Miyamoto finally admits Wii U won’t be as powerful as its competitors

[Dhalamar]

Uh ... because the original Wii is running identical hardware to the Gamecube at a little faster rate with more RAM? While the Wii U is going to be running off of totally different hardware? I'm going to venture a guess to the backwards compatibility ... they probably did what Sony did with the PS2 and the original PS3s that had backward compatibility with the PS2 ... shoved just enough of the previous generation's hardware in there for the games to run.

From the Gamecube to the Wii, yeah. That's literally an "upgrade". From the PS2 and the PS3 and Xbox to Xbox 360? That's more like a jump to a totally different more powerful architecture. The original PS2 ran whatever it ran, and the PS3 has those cell processors with immensely more powerful video capabilities. The original Xbox was basically just a P3/733 Coppermine with 64MB of RAM and a custom Geforce 3 in a big, ugly black box. The 360 runs off of of a multicore Xenon processor with ATI graphics.

Saying the Wii U is an upgrade from the orignal Wii is like saying my dual core AMD processor is the same as my old 500mhz AMD K6 processor ... just a little faster. lol

[Flare]

Speaking of...

Wii U retail price in Australia: 598 AUD ($634 USD)


Although the price for the Nintendo Wii U hasn't been set, EB Games Australia has listed an estimate for the console at $598 in Australian dollars. Converted to American dollars, that's roughly $633.00 $634.00, which is substantially more than the most expensive models of the PS3 and Xbox 360.

By console, that's $200 more than a top-of-the-line Xbox 360 Kinect bundle, $200 more than a PS3 Move kit, and roughly $450 more than a new Nintendo Wii.

[indieseoul]

Yeah well estimates are rarely ever correct. I predict the Wii U will retail for around 300 to 350 bucks. Maybe a bit more but not 600 dollars. Sony and 3DO have already made that mistake and I doubt that Nintendo would like to repeat it.

[Duke.Togo]

I think I would be more interested in this if instead of the controller, they just used 3DS for the same thing and included one of them in the box. This controller makes no sense to me when they already have a product out that can do more than the controller can and still be a portable.

[Dhalamar]

I've read that they're going to charge 400 to 450 US for it. Which makes sense considering the drastic overcharge for outdated hardware in the original system.

[The Top Crusader]

I'm just not sure why, if Nintendo really wants to go after the more "hardcore" gamer, they are going with a name like "Wii U" which clearly is going to make most people think of "Wii, Upgraded". I suppose they could still change the name at this point, though.

Also, I hope that apart from the included touch screen controller, there is just a regular normal console controller that I don't have to wave around or hold a toggle thing in one hand and a stick in another, etc.

[tcv]

Maybe they could just offer a black version with small needles in the buttons that cause the player to bleed from his fingers. That's hardcore.

[Todd1780]

I'm just not sure why, if Nintendo really wants to go after the more "hardcore" gamer, they are going with a name like "Wii U" which clearly is going to make most people think of "Wii, Upgraded". I suppose they could still change the name at this point, though.

Just remember that not too long before its release, the Wii was known as the "Revolution". I agree that Wii-U makes it sound like an upgrade to the Wii instead of a new console. This is looking more and more like the console they should have released to compete with the PS3 and the Xbox 360.
Also remember that Nintendo has a very long history of telling gamers what they should want, instead of the other way around.
Nintendo64 was knocked for being cartridge based...Nintendo said that gamers wanted the fast boot up and instant loading times carts can offer.
The GameCube was knocked for not supporting DVD playback. Nintendo said that most people, by this point, already have a DVD player in thier home. Gamers dont need thier games to be on DVD.
And the Wii....well you get my point.
One last point.....the 3DS.

All cynicism aside; Nintendo desperately needs to get the attention of gamers because the 3DS isn't doing well.

Its true the 3DS isn't doing what some would consider well right now...but it certainly isnt doing bad either. What we haven't seen yet for the 3DS are the Marios, the Zeldas (Ocarina of Time doesn't count) , the Star Foxes, the Mario Carts, the.....need I go on?
Once Nintendo starts slamming the 3DS with the power and quality of its 1st party properties it will take off just like the DS did.
I mean who has more well known and well loved first party properties than Nintendo? Simple fact...Mario and Zelda sell systems. Period.

[bill_loguidice]

Its true the 3DS isn't doing what some would consider well right now...but it certainly isnt doing bad either. What we haven't seen yet for the 3DS are the Marios, the Zeldas (Ocarina of Time doesn't count) , the Star Foxes, the Mario Carts, the.....need I go on?
Once Nintendo starts slamming the 3DS with the power and quality of its 1st party properties it will take off just like the DS did.
I mean who has more well known and well loved first party properties than Nintendo? Simple fact...Mario and Zelda sell systems. Period.

Many - myself included - predicted that the 3DS would not do anywhere near as well as the DS series did. There are two major reasons for that. One, is that the market that the 3DS was released into is far different than the market that the DS was released into. Today's market has a LOT of mobile devices - VERY capable mobile devices - that are competing for the same or similar dollars. Two, is that at the combination of price point and pecularities of the gimmick (the 3D), it is not necessarily a viable child's platform (and certainly not at this stage). Being child friendly worked big time in the DS line's favor, and frankly, the DS Lite/i are still the systems of choice for that set. So yeah, those two factors may work against Nintendo this go round with their portable. I *still* think it will ultimately succeed, but this will be the first Nintendo handheld that won't eclipse the previous generation in sales by the end of its lifecycle.

As for the Wii U, I can tell you from first hand experience that there are many issues right off the bat with the console. The name is confusing. The purpose is confusing. Both those things apply to lay people of course, not us, but those are core issues Nintendo will have to overcome. The other issue is one that was already mentioned--timing. Instead of focusing on games for the Wii, Nintendo completely dropped support (whether true or not, that's the perception, but looking at the releases, it's mostly true), creating a bad taste with the very gamers who they need to count on as early adopters of the system. That combined with giving such a huge heads-up to the competition to copy and then trump all the best features - as well as providing ample opportunity for the CURRENT Microsoft and Sony systems to remain competitive, is not necessarily a recipe for success. There's also still no definitive word on whether or not the console will support more than one touchscreen controller. Relegating players 2 - 4 to Wii controllers is NOT a good move, no matter how clever the primary controller is. The idea is not to alienate other players, but to include them. Player 1 having the best control setup is not a way to accomplish that.

Anyway, I could go on, but all of these issues are very, very obvious. Also, at some point, Nintendo has to start generating new IPs. Rolling out the same games - no matter how much the Nintendo faithful laps them up - is eventually going to backfire. I mean, I love Mario Kart as much as anyone, but yet another version (hey, this time you can go underwater!) is not exactly a way to generate a great deal of excitement.