Sony get put on 3rd party life support when the PS3 nearly died at launch, but the Wii U gets tossed to the wind considering that it had such a good launch(relative to consoles in general)? Maybe devs don't want their games to look like shovelware in comparison to Nintendo's 1st party titles. Maybe putting games on the Wii U would force them to make actually good games, whereas MS/Sony's consoles take whatever is given.

First off, Sony didn't get put on life support - yeah, they had a weak launch mainly due to pricing and their arrogance, but the system didn't take too long to pick up. Wii U doesn't have any software worth a shit, unlike Sony who managed to get out a few good games over the course of their first year.
And Secondly, saying devs don't want their games to look like shovelware in comparison to Nintendo's 1st party titles makes you sound like a typical, blind fanboy. It's an ignorant statement, especially since there's only a couple 1st party games right now anyway. And what's coming? A Donkey Kong, Mario and a Zelda remake (all games that are rehashes). There's plenty of 3rd party titles that can run circles around these guys.

Speaking of which, who would want to drop $400+ on a game console? A game console is meant to be the CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE to PCs, no more no less. I can buy a Lenovo Ideapad for $300 and have a bigger library a la EmuParadise(thanx, guys!) and skip on AAA games that I'd probably trade in after I'm done with them. Xbox Done's completely missed the whole point of what makes a gaming console what it is($500+XBL+features a smartphone has for cheaper) and PS4's just a glorofied mini-PC.

I have a Wii U Deluxe(got it for $300), and, to say that I was heavily skeptical about it, I thoroughly enjoy it.

Considering the Wii U is $350, are you really going to ask who would spend $50 more for a system that is 10 times as powerful, and also has a BluRay drive and a real HDD? The better question is why the hell would anyone spend $350 for a system that should have come out 7 years ago? You say you can buy an "Ideapad" for $300 - well buddy you can't game on that. Sure, you can play emulators like you said, but not everyone cares to do that. $400 is a cheap asking price for the power of a real PC.

[deadlegion]

Funny, I was looking in a local store the other day and they have the Wii U Premium for just over $400 ($430 I think).

Standard price for base models of 360 and PS3 are just under $200. Wii is $90 iirc.
You can get any of them a bit cheaper at sales.

And the prices I'm seeing for preorder PS4 are like, $549...and Xbox One is $599.

[angelboy77777]

Funny, I was looking in a local store the other day and they have the Wii U Premium for just over $400 ($430 I think).

Standard price for base models of 360 and PS3 are just under $200. Wii is $90 iirc.
You can get any of them a bit cheaper at sales.

And the prices I'm seeing for preorder PS4 are like, $549...and Xbox One is $599.

I wen't to the local store and saw a Wii U Premium for $350, and the Wii U Standard for $300. I even saw the Wii for $50. It was pre-owned. I saw Xbox 360 and PS3 for $200. And a pre order sign for Xbox ONE, $549, and PS4, $500

[deadlegion]

I wen't to the local store and saw a Wii U Premium for $350, and the Wii U Standard for $300. I even saw the Wii for $50. It was pre-owned. I saw Xbox 360 and PS3 for $200. And a pre order sign for Xbox ONE, $549, and PS4, $500

Where are those prices from?
My prices were from EB (well, except the old Wii which I probably saw at Big W or Kmart last time I bothered looking).
And like I said you can get stuff a bit cheaper on sale.

Even JB Hi Fi has:
Wii U premium black for $428.
The Xbox One preorder price of $598.
PS4 preorder $548.

[Cookie Monster]

Every thread I visit that's partially Nintendo related, all I see are haters. "PS4 will devastate Nintendo" this and "XboxOne's still better than U" that. It's like ever since the N64 era, developers, publishers, and gamers are looking to bring down Nintendo. I'm no fanboy, but the Nintendo hate's seriously gotten out of hand. And quite ignorant.

I don't think anyone is trying to bring Nintendo down, but it's true that they have been receiving a good amount of unjustified hate since the Wii came out. Graphic whores, Sega fanboys.. I don't know, perhaps now that they've grown older think they are too cool for Nintendo games

Anyway, as long as Nintendo continue creating good and fun games, which they still do, those first party games alone will be reason enough to own a Nintendo console.

And no, the Xbone isn't better than the WiiU

[Gypsy]

Nintendo will be fine, but any bashing of the Wii U is just realism at this point. It's not doing well and Nintendo needs to get their big title machine in full gear.

@cookie: People that think they are too cool for Nintendo are just fooling themselves. Mario is still just as fun as it ever was imo.

[MaslowK]

@cookie: People that think they are too cool for Nintendo are just fooling themselves. Mario is still just as fun as it ever was imo.

But Gypsy! Nintendo doesn't have the newest CoD and therefore is omg for teh kiddies!

Seriously though, ^that. From what I can tell this has been the real "meat" of the argument ever since Halo revolutionized the FPS; suddenly nintendo doesn't have enough cool/edgy/popular FPS or rated M titles to be considered relevant by your typical 14 year old gamer. That and everyone knows more expensive & hardware intensive consoles totally automatically equals more fun games.

[SWEATYGREMLINSCLUB]

Why all the Nintendo hate?

Because people are idiots.

[Gypsy]

But Gypsy! Nintendo doesn't have the newest CoD and therefore is omg for teh kiddies!

Seriously though, ^that. From what I can tell this has been the real "meat" of the argument ever since Halo revolutionized the FPS; suddenly nintendo doesn't have enough cool/edgy/popular FPS or rated M titles to be considered relevant by your typical 14 year old gamer. That and everyone knows more expensive & hardware intensive consoles totally automatically equals more fun games.

Yeah, the whole "kids console" thing makes me shake my head.

[DatN.O.Boi]

Yeah, they don't want to spread resources too thin for a system that has barely sold a million units.

The Wii U has sold well over a million in its launch, so what are you on about?

There's also the other issue, the system is not powerful at all. It's barely better under the hood than our current 7 year old consoles, and in a few scant months we're going to have two new systems that will totally blow the doors off the Wii U. The Wii U can't run the latest Unreal Engine, or Frostbite 2, which is a big problem because 90% of the current games out there run off Unreal alone. If they want to port their fancy new game to Wii U, they can't just dumb it down..... they'll need to rebuild it with a new engine. Not worth it at all.

1) The Wii U is custom-built to put out the exact same graphics(native 1080p@60fps) as the next 2 consoles without being a powerhouse(a la GPGPU) and can run DX11 equivalents(Unity scaled-up, FB3). As for FB2 not running...EA retracted that statement a while back, stating that FB3 can run on it, but they don't want to optimize it because of consequentially low EA fanbase on the Wii U as a result of their "N1nt3nd'oh SUX" BS.
2) If FB2 and 3 can be scaled down to smartphones and tablets, why can't they not run a high-fidelity version on the Wii U? Because they don't want to optimize it.

First off, Sony didn't get put on life support - yeah, they had a weak launch mainly due to pricing and their arrogance, but the system didn't take too long to pick up. Wii U doesn't have any software worth a shit, unlike Sony who managed to get out a few good games over the course of their first year.

If 1 1/2 years after the launch and miillions of US$ lost from Sony's pockets isn't a long time or near-death respectively, I suppose your right. :/

And Secondly, saying devs don't want their games to look like shovelware in comparison to Nintendo's 1st party titles makes you sound like a typical, blind fanboy. It's an ignorant statement, especially since there's only a couple 1st party games right now anyway. And what's coming? A Donkey Kong, Mario and a Zelda remake (all games that are rehashes). There's plenty of 3rd party titles that can run circles around these guys.

Firstly, I said that "maybe devs are afraid of their games looking like shovelware in comparison to Nintendo's games" to further exaggerate the 3rd parties' excuses, not share my opinion. Let's keep things in perspective, please?
Secondly, they're only rehashes if the core gameplay remains the EXACT same(ya know, like most EA games and military FPS games?). Mario's debatable, but have you ever played DKC Returns? Twilight Princess? Wind Waker? Majora's Mask? You also left out a healthy bit of Nintendo exclusives by the way.

Considering the Wii U is $350, are you really going to ask who would spend $50 more for a system that is 10 times as powerful, and also has a BluRay drive and a real HDD? The better question is why the hell would anyone spend $350 for a system that should have come out 7 years ago? You say you can buy an "Ideapad" for $300 - well buddy you can't game on that. Sure, you can play emulators like you said, but not everyone cares to do that. $400 is a cheap asking price for the power of a real PC.

$350 that might see a price cut when the other 2 next-gen consoles come out. $350 for a gaming console, not a mini-PC. $350 for free online serivces, free online MP, and a (mostly) friendly community. $350 for the same graphics as the other 2 next-gen consoles. Sony HDDs are also unreliable. At least MS can call themselves the kings of cheap memory. And as for the "not everyone cares to play emulators" point, you seem to think that not a lot of people like to be "ballin' on a budget" or enjoy a plethora of old-school games- much less 100s of them a la EmuParadise- for FREE!!! Especially since that kind of money is better spent elsewhere. It's not like I think everyone who likes games should buy a Wii U or any other next-gen console for that matter. It's just that the Wii U won't drain one's pockets like an XboxOne or PS4 would(hefty launch prices+subscription services+full retail price games).
But whatever generates your mass effect field, I guess.

[DatN.O.Boi]

Nintendo will be fine, but any bashing of the Wii U is just realism at this point. It's not doing well and Nintendo needs to get their big title machine in full gear.

As true as that is, it's still too early to count it out though. It's not doing well, but then again, what console since the PS2(besides the Wii) has had a great launch?

[Gypsy]

Way too early, I agree completely there. I'll be getting one for sure, just waiting for a price drop or two (I never buy consoles at launch and generally not shortly after either, for multiple reasons including console stability (though this isn't as much of an issue with Nintendo) and game availability).

[FlavaFlave]

Sales figures:

Spoiler warning:

360 NPD sales:
1st November - 326,000
1st December - 281,000
1st January - 250,000
1st February - 161,000
1st March (cycle refresh) - 192,000

PS3 NPD sales:
1st November - 197,000
1st December - 490,700
1st January - 244,000
1st February - 127,000
1st March (cycle refresh) - 130,000

Wii U NPD sales:
1st November - 425,000
1st December - 460,000
1st January - 57,000
1st February - 66,000
1st March (cycle refresh) - 55,000 (Pachter's prediction)

Wii U did not sell "well over a million" at launch. 1,008,000 total sales in the launch period.

The Wii U is custom-built to put out the exact same graphics(native 1080p@60fps) as the next 2 consoles without being a powerhouse

Uh, no. Just no.

If 1 1/2 years after the launch and miillions of US$ lost from Sony's pockets isn't a long time or near-death respectively, I suppose your right. :/

What are you on about? Sony launched several big games in it's first year. Uncharted, Motorstorm, GT Prologue, etc. Motorstorm alone moved over 3 million copies by itself. Not bad for a system that was only several months old at that point.

Mario's debatable, but have you ever played DKC Returns? Twilight Princess? Wind Waker? Majora's Mask? You also left out a healthy bit of Nintendo exclusives by the way.

We're talking about Wii U here, not Gamecube, Wii etc. You started the thread, you should know why none of those titles were mentioned.

$350 for the same graphics as the other 2 next-gen consoles. Sony HDDs are also unreliable. At least MS can call themselves the kings of cheap memory. And as for the "not everyone cares to play emulators" point, you seem to think that not a lot of people like to be "ballin' on a budget" or enjoy a plethora of old-school games- much less 100s of them a la EmuParadise- for FREE!!!

There's just so much wrong in this paragraph that it isn't really even worth picking apart, so I'll be quick. Wii U does not have the same horsepower, RAM or graphics card that the new sytems have. Do your research, please.
Sony HDD's unreliable? Sony doesn't make them, Seagate does, and the failure rate on PS3 systems is pretty damn low compared to the 360.
And the final bit, about the emulation, I'm not sure what you're even getting at. There are a lot of people out there that DO NOT LIKE emulation. In fact, you'd be surprised at how many people on this site alone don't particularly care for it. It's pretty obvious you're a big emulation fan, and that's fine, but assuming EVERYONE out there is in the same boat as you is just plain wrong. You stated early on that you aren't a Ninty fanboy - you sure are getting pretty defensive about all this.