Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just wanted to point out that the Wii U is backward compatible and you can certainly play used games.

It hasn't really saved the Wii U from it's poor sales though. So actually maybe everything will be okay

I want to love Nintendo, I really do, and Ill admit the WiiU has some really cool ideas thrown into it. My problem with the WiiU as a whole, is the simple fact that Nintendo is Nintendo. I bought a Wii off promises, and a 3DS off promises. You know what I got? A dusty Wii and a 3DS with 2 games worth playing. Thats it. Im sorry, but unless Nintendo suddenly, over the next year, starts pumping out games that I would actually play, I wont be buying from them. Because the sad fact that only 1! Nintendo exclusive I would buy, and then 2 maybe 3 others I would be interested in buying after a play test, isnt enough a reason for me to jump aboard. I was REALLY excited when they started leaking info and game titles on it.....then it quickly turned into what Nintendo has done the past 10 years, promise me a ship full of gold, and I end up with a Dollar store toy with some yellow paper cut into circles.

What sort of games do you play and what games would you like to see?

Swan-of-War wrote:
Just wanted to point out that the Wii U is backward compatible and you can certainly play used games.

That's great when the previous console had almost no good games.

Is that based on sales or just your own personal tastes?

No I gave the Wii a huge chance, and played a LOT of its content. Sol is mostly right, There are few games actually worth buying on that system, overall Id GUESS that only 30% (;possibly even less) are good games, the rest is either junk, or just filler.

Swan-of-War wrote:
Is that based on sales or just your own personal tastes?

Both, the Wii had an adoption rate of 1,5. This means that the avarage Wii owner bought only 1,5 game for the system. That should be self explanatory.

Attachement rate? Interesting, where are you getting your info?

Numerous game related sites have reported on this.

Its been well known that as far as game sales go, the Wii was a massive bomb. You really think it's a coincidence that the highest selling Wii game for years was Wii Sports? Guess which game came in a bundle with the console.

NPD data seems to disagree. How many millions must a game sell before it's not considered a bomb? I've found that people's perceptions of a successful game are not entirely tied to unit sales, but simply their own tastes.

Swan-of-War wrote:
NPD data seems to disagree. How many millions must a game sell before it's not considered a bomb? I've found that people's perceptions of a successful game are not entirely tied to unit sales, but simply their own tastes.

It depends on how you define bomb. I'm referring to the Wii achieving it's goal as a console. While it's certainly made Nintendo a handsome profit, the console itself has been no where near as successful as the 360 or the PS3.

Here's some data from Nintendo: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/sales/software/wii.html For their highest selling software (worldwide). This file has the sames of the console for it's life time http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e1212.pdf (tens of thousands is basically 100,000,000 units). Now, look at those numbers and note that the top 4 selling games are all games that could be obtained in a bundle with the console, or another game (usually each other). Wii console sales are extremely impressive. It easily beats out the 360's 80,000,000 (?) and the PS3's 75,000,000.

But then you look at game sales data for the other two consoles. The last 3 Call of Duty titles sold as many copies as Mario Kart Wii the best selling game for the Wii on the 360. And the 360 gets a new CoD game every year. The sales for some of the Wii's games, namely Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii, made Nintendo a ton of money. They all sold for 10 million+ units. Awesome sales really. Then you realize they're pretty much the only game's selling. While Microsoft is selling the Halo series for a combined total of 45,000,000 units over the 360's span, Ninteno released two Legend of Zelda games that only sold for a combined 10,000,000.

The Wii sold consoles, but it failed to sale games, especially when you consider that not only do the games on the 360/PS3 tend to sell more copies, but both consoles have a library roughly twice the size of the Wii's. Since the console maker gets $$$ for every game sold, Microsoft and Sony have killed Nintendo in this department, especially since unlike Nintendo they aren't ultra dependent on in house development.

 Soladrin wrote:

Swan-of-War wrote:
Is that based on sales or just your own personal tastes?

Both, the Wii had an adoption rate of 1,5. This means that the avarage Wii owner bought only 1,5 game for the system. That should be self explanatory.

WiiU going for 1,0?

Thanks for the link, LoH. It made calculating worldwide attach rate easy

Wii U: 3M Hardware units sold / ((11.69M - 3M Software)=8.69M) = attach rate of 1:2.9
- I subtracted out 3M from the total software sold, erring conservatively that all 3M hardware units were the Deluxe version (and that software sales include Nintendoland bundled).

Wii: 99.39M hardware / ((863.53)-99.39M)=764.14) = attach rate of 1:7.69.
-Again, assuming that each piece of hardware was bundled with one game and subtracted total hardware sold from total software sold.

Maybe I'm a little tired from working in the yard today, but I'm not quite coming to the 1.5 games sold per console.

CoD is certainly a powerhouse, but it's not quite fair to compare Mario Kart to it as Mario is a Nintendo exclusive. How do you think Kart would sell if it were also available on XBox and PS3? The Halo and Uncharted franchises are more of a direct comparison and both are fantastic.

And just so I understand your Halo / Zelda comparison - all five Halos (including Halo Reach) have sold 45M total or roughly 9M each. Wii Zelda (Twilight Princess + Skyward Sword) sold 10M total or roughly 5M each?

Lord of Hats' comparison regarding Call of Duty was (seemingly) looking exclusively at the 360 numbers, not all platforms that Call of Duty games are available on.

Yeah. I only looked at it's 360 sales (About 10 million each). I'm not that guy who embarassed himself to the whole internet by claiming Halo 3's sales were exaggerated and then used the sales of multi-platform games from multiple platforms to prove my point

I'm not that bad with math XD I don't know if 1.5 is the real number. Don't get me wrong I've never looked that up. I'm just aware of the Wii's deceptive sales numbers making it appear far more successful than it really was.

EDIT: Oh, and roughly the main Halo titles typically sell between 7-9 Million copies, + Halo Wars which sold 3 million. Twilight Princess sold 7 million on Wii (not including Gamecube), while Skyward sword only sold a little over 3 million. The purpose of that comparison was to point out the differences for each franchise. Halo in the same time period, sold 4x as many games as the Zelda series. They certainly did it with more titles but even the individual Halo titles roughly equaled or exceeded the sale of individual Zelda titles and in the time it took Nintendo to release 2 Zelda games, Microsoft released 5 Halo Titles (Halo 3, Halo ODST, Halo Wars, Halo Reach, Halo 4).

Yeah, tracking down hard numbers can be tricky. Sony reports sell-in (what they shipped to a retailer) vs. sell-through (what was actually bought by a consumer).

I'd like to revisit your comment that the Wii was a massive bomb. Almost 100 million sold, average of 8 games per console.... most probably first party. Someone was certainly buying games past Wii Sports!

Last, no argument from me: Halo is a very successful franchise! And a blast

The 1.5 attach rate might be an old number, can't find it anywhere anymore either. That said, I know that number was a fact less then a year ago so I doubt it changed much.

Looks like I need to be saving up for a gaming PC. Even if most of these upcoming rumors are bogus, we know Microsoft and Sony will do everything in their power to kill used gaming. And they'll actually get away with it too, at least at first. BEcause your average gamer probably won't hear about the "no used games" until the first time they walk into gamestop only to be told "we dont do used games for your system, sorry. Think of the massive numbers of parents who just hear their kids want a certain system and get it for Christmas, or the college fratboy who buys Madden, CoD, and a few other token games. You really think they'll research really heavy into this to find out theres no used games anymore? And I doubt Microsoft or Sony will make it very public if they do have the guts to go through with it. They'll keep it quiet as long as humanly possible. Hopefully the companies will get the backlash they deserve, but you never know these days. Ask anyone who has sold games in retail, they'll tell you the same thing.

Either way, between the possibility of forced kinect (massive privacy breach) cloud gaming (massive privacy breach potential) and no used market, I'm not looking forward to the next console generation

Kinnect is a privacy breach?

If it's required to be running to run the system itself, yes. I do view that as a privacy breach and for me would be the biggest reason not to get it.

Though having to pay for a piece of hardware I have no interest in also helps.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kinnect is a privacy breach?

It's a camera in your living room with power to it almost 24/7 and hooked to the internet. Even if it only works when the Xbox is actually turned on, think about all the stuff it could record.

Also, I'm pretty sure there were reports of people getting busted by police thanks to doing things like smoking weed on the couch while the Kinect was on, but that could just be urban legend.

Either way, if Kinect is built in/required, I'm not buying it. Why? Because if they're incorporating the Kinect directly into the console, that means they're going to force devs to come up with random gimmicks in their game to make it useful, even if the game doesn't need it. That, and I don't know if you've ever played online against a kid in his living room using his kinect as a mic, but it is maddening.

Well, there's that, and the fact that a Kinect built-in automatically and conveniently adds another cost to the console that I may not even want, but would be unable to avoid. It's just another way to jack up the cost of the thing.

The biggest worry I have is how a new console will affect Xbox live for us grognards that will still have the 360, because even if i adopt a new console, it's usually years after it comes out. What if I have a Live-required game for the 360, like Defiance, that I want to play in a time when the new Xbox is out with a Live format that may be very different?

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Well, there's that, and the fact that a Kinect built-in automatically and conveniently adds another cost to the console that I may not even want, but would be unable to avoid. It's just another way to jack up the cost of the thing.

The biggest worry I have is how a new console will affect Xbox live for us grognards that will still have the 360, because even if i adopt a new console, it's usually years after it comes out. What if I have a Live-required game for the 360, like Defiance, that I want to play in a time when the new Xbox is out with a Live format that may be very different?

Well with the last generation, didn't the regular xbox still have xbox live available for a while even after the 360 got it's version of Xbox Live?I'd think we could expect at least 6 months to a year for the 360 to keep it's live up and running after the 720 comes out. Anything longer than that and I wouldn't bother buying live, since I would expect it to get canceled at any second.

Talk of raising games to $70 and making used games obsolete? What a surprising development.

$70 for a game? No fracking way. That alone would make me say screw you next gen consoles




And yea, the Kinnect, is an annoying piece of junk. We bought our 360 in a package deal with the kinnect mostly for our kids to play with that one, they hate it. My son only uses it to chat with his friends while playing Minecraft. The thing annoys me to no end because its "voice recognition" is almost useless. I say almost, because it does pick up voices, just totally randomly and causes the shows we are watching to exit or fast forward 120x or skip, or go back and then randomly select something else. Best part is, the whole time youll be saying "Cancel.....CANCEL!....xbox cancel.....STOP! STOOOP!!!!!!!!!!" So I just unplug the damn thing.

The Kinect is only good for goofing around with friends while playing party-style games. The technology involved is far to expensive to make it any more effective than that on a gaming console. It's a fun gimmick, but unfortunately it'll soon be one that's forced down out throats whether we want it or not.

See I dont even think its a fun gimmick. Its pretty broken and most the games Ive played on it just dont work right. What the 1 minute reviewers review of the kinnect in long form. Hes pretty bang on.