E3 Nintendo Direct Announced

PS3 wasn't sold out this time in 2007 & it wasn't selling that many games either.
I remember CoD 3 on Wii out sold the PS3 version.

& that Zombi game is doing good considering the install base. How much was it supposed to sell?

Monizzle14 wrote: »

Broddie wrote: »

Monizzle14 wrote: »

Lol no need to put ? in all caps it won't help your argument."No console is on the same playing field as a console" but if thats my point is it baseless or wrong?

It's just you stating the obvious. I posted this in this very thread earlier.

"Smartphones and their apps now account for roughly half of all game downloads, and the number of gamers playing on mobile devices just surpassed the number playing on dedicated consoles, according to market research firm NPD Group."

It's more of a "no ? Sherlock".

Your actual baseless argument is thinking Nintendo is actually dying. Something you have yet to prove and something that has too much evidence to the contrary to even be proven.

Is my prediction baseless when this time in the Nintendo Wii's lifespan you still couldn't find a wii system on the shelf. But less than 2 weeks after launch i was in a local store and there were Wii U's in the store?

PS3 went through the same ? . I guess you're going to sit here and tell me that the PS3 died before it's gen ended too? there are consoles sitting in stores because there isn't appealing software to push it. That wasn't the case with the Wii at launch which had enough software to draw the casuals even if it alienated the ? . It was also much more of a novelty back then, people were ready for a new Nintendo home console by that point and the economy was in better shape than it is now (ie: disposable income easier to come by).

Likewise good luck selling as many games at $60 a pop and yet another round of mario party 300 or mario kart 869.95.

Yet they've managed to sell a million plus copies each time at that type of price range for 3 generations now. Even with the Wii U selling below their predictions they still manage to sell over 2 million copies of a Mario game in 2013 at 60 bucks a pop.

People aren't going to keep buying the same game they have been buying for 20 years.

Software sales lists say otherwise.

And to be fair this continued re released classic for the millionth time is something that will catch up to xbox and sony exclusives in the future as well.

Yeah sure it will lmao ? of War and Halo have nothing to worry about anytime soon trust that. Even the slowest selling GoW game (the last one) managed to make it over the 1 million mark within 3 months. While Halo is an industry monster which even at it's most irrelevant (Halo Wars) manages to push the 2 million mark in sales.

The funniest thing about your post is thinking that Nintendo will never go the way of sega. You can never say never lol. Who knows what might happen in 3 months from now.

Buddy when SEGA went out they were critically in the red and had no other choice. Nintendo is the only video game company in the black right now. Again they are the only company right now selling a piece of hardware at a loss (Wii U) and still making profit.

Their bread and butter is video games unlike their competition and they will do everything it takes to maintain that bottom line. SEGA wasn't the type of company to cut an E3 press conference to save millions of dollars instead and give out the same information to their audience their own way (Nintendo Direct).

They had reckless execs that overthought their role in the video game industry. Something Nintendo doesn't have. People said the same ? you're saying about Nintendo back in 1998 and they said it again in 2003 yet here they are still releasing new hardware.

Actually saying nintendo will never go the way of sega is more outrageous than anything i might have predicted or said in any previous post

Your claim is outrageous because the business models are night and day and the way Nintendo's business model functions there is no sign of them going out of the hardware business at all. Especially in light of the 3DS now bringing in the dollars they initially expected from that platform. That was not the case with SEGA. So it's just you grasping at straws with no evidence that is proving your argument to be a valid one.

PS3's at this point in the life cycle were not yet sitting in stores they were still sold out.

This right here shows me you don't know what you're talking about. PS3's were sitting in stores because most people didn't want to pay hundreds of dollars for a console with no games. Sound familiar?

The sales do say otherwise outside of the Super Mario Bros what other $60 wii u exclusive is selling well lol. Anyone, anyone anyone?

You mean Nintendo games are the only games selling well on a new Nintendo platform? what a shocker; that certainly has never happened before [/sarcasm]

And i still stand by the fact that you can never say never. You can't say Nintendo will never be like Sega. After this gen who knows they could be in the red and losing money. Console Video games are going to face an uphill battle in the next couple years and the upcoming decade. Again lmao never say never.

Unlike SEGA when they were dying out Nintendo today doesn't spend anywhere near the money SEGA did to keep in competition with their peers. This is part of the reason the Wii U's specs are what they are and not something comparative to Xbox One and PS4. They don't break their wallets like Sony and Mircrosoft do and still just depend on delivering a straight up gaming experience. It's proven to be a sound foundation for them from a financial standpoint.

You want to make improbable assumptions go ahead suit yourself bro. The variables as well as history prove otherwise. Nintendo has had the odds stacked a lot harder against then they do now and have survived. They have made it through video game crashes. They have made it through the Virtual Boy which was a much greater monetary loss for them than the Wii U has been thus far. Significantly greater. They survived the money lost on Nintendo 64 and Gamecube.

Why? they had Game Boy, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS all on the market generating them a large chunk of the 18 plus billion the company is worth today. They could afford to take the risks. They don't always operate in the red like SEGA did since the 32X that right there is a major difference in business strategies and why one company still makes hardware today and the other doesn't.

These consoles both portable and home are the only gambles they have. Unlike Sony and Microsoft who have to prioritize other divisions over their gaming division. The Wii U is not the only piece of hardware they ship today; they have portable hardware devices that make them billions a year alone. Nintendo will be fine and next gen people like you will be parroting this same song all over again.

Broddie brings up good points. But Sony's 3RD party support was never like wii u is right now. EA wasn't saying that none of their sports games werent gonna go on the PS3. I don't believe for a second that the wii u will fail completely. But I don't think it will quite reach wii numbers, just like PS3 never reached 2 numbers.

LOL @ the fall of the roman empire. Bro bureucratic downfalls of governmental states isn't a good analogy to use. The systems are way too different. Unlike the Roman Empire Nintendo is not at war with each other. Everybody in that company is on the same page and anyone who isn't gets kicked out. Microsoft and Sony are at war but with each other. Nintendo is not competing for primary system status so they aren't at war with Microsoft or Sony either.

They know they will be a supplementary console to the ? and more seasoned gamers. They deliberately decided to target a niche audience and the ? fans of their franchises like last time. The only difference is they still haven't found that audience yet. Obviously the market that was open to motion controls isn't the same market open to tablet controllers. That audience still needs to show up.

Chances are it's more than likely because there isn't enough on the platform to entice them yet because ironically in all reviews the Wii U gamepad has been considered comfortable to use and a high point. I have yet to try it myself though.

Even the Sony comparison is off since they're not a dedicated video game company. SCE is just another cog in a giant wheel but ok I'll bite that bait. The walkman failed in the long run and they still trooped on. I mean guess what else failed? Mini Disc and Beta Max. Win some lose some. Sony had backups at the end of the day. Now a more realistic comparison would be with dedicated game companies like ATARI and SEGA . Who like Nintendo were pioneers and had a stranglehold at one point on the gaming market.

In the end both were bleeding money and continuously gambling whatever they had left due to poor business management. We all know that unlike the Lynx and the Game Gear the Game Boy came out winning.

Nintendo has always been ran by better businessmen than Sega and Atari ever had. They didn't put all the money on one horse in case the Game Boy didn't stick like Atari did with Lynx. They still had the NES smashing sales records when the Game Boy first dropped. Even Sega had the Genesis when Game Gear dropped so I'll give them that. Then the Game Boy actually stuck just like the NES did and outlived the NES & it's successor (SNES) in terms of family product legacy in the long run. Genesis by comparison outlived the Game Gear and there is no way in hell that could've been Sega's long term plan.

Game Boy led to Nintendo having the luxury of exploiting new gaming platforms unlike other gaming empires that did fall. They cornered a whole other marker (portable gaming) and the other companies could not catch up with them when they copied their style. They're too busy taking risks and at times winning when those risks give them great rewards (Game Boy, DS, Wii) because like any sound business they have more than one platform to gain most capital from.

They always could afford to have a stable B plan. They were not continuously repeating the mistakes of others and this is why they always remain. Even Sega got to a point where a plan B wasn't even financially feasible for them. Nintendo didn't release Virtual Boy without having another platform on the market to be the profit back up (Game Boy, SNES & later after VB flopped the Game Boy Pocket) in case it tanked.

Same with Nintendo 64 (Game Boy Color and later a remodeled lighter SNES) and Gamecube (Game Boy Advance). Atari released the Lynx and then the Jaguar with no firm back ups in place. Just straight up wreckless. Ditto Sega with the 32X add on, Sega CD, Saturn and Dreamcast. Wii U has both the original DS and the 3DS as it's back ups. Hell if push ever came to shove they'd release a new Game Boy before ever ditching out of the hardware business.

It takes a lot for a company dedicated only to home video game consoles and home video game software and nothing else to tank and Nintendo has never reached that point because they were never dumb enough with their long term business plans to do so.

Nintendo is a company that as a whole (not just within the gaming industry) has been around for over 100 years now always innovating and profiting for the most part with most endeavors they take on. That's a lot of prestige and experience in the corporate world. They're not in such an unhealthy state that they couldn't be here within the next 10 years. They have more than enough income & sound business regimen to keep themselves afloat for another 50 more. This is why I think them bricking in about 5 years time is kind of far fetched. It doesn't really add up with all that in mind.

Broddie wrote: »

LOL @ the fall of the roman empire. Bro bureucratic downfalls of governmental states isn't a good analogy to use. The systems are way too different. Unlike the Roman Empire Nintendo is not at war with each other. Everybody in that company is on the same page and anyone who isn't gets kicked out. Microsoft and Sony are at war but with each other. Nintendo is not competing for primary system status so they aren't at war with Microsoft or Sony either.

They know they will be a supplementary console to the ? and more seasoned gamers. They deliberately decided to target a niche audience and the ? fans of their franchises like last time. The only difference is they still haven't found that audience yet. Obviously the market that was open to motion controls isn't the same market open to tablet controllers. That audience still needs to show up.

Chances are it's more than likely because there isn't enough on the platform to entice them yet because ironically in all reviews the Wii U gamepad has been considered comfortable to use and a high point. I have yet to try it myself though.

Even the Sony comparison is off since they're not a dedicated video game company. SCE is just another cog in a giant wheel but ok I'll bite that bait. The walkman failed in the long run and they still trooped on. I mean guess what else failed? Mini Disc and Beta Max. Win some lose some. Sony had backups at the end of the day. Now a more realistic comparison would be with dedicated game companies like ATARI and SEGA . Who like Nintendo were pioneers and had a stranglehold at one point on the gaming market.

In the end both were bleeding money and continuously gambling whatever they had left due to poor business management. We all know that unlike the Lynx and the Game Gear the Game Boy came out winning.

Nintendo has always been ran by better businessmen than Sega and Atari ever had. They didn't put all the money on one horse in case the Game Boy didn't stick like Atari did with Lynx. They still had the NES smashing sales records when the Game Boy first dropped. Even Sega had the Genesis when Game Gear dropped so I'll give them that. Then the Game Boy actually stuck just like the NES did and outlived the NES & it's successor (SNES) in terms of family product legacy in the long run. Genesis by comparison outlived the Game Gear and there is no way in hell that could've been Sega's long term plan.

Game Boy led to Nintendo having the luxury of exploiting new gaming platforms unlike other gaming empires that did fall. They cornered a whole other marker (portable gaming) and the other companies could not catch up with them when they copied their style. They're too busy taking risks and at times winning when those risks give them great rewards (Game Boy, DS, Wii) because like any sound business they have more than one platform to gain most capital from.

They always could afford to have a stable B plan. They were not continuously repeating the mistakes of others and this is why they always remain. Even Sega got to a point where a plan B wasn't even financially feasible for them. Nintendo didn't release Virtual Boy without having another platform on the market to be the profit back up (Game Boy, SNES & later after VB flopped the Game Boy Pocket) in case it tanked.

Same with Nintendo 64 (Game Boy Color and later a remodeled lighter SNES) and Gamecube (Game Boy Advance). Atari released the Lynx and then the Jaguar with no firm back ups in place. Just straight up wreckless. Ditto Sega with the 32X add on, Sega CD, Saturn and Dreamcast. Wii U has both the original DS and the 3DS as it's back ups. Hell if push ever came to shove they'd release a new Game Boy before ever ditching out of the hardware business.

It takes a lot for a company dedicated only to home video game consoles and home video game software and nothing else to tank and Nintendo has never reached that point because they were never dumb enough with their long term business plans to do so.

Nintendo is a company that as a whole (not just within the gaming industry) has been around for 100 years now always innovating and profiting for the most part with most endeavors they take on. That's a lot of prestige and experience in the corporate world. They're not in such an unhealthy state that they couldn't be here within the next 10 years. They have more than enough income & sound business regimen to keep themselves afloat for another 50 more. This is why I think them bricking in about 5 years time is kind of far fetched. It doesn't really add up with all that in mind.

Damn broddie with the dissertation lol but I got a wii u and I've had no issues with the controller, feels fine to me.

Lol Broddie did you just copy and paste the entire bible in your post. I am a longtime nintendo owner and still play the classic consoles (stop buying consoles after gamecube) and i gotta say pikmin is one of the lamest games i ever played. Rented that ? for a week. ? i aint ever getting taht week back.

How can a game that not only sold millions making it one of the top sellers on the platform but is also one of the best reviewed games on the platform and is so popular that an expansion is on the way (New Super Luigi U) be overlooked? yeah I get the "compared to it's predecessor" point but it's been performing as well as it's predecessors did. If anything the success of the New Super Mario Bros. franchise has been really consistent.

LOL You didn't answer my question at all.

My point?

A game that has sold over 2 million copies so far and is the system seller at the moment & also getting an expansion pack soon cannot be overlooked. It obviously has a very solid audience already. No More Heroes 2 was overlooked. NSMBU is just falling in line with the rest of that series in terms of success.