Hardware Why make a console that is backwards compatible ?

[Maxternal]

The Wii sales figure is mostly from Wii Mini.

Poor misguided consumers ...

Are the old family models of the Wii actually still in production anymore?

 

[trumpet-205]

Are the old family models of the Wii actually still in production anymore?

They are still in production, but local retail store stocks Wii Mini these days rather than Family model.

 

[Luigi2012SM64DS]

Sega, I'm looking at you.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Seems to me that it's a bad idea for the Wii U to be backwards compatible with Wii games.
I doubt Xbox1 and PS4 are backwards compatible.
Seems like it ties you to the past, restricting the future.

Oh yeah backwards compatibility to play old games you already own is definitely a bad idea, a great idea is making you pay for games you already own in order to play again.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

The way I see it, the Wii U "failed" because Nintendo missed their chance to make a powerful console for next-gen like its competitors. But I also think Nintendo has been "cursed" with a childsh/casual reputation and that even if they did come up with a truly powerful system, the PS4 would still outsell it anyway.

Nevertheless, I love Nintendo systems and even if their systems are not best-sellers I will want to have them as long as they don't do like Sega and abadon their console.

 

[stomp_442]

The way I see it, the Wii U "failed" because Nintendo missed their chance to make a powerful console for next-gen like its competitors. But I also think Nintendo has been "cursed" with a childsh/casual reputation and that even if they did come up with a truly powerful system, the PS4 would still outsell it anyway.

Nevertheless, I love Nintendo systems and even if their systems are not best-sellers I will want to have them as long as they don't do like Sega and abadon their console.

I don't think that Nintendo lost out with the Wii U because of the power the console has, it has more to do with their player base. Nintendo has failed to secure a player base for their home consoles. Look at their handheld console, the vita is a much powerful machine opposed to the 3DS, but more people buy the 3DS because Nintendo has secured a good sized player base. The Wii U player base has a lot of variables, and how powerful the console is is just one of the variables. Third party support, and multiplayer online gamep play probably has more to do with the player base than the power of the console, and the Wii and DS sales numbers proves that you don't need to have the most powerful machine to be able to sell them.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

The way I see it, the Wii U "failed" because Nintendo missed their chance to make a powerful console for next-gen like its competitors. But I also think Nintendo has been "cursed" with a childsh/casual reputation and that even if they did come up with a truly powerful system, the PS4 would still outsell it anyway.

Nevertheless, I love Nintendo systems and even if their systems are not best-sellers I will want to have them as long as they don't do like Sega and abadon their console.

People don't seem to grasp that Nintendo isn't competing against Microsoft or Sony, their line of games is entirely different to what Microsoft/Sony offer.

You don't see a shit-ton of shooters or sports' games on Nintendo consoles like you see on Xbox and PlayStation.

And one last thing, PS Vita is more powerful than 3DS so that means it's better? Nope. 3DS has a far superior catalogue of games than Vita will ever.

Gameplay > Graphics

 

[trumpet-205]

Wii U is not successful at this point because it hasn't accomplished what Iwata is aiming, "bringing core gamers back". That's WIi U "mission" when it was announced by Nintendo.

Right now Iwata has to find a way to hit 9 million sales figure before March, which means it needs sell 2 million per month. I'm not sure why Nintendo has yet to revise sales projection since it seems very unlikely to happen.

People don't seem to grasp that Nintendo isn't competing against Microsoft or Sony, their line of games is entirely different to what Microsoft/Sony offer.

And this is why I wish Iwata to be replaced with someone else. Not saying that Nintendo needs to drop first party brand, but if you don't reach out to major third-parties then Nintendo will remain being a supplement to other consoles.

 

[Gahars]

Gameplay > Graphics

That only helps if you have games to play.

 

[the_randomizer]

That only helps if you have games to play.

Oh, like the PS Vita.

 

[Gahars]

Oh, like the PS Vita.

Yup. And?

 

[stomp_442]

That only helps if you have games to play.

^^ what he said

I bought my U to play call of duty in HD, other than those 2 games I've only bought two other games since launch day.

 

[the_randomizer]

Yup. And?

No reason in particular. Just wanted to mention it because it has no gaemz

 

[FAST6191]

No reason in particular. Just wanted to mention it because it has no gaemz

And you moan at others for doing the same in various Wii related threads.

Oh yeah backwards compatibility to play old games you already own is definitely a bad idea, a great idea is making you pay for games you already own in order to play again.

But you own the license to play an instance of the game rather than a game itself.

People don't seem to grasp that Nintendo isn't competing against Microsoft or Sony, their line of games is entirely different to what Microsoft/Sony offer.

You don't see a shit-ton of shooters or sports' games on Nintendo consoles like you see on Xbox and PlayStation.

And one last thing, PS Vita is more powerful than 3DS so that means it's better? Nope. 3DS has a far superior catalogue of games than Vita will ever.

Gameplay > Graphics

Really? They are all making (up to and including having chips fabbed for the purpose) and selling boxes to sit under my TV and play games. The kids seem happy enough to play games on any of them (there are certainly options for all on the Sony and MS offerings) and I only have a limited amount of money and under the TV space.

As for the 3ds I still hold it has a poor library compared to its predecessors. Wonder if I can call the Android library superior yet..... I sense a troll front page post coming up.

 

[spinal_cord]

Do you want a powerful (truly Next Gen) Wii U or a relatively underpowered Wii U with backwards compatibility ?

You can't have both.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't see your logic in thinking that a console MUST be underpowered to have backward compatibility. The Wii-U is underpowered because that's how Nintendo have been working lately. It worked perfectly fine for the Wii and the DS.

I think it discourages software development. If your software company already have a Wii version of a game, why make a Wii U version ?

Why make a Wii-U version? same reason they make Medal of Honour 5,6,7,8 etc. Because consumers are stupid enough to think they need to play the same game over and over on new hardware just because it's there.

I played Super Mario Bros. 1,2 and 3 back in the early 90's, so why then should I play Super Mario Allstars on the SNES in the mid 90's? Because it was slightly different and graphically a bit better. By your logic, I should never play a Super Mario game ever again just because I bought Super Mario Bros. on the NES.


Backwards compatibility is a good thing. It means that you can sell your old console to make money/space for a new one and still keep your old games. Both people benefit from this. You win by keeping hold of the games you like to play and not having two (or more) consoles taking space under/above your TV, clogging up your power outlets and TV inputs. The company wins by selling you a new console.

 

[zeello]

I don't see your logic in thinking that a console MUST be underpowered to have backward compatibility.

That is actually how I see it. BC makes the system more expensive and that is obviously why Sony and MS don't do it. Their focus is purely on graphics which drives up the cost of the system like crazy.

It could be argued that Nintendo adds BC precisely because they are not about graphics. But it could also be because they are the family company and taking out BC would confuse or irritate consumers, in which case it's not really Nintendo's fault.

Another point worth mentioning is that Wii costs 100 while PS3 costs 250... so obviously it was much cheaper for Nintendo to implement BC than it was for Sony and MS.

 

[sion_zaphod]

Backwards compatibility is a must. Or is everyone naive enough to buy old games that have been converted to DLC for the newer system? Some people buy the DLC games even when they still own the original game. Microsoft and Sony have cut backwards compatibility for the simple reason they want to screw people out of more money for so called HD remakes as DLC. I would say it has sod all to do with hardware restrictions. Look at PS3 slims sony said it cannot play ps2 games yet they release PS2 classics as DLC. Thankyou whoever cracked that!

Sony adds BC to ps4 and charges you for it :-

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/08/plays...aming-ps3-games-to-ps4-vita-and-more-4254089/
http://haverzine.com/2014/01/07/son...ty-to-the-playstation-4-with-playstation-now/

 

[FAST6191]

Backwards compatibility is a must. Or is everyone naive enough to buy old games that have been converted to DLC for the newer system? Some people buy the DLC games even when they still own the original game. Microsoft and Sony have cut backwards compatibility for the simple reason they want to screw people out of more money for so called HD remakes as DLC. I would say it has sod all to do with hardware restrictions. Look at PS3 slims sony said it cannot play ps2 games yet they release PS2 classics as DLC. Thankyou whoever cracked that!

Sony adds BC to ps4 and charges you for it :-

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/08/plays...aming-ps3-games-to-ps4-vita-and-more-4254089/
http://haverzine.com/2014/01/07/son...ty-to-the-playstation-4-with-playstation-now/

It is known that convenience will cost, if a company provides the option for convenience then they may get paid for it.... makes sense.

 

[trumpet-205]

Microsoft and Sony have cut backwards compatibility for the simple reason they want to screw people out of more money for so called HD remakes as DLC.

They may earn more profit by cutting out BC, but that doesn't mean including BC is a good idea for them to begin with. In order to introduce PS2 BC on PS3 with high compatibility, they have to include nearly every components of PS2 (including out of production RDRAM). X360 opt for software emulation all the way and its compatibility is a hit or miss. Can't even get its Halo game playing glitch-free on X360.

Same thing with PS4 and X1, either includes hardwares of old consoles (which increase design complexity and cost), or opt for hit or miss emulation. Wii U, being just faster version of Wii, can simply run Wii game on its own.

Beside, there is SNES, NES, N64, etc being sold as Virtual Console. If you're going to complain why not include them?

 

[zeello]

Microsoft and Sony have cut backwards compatibility for the simple reason they want to screw people out of more money for so called HD remakes as DLC.

I doubt that was a major factor in their decision. Because let's say they could have implemented BC for free.. would they have done it? Heck yea they would have done it.