Is the Wii U being released too early?

[detectivekr]

http://kotaku.com/5871091/the-myster...window-narrows

Current estimates are June through December, 2012. We'll probably see a more specific launch date at E3 this year. I've seen people on forums speculate that the PS4 and next-gen Xbox will also be announced at the E3 2012, but recent news articles suggest otherwise (http://www.itproportal.com/2012/01/1...o-ps4-e3-2012/). So we're looking at a Wii U release of 2012, and a PS4/Xbox release of 2013+, at the earliest.

Do you think Nintendo is making a move too early? If the Wii U is really just a year early, and the next-gen Xbox and PS4 are released in 2013, then perhaps the hardware will be mostly comparable. But if Sony and Microsoft wait long enough, they could seriously outclass the Wii U again in strength. Not that this was a humongous problem for Nintendo with the Wii, but I have a suspicion that Nintendo wants to make a bigger dent into the hardcore market again (after all, Arkham City was one of the big name titles its celebrated at announcement.) If the Wii U is inferior to the PS4/Xbox, it may not get the cross-platform hardcore games, putting it in the same limbo it was this generation.

We can all theorize that Nintendo is releasing the next Dreamcast -- and the parallels are fairly astonishing -- but what if we focused in on just the release? Do you think Nintendo is making the move too early, or do you think they'll capture the market by being first?

[Reg]

I can see Nintendo going strictly handheld if the Wii-U fails, which I think it will.

One benefit from this could possibly be Nintendo doing what Sega did and becomes a developer, with chances to see classic Nintendo characters on Sony/Microsoft platforms.

[LeVvE]

It's 3-4 years late, like every other console.
Sony wants to keep PS3 for 10 years, 10 YEARS, thats just stupid, way to keep everything back, lets all just start using Nokia 3310 again.

[Xyanide]

Nintendo needs to stop trying to reinvent itself, I mean sure they sell a lot of consoles, but who wouldn't when they were half the price of your competitors!

[Grym]

Wii stood its stance due to the originality when it came out.

I am not sure how original will the Wii-U be, if it isn't much difference, PS4 and XBox probably will their own version (similar to Kinetic, but better), then Wii-U wouldn't stand a chance.

I wish Nintendo would just go back to a more "normal" console though...

[pharaum]

nintendo should never stop innovating, if they do they will die off as a company. i predict the wii-u will outsell the wii and be more competitive then the wii as well as be more competitive for longer

[Grym]

how much more innovative they can be over this "swing your arm free controller"?

[Deleted]

It's 3-4 years late, like every other console.
Sony wants to keep PS3 for 10 years, 10 YEARS, thats just stupid, way to keep everything back, lets all just start using Nokia 3310 again.

Yes, stupid Sony. Needing to leverage their multi-billion dollar investment in the cell chip and development costs and wanting to recoup their money and make a profit.

It's almost as if they were trying to run a profitable business, rather than pandering to the masses that would like a new console every 3 years.

[Digglett]

Yes and no. Nintendo's move did make Sony rush to make PS4 however.

[Deleted]

I think that a lot of guys (me too) are waiting for the new xbox and ps4 before buying the Wii. I think that it will sell good tho because there are lots Wii fans out there and not only gamers like we here.

Wait and see !

[Edge-]

People said the exact same thing about the Wii. The Wii-U is going to have a 1-2 (probably 2) year lead on the next Microsoft/Sony console, so it's going to get a pretty big install base as people upgrade their Wii's to Wii-U's (man, the name is just awkward). Sure it's not going to have the most up to date hardware, last I saw it was comparable in power to current gen Xbox/PS3, but that's not really that much of a negative. The 3DS and the Wii were/are behind the times as far as hardware went when they came out, but that doesn't seem to be too harmful to either.

The dealbreaker is how interesting the new controller is going to be. Nintendo has been building itself on innovation (dual screen DS, motion control Wii, glasses free 3DS), which ends up being great for the rest of the industry (probably wouldn't have the Move or Kinect without Nintendo paving the way), so we'll see how this gets received.

[Video Games]

Console cycles are 6 years so it's right on time. This generation has felt a hell of a lot longer than the last ones.

[Digglett]

Console cycles are 6 years so it's right on time. This generation has felt a hell of a lot longer than the last ones.

I felt that way too. I dunno what it is. :/

[Skelington]

Meh. Even if the system isn't as powerful as the next Xbox/PS, the Wii and DS have both outsold them. Wii U will probably be just as comparable with all of its fancy innovations.

[delus]

Nintendo fills the niche of catering to younger audience and providing interactive gimmicks. They never really had much of the hardcore market to begin with. It's just not really in direct competition with the ps4/xbox.

[Deleted]

It's 3-4 years late, like every other console.
Sony wants to keep PS3 for 10 years, 10 YEARS, thats just stupid, way to keep everything back, lets all just start using Nokia 3310 again.

They said the same for PS2, and it did have 10 year lifespan. They want PS3 to stick around 10 years but that doesnt mean at 8th year of its life wild Ps4 appears...

Also usually they've been about 5 years, this ones been like..7 so far? So thats why it feels longer

[Skelington]

Nintendo fills the niche of catering to younger audience and providing interactive gimmicks. They never really had much of the hardcore market to begin with. It's just not really in direct competition with the ps4/xbox.

The "hardcore" market isn't exactly as big as the casual.

[LeVvE]

Yes, stupid Sony. Needing to leverage their multi-billion dollar investment in the cell chip and development costs and wanting to recoup their money and make a profit.

It's almost as if they were trying to run a profitable business, rather than pandering to the masses that would like a new console every 3 years.

Grats on wanting to stay in the stoneage, todays consoles dosn't even run at 1080P. Neither Sony or Microsoft goes + on their consoles, they never intend to in the first place. They get it all back and billions more on the games, why do you think the games are 50-70 euro each?

The only company going + on their console is Nintendo.

I don't think you see how wrong in every way this is, this is 10 years in technology time, DISASTER.
Keeping the technology back for such a long time, what do you think would happend if everyone else started to think "I made this product, I'll stop doing new stuff for another 10 years.", DISASTER.

Not everyone settle for mediocre.

[delus]

The "hardcore" market isn't exactly as big as the casual.

yes, it was more a knock at the misuse of the term in the survey

[Digglett]

Nintendo fills the niche of catering to younger audience and providing interactive gimmicks. They never really had much of the hardcore market to begin with. It's just not really in direct competition with the ps4/xbox.

I'm pretty sure Nintendo created a hardcore market of gamers back in the day..