Gaming Nintendo have released Super Mario Galaxy 2 on the eShop 50% off £8.99

[aofelix]

Why are you comparing the PS3 to the Wii U? PS3's competitor was the 360 and it's PlayStation so it was bound to rise up again since it had support from customers around Europe and Japan, then also America (mainly where Xbox sells at its highest). Also remember, once Sony went with PS3 Slim things got a lot better for them due to the lower prices, low failure rate, free online play, awesome exclusives and more.

Wii U will never achieve the popularity and profitability of 360 or PS3, and I think most Nintendo fans have realised it.

lol what

PS3 was a massive bitch for Sony profit wise.

please watch:

 

[Hiccup]

Is there any way to compare these re-releases's files with the original releases file?

 

[WiiCube_2013]

lol what

PS3 was a massive...

Sony dropped off the fat models not too long after because they saw that they were more of a hassle than anything else thus far the Slim editions came in play. The only reason why Wii sold so well was due to the trend but most of them weren't even used much, either left in the dust or sold on eBay.

Wii U's a commercial failure and no one can change that. Nintendo doesn't even give a shit about Wii U either.

 

[BORTZ]

Is there any way to compare these re-releases's files with the original releases file?

From what I can tell, this download version is exactly the same as the Wii version. The only differences are that it loads from the wiiu menu and not the wii menu, and has a (PDF like) instruction manual with it.

 

[aofelix]

Sony dropped off the fat models not too long after because they saw that they were more of a hassle than anything else thus far the Slim editions came in play. The only reason why Wii sold so well was due to the trend but most of them weren't even used much, either left in the dust or sold on eBay.

Wii U's a commercial failure and no one can change that. Nintendo doesn't even give a shit about Wii U either.

Sony did not just lose money on the fat consoles lost per unit. They pumped millions maybe billions of dollars into R&D of cell architecture which was eventually deemed as a crap choice as it was too difficult to program for and harness.

Sales numbers <<< profit.
You are completely missing the point. You said profitability. The PS3 did not turn a profit.
The wii did turn a profit. a Huge profit. The Wii U being a commercial failure has nothing told with you saying it won't match the PS3's non existent profitability.

Also the Wii won the last console generation in every single way imaginable. The Wii isn't to blame for the Wii U's failure. Its Nintendo's lack of insight and slickness in making the transition from that gen to this gen.

But bringing us back to the main point, you even mentioning the PS3 with the term profitability in a positive way is downright wrong. They emptied the PS2 coffers with the PS3.

 

[DjoeN]

I have bought the Wii version when it came out, i do not see the need to buy it again digital on the Wii-U

 

[Hiccup]

From what I can tell, this download version is exactly the same as the Wii version. The only differences are that it loads from the wiiu menu and not the wii menu, and has a (PDF like) instruction manual with it.

It does appear so, but I'm more interested in tiny file differences and that sort of thing

 

[WiiCube_2013]

The Wii won in every way? PS3 had and still has much better online play, exclusives, hardware and so on. Wii's only good to play GameCube & Wii games and hacking it.

Wii in its entirety was purchased by average people who never played much of games before and after a while they forgot about it anyway.

 

[DjoeN]

Wii was only very popular cause it was so easy to hack and had a descent amount of good emulators and homebrew on it
(My kids still play on the Wii, i recently bought Just Dance 2015 cheap for it)

 

[Guild McCommunist]

To be fair analysts, near the end, said the Wii might not be the definite winner of the last gen. Yes, even money-wise.

Fact is it did really well at one point and then dropped off a goddamn cliff near the end. Plus it kinda shit all over their future. Everyone bought a Wii, saw it as a novelty, and quickly got bored of it. If the console remained rock solid near the end then the Wii U would have had record-breaking preorders and sales like the PS4 and XB1 did.

Yes, Sony doesn't profit off the systems but moves a ton of software as well as things like PS+ subscriptions. When Sony was struggling as a company because of lousy TV and computer sales, their gaming sector stayed solid.

 

[DjoeN]

Don't forget, that the Wii was the console with the highest rate of shovelware games dumped on it, that also made it cliff higher to fall of.

I liked the Wii, the concept etc... but goddamned, those shovelware games where a pest!

 

[BORTZ]

I often wonder what the wii would have looked like had nintendo released what we now have as the "Wiiu" as the original wii revolution. Things would have been different, but would it have been a good different?

 

[grossaffe]

Wii was only very popular cause it was so easy to hack and had a descent amount of good emulators and homebrew on it
(My kids still play on the Wii, i recently bought Just Dance 2015 cheap for it)

um... no. The Wii was insanely popular out the gate long before it was hacked, and the hacking community is a mere fraction of the Wii's total sales.

 

[aofelix]

The Wii won in every way? PS3 had and still has much better online play, exclusives, hardware and so on. Wii's only good to play GameCube & Wii games and hacking it.

Wii in its entirety was purchased by average people who never played much of games before and after a while they forgot about it anyway.

In every way that matters from a "profitability" stand point.

You don't win a console generation based on having the better games, better online or hardware when you talk about "profitability" (I'm once again quoting you).


Bad branding and bad advertising is hard for ANY product to overcome. Anyway, thats moving the topic away from your post and your mention of profitability and associating with the PS3. You are plain wrong unless you want to change the definition of profitability.

From a quality of gaming perspective... well its very subjective. I think the PS3 might just edge it in terms of exclusives although if you look at the Wii's library, it is insanely good for such an underpowered console. From an online experience, of course it doesn't do well but that has nothing to do with "profitability".



"96 million consoles sold

Mario Kart wii 32 million units sold
Wii Sports Resort 30 million units sold
Wii Play 28 million unit sold
New Super Mario Bros. Wii 26 million units sold
Wii Fit 22 million units sold
Wii Fit Plus 20 million units sold"

 

[aofelix]

To be fair analysts, near the end, said the Wii might not be the definite winner of the last gen. Yes, even money-wise.

Fact is it did really well at one point and then dropped off a goddamn cliff near the end. Plus it kinda shit all over their future. Everyone bought a Wii, saw it as a novelty, and quickly got bored of it. If the console remained rock solid near the end then the Wii U would have had record-breaking preorders and sales like the PS4 and XB1 did.

Yes, Sony doesn't profit off the systems but moves a ton of software as well as things like PS+ subscriptions. When Sony was struggling as a company because of lousy TV and computer sales, their gaming sector stayed solid.

It definitely wasn't Sony. I'm pretty sure Nintendo won no matter which way you want to analyse it. The Wii definitely shit all over Nintendo's future but that isn't the point. MS messed up when they could have dominated with their license and Kinect.

My point is someone associating the PS3 with profit is.. well wrong.

Associating the PS3 with great games, great exclusives, great graphics... thats a different matter and they'd be more right there.

 

[shinkodachi]

It's all about the context you put it in. If the PS3 was a financial failure, it certainly wasn't a commercial failure and this is reflected in the sales of the PS4 being stronger than ever. Despite losing money on each PS3 (and barely breaking even on each PS3 slim), Sony stood behind the PS3 and supported it (and still supports it) as best as they could. If Microsoft didn't screw up with their DRM policies for the Xbox One, they could've taken the lead, but that's just one of the mistakes they did (with the other glaring mistake being the forced Kinect bundle at launch).

Nintendo is not losing money on Wii U. They have tons of cash from the previous generation thanks to the Wii. But despite that, Nintendo being in the optimal situation financially, they still produced a commercially failing console. Put it in that context, it's not about whether a company makes or loses money with their hardware. Everyone and their mother knows that software sells hardware. Sony knows that all too well, which is why PS4 is selling like hot cakes even though there's barely anything important to play on it. (It's the strong brand that comes with the promise of the great games we saw in the previous generation.) Nintendo on the other hand is relying on the Mario Kart 8 strategy, which is not a good strategy. Having a couple of high level titles releasing for the Wii U in a year with crappy releases in between only ensures that nobody is going to give a damn about the Wii U. Compare this to the 3DS, which not only is getting the high level titles in great amounts, but Nintendo also surprises us with strong releases in between (e.g. the new Fire Emblem game that nobody saw coming).

Just my 0,02 euros.

 

[aofelix]

It's all about the context you put it in. If the PS3 was a financial failure, it certainly wasn't a commercial failure and this is reflected in the sales of the PS4 being stronger than ever. Despite losing money on each PS3 (and barely breaking even on each PS3 slim), Sony stood behind the PS3 and supported it (and still supports it) as best as they could. If Microsoft didn't screw up with their DRM policies, they could've taken the lead, but that's just one of the mistakes they did (with the other glaring mistake being the forced Kinect bundle at launch).

Nintendo is not losing money on Wii U. They have tons of cash from the previous generation thanks to the Wii. But despite that, Nintendo being in the optimal situation financially, they still produced a commercially failing console. Put it in that context, it's not about whether a company makes or loses money with their hardware. Everyone and their mother knows that software sells hardware. Sony knows that all too well, which is why PS4 is selling like hot cakes even though there's barely anything important to play on it. (It's the strong brand that comes with the promise of the great games we saw in the previous generation.) Nintendo on the other hand is relying on the Mario Kart 8 strategy, which is not a good strategy. Having a couple of high level titles releasing for the Wii U in a year with crappy releases in between only ensures that nobody is going to give a damn about the Wii U. Compare this to the 3DS, which not only is getting the high level titles in great amounts, but Nintendo also surprises us with strong releases in between (e.g. the new Fire Emblem game that nobody saw coming).

Just my 0,02 euros.

We are talking about profitaibility

This is not a debate about success or longevity of brands due to the consoles associated. Everyone and their mother knows the Wii damaged Nintendo's appeal to core gamers. Even then, that argument is paper thin. The PS2 captured the hearts of 150 million core gamers? I don't think so. A lot of those were casuals too but Sony managed to advertise and brand accordingly.


(I think you'll be in agreement with me that Nintendo from start to finish have branded and advertised the Wii U as poorly as they could have. It had no chance out the gate.)



I'm talking about the poster associating the PS3 with profitaibility when in reality it was a damage control scenario from the first year onwards (and it was controlled very very well). They damage-controlled the PS3 to perfection, maintaining mass brand appeal to consumers for next gen. Nothing but praise for Sony but it still stands that associating the PS3's profitability as something to aspire to is nothing short to stupid.

 

[shinkodachi]

Profitability must be looked at in the long run. It's the performance of a company in yielding a financial benefit that exceeds the costs to sustain their activity. I don't know the truth behind it, but it's plausible that Sony knowingly developed the PS3 with expensive technology to ensure it has a strong portfolio in later years that will be supported by the succeeding platform. We're starting to see that with PlayStation Now and the association of now familiar technology (e.g. Blu-ray).

PS3 alone was not profitable nor financially viable and it threw Sony off to an extremely volatile state, forcing them to liquidate many of the company's assets including some of their divisions. I don't think it was entirely about damage control in the previous generation though. Companies don't make projections only to 5 and 10 years from now. They project sales and brand value 20, 30 years from now. It's hard to imagine such a strategy, but unless Sony is extremely lucky, we're seeing the fruits with the PS4 now.

 

[aofelix]

Profitability must be looked at in the long run. It's the performance of a company in yielding a financial benefit that exceeds the costs to sustain their activity. I don't know the truth behind it, but it's plausible that Sony knowingly developed the PS3 with expensive technology to ensure it has a strong portfolio in later years that will be supported by the succeeding platform. We're starting to see that with PlayStation Now and the association of now familiar technology (e.g. Blu-ray).

PS3 alone was not profitable nor financially viable and it threw Sony off to an extremely volatile state, forcing them to liquidate many of the company's assets including some of their divisions. I don't think it was entirely about damage control in the previous generation though. Companies don't make projections only to 5 and 10 years from now. They project sales and brand value 20, 30 years from now. It's hard to imagine such a strategy, but unless Sony is extremely lucky, we're seeing the fruits with the PS4 now.

The PS3 was just not profitable. It was a mistake. It lost Sony money. If sony could re-do it over, they'd dump the billions they put into cell technology and instead dominate like they did in the PS2 era.

Sony developed the PS3 with cell technology to most probably get third party developers to develop for them and them only. Also Sony at that port in time wanted to take over the world. They wanted Blu Ray to become the standard and I'm sure they wanted cell processors to become the norm in PCs/hardware too. Sadly it failed.

The PS4's success was clearly due to damage control. They cut the price on consoles, shifted as many units as they could into homes and released excellent titles to get more and more people to buy the PS3. In turn, it meant they maintained their fanbase and the PS4 boomed. They were more modest this gen. They now listen to gamers rather than presume that they know what we want. Whilst MS were telling us we needed to be online all the time and couldn't buy second hand games, Sony said come to us.

If only Nintendo could do the same this gen... then again... even if they can, it doesn't matter because multi platforms are necessary to compete with the big 2.

 

[shinkodachi]

Yes, I agree with you. What I'd like to know is that Sony definitely knew the cost of the PS3 when developing it, so why did they go for it? They did try to take over the world as you put it, advertising features like OtherOS and being able to use it as a computer. Interestingly there was PS2 Linux previously as well, so Sony definitely thought about the PS3 for a long time and their plan failed.