Wii U? Y Not? - for Single-Player Multi-Platform Games

#1 Posted by StarvingGamer (8158 posts) -


#2 Edited by StarvingGamer (8158 posts) -

Since E3, I've heard a number of journalists predicting the Wii U's impending failure to recapture the hardcore through third-party developers and multi-platform games. Now, on the multiplayer side of things, I have to agree that consumers are more likely to stay with XBL and PSN unless Nintendo does a total 180 and knocks it out of the park with their online service. Even then, it will be hard to tear players away from their established communities and friendlists.

But now that the Wii U is becoming a known quantity, I find myself wondering why the Wii U couldn't become the new go-to for single-player focused games for a significant portion of the core gaming community. With more power than the PS3 and Xbox360 and a fully functional controller (minus clicky sticks but I hate it when games use those 99% of the time anyways), there should be no reason third-party games shouldn't achieve total feature parity on the Wii U. Additionally, developers will have the ability to enhance the experience through use of the secondary screen on the "New Controller."

So my question to you is this:

Assuming you owned all three consoles, if a single-player focused multi-platform game had feature parity in addition to compelling utilization of the unique features of the "New Controller," would you buy it for the Wii U over other platforms?

If no, then Y Not?

#3 Posted by DeeGee (2122 posts) -

No. I have an Xbox already, this is not what I want from a Nintendo console in the slightest. I'll buy it for the fun, five player mutliplayer it's offering, for when friends come around. The Wii, despite having almost no good games, was great for parties and I imagine this will be the same.

Assuming it had full feature parity, I'd choose my Xbox again because I can't stress enough how comfortable modern day controllers have gotten. The "New Controller" is a square chunk of plastic that I don't really want to be holding while I lounge around playing games by myself.

So Wii U doesn't get my vote for single player. It'll be my go-to party console though.

#4 Edited by Slaker117 (4838 posts) -

We'll have to wait and see, but I have a hard time believing that whatever added functionality will be enough to justify the cost of a new system that will likely be outclassed by a significant margin in a few years. While they will want to take advantage of the fancy new controller, I doubt devs will do anything to dramatically improve the experience in multi-platform games out of fear that they will alienate the people who haven't jumped ship. As with the all of Nintendo's consoles, if I get one, it'll be for the exclusives.

#5 Posted by RE_Player1 (7558 posts) -
I go to Nintendo for exclusives. Why would I want to play Batman on the WiiU a year later than the PS3 and 360 versions. Same goes for games that will come out the same time, I already have a console for those games. No when they want to make exclusives like Pikmin 3 or third parties want to make games like No More Heroes, which is coming to the PS3 btw!!!!!!, than I'll think about it.
#6 Posted by RE_Player1 (7558 posts) -

Tons of errors in my post. One thing I hate and wish was changed about the site, being able to edit on the mobile site.

#7 Edited by StarvingGamer (8158 posts) -

@Slaker117: Should have been more clear, I made the poll assuming that someone would already own all three consoles. But I agree, it's hard to imagine developers will go out of their way to do anything really special with the Wii U controller. I try to stay optimistic though.

@RE_Player92: I know, I hate that too! It's made me a better proofreader though :P

#8 Posted by Vexxan (4620 posts) -

Will probably buy it for the exclusives, not for multi-platform fames.

#9 Posted by Slaker117 (4838 posts) -

@StarvingGamer: I see. In that case, still probably not. Too invested in the Xbox infrastructure at this point, and I really like their controller design. The Wii U's, while new and interesting, doesn't seem like something that would fit in my hands all that well. Seeing as I'm prone to RSI, something like that is a big deal to me.

#10 Posted by NTM (7344 posts) -

Of course I'll be playing the exclusives, and it really just depends on what game it is that I make the decision to get it on a certain system. I don't really have a go to platform unless it's a certain game, then again, I often get games I like on one system, on another.

#11 Posted by MikkaQ (10284 posts) -

There's a few limitations, like the lack of clicking in the stick, the digital triggers, the sheer awkwardness of the size of the Wii U controller... and the fact that it will be quickly outdated. It's going to be a good system for single player game ports for like two-three year, tops.

#12 Edited by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

I would go for the option, "The Wii U isn't worth a purchase for only 1st party games. All the other games I want to play are already on my PS3 and Xbox." 
 
Since it will probably be in the $300-400 price range, and there would realistically only probably be 4-5 games I would want to play during the console's life cycle (Metroid, Mario, Smash, Zelda, et), that sort of investment doesn't seem worth it even if there are some novel control hooks.

#13 Posted by StarvingGamer (8158 posts) -

@BrockNRolla: This is more of a hypothetical "if you had all three what would you do" sort of thing. Also if it retails for more than $300 I will eat my hat.

#14 Posted by boylie (305 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

The Wii U isn't worth a purchase for only 1st party games. All the other games I want to play are already on my PS3 and Xbox.

This

#15 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -
@StarvingGamer said:

@BrockNRolla: This is more of a hypothetical "if you had all three what would you do" sort of thing. Also if it retails for more than $300 I will eat my hat.

I assume you mean the price is low-balling it, but wouldn't it seem crazy to offer a console with limited tech improvements and make is substantially more expensive than its competitors? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just thinking about Nintendo's continued "keep the price down" mantra, and thinking that just maybe they are gunning for a value proposition argument. Doesn't seem likely, but it would be an interesting play. 
 
Subsequently, what sort of hat would you be eating?
#16 Posted by StarvingGamer (8158 posts) -

@BrockNRolla: Actually I'm thinking that anything more than $300 will be high-balling it. Higher than $300 will be financial suicide and lower than $250 will probably start cutting into Nintendo's profits.

Also this one looks appealing.

#17 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -
@StarvingGamer said:

@BrockNRolla: Actually I'm thinking that anything more than $300 will be high-balling it. Higher than $300 will be financial suicide and lower than $250 will probably start cutting into Nintendo's profits.

Also this one looks appealing.

Color my very intrigued. I can't imagine a new console release at such a low price. 
 
Good thing you picked such a tasty hat.
#18 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

Its Nintendo. Nintendo have always just been about the first party games.

#19 Posted by StarvingGamer (8158 posts) -

@MysteriousBob said:

Its Nintendo. Nintendo have always just been about the first party games.

But it doesn't have to be that way!

#20 Posted by CakeBomb (219 posts) -

I don't get it, Gamecube and Dreamcast were powerful and cheap at the same time, why can't Wii U?

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.