I find the best way to deal with the gamepad mirroring is to set it on the cradle and forget it while using another controller of some sort to play the game. This way it does not drain battery for no reason and does not become distracting. Also the game pad is not replaceable, so I prefer to minimize button use on that as much as possible, if I can use another controller... I will. As I said before certain games require the gamepad though like Mario 3D world and its used in the system menus so they can't take it out without a major overhaul to the system and without major game patches at the very least.
Wii U - General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter dothog
- Start date
If using another controller, you can turn the gamepad screen off and set it aside and it will stay off.
It's only an issue for something, as you note, like Super Mario 3D World where it just mirrors, but you really have to use the gamepad as some levels use the microphone and/or touch screen.
So building in an option to turn it off and have it not come back on when a button is pressed would be nice to have. They could just update the os so you have to go back into the home menu where you turn the screen off in order to turn it back on. Then in 3D World I could at least turn the screen off and just turn it back on when in one of the few stages that require touching blocks etc. It could stay off for the microphone stuff.
It's only an issue for something, as you note, like Super Mario 3D World where it just mirrors, but you really have to use the gamepad as some levels use the microphone and/or touch screen.
So building in an option to turn it off and have it not come back on when a button is pressed would be nice to have. They could just update the os so you have to go back into the home menu where you turn the screen off in order to turn it back on. Then in 3D World I could at least turn the screen off and just turn it back on when in one of the few stages that require touching blocks etc. It could stay off for the microphone stuff.
chimpmeister
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
Then cut the price to $199 (or less) to account for the removed gamepad. Really seems like Nintendo didn't flesh out the concept/design of the Wii U much at all. I wouldn't ever pay $150 to replace a controller on a console (which is about what the gamepads cost in Japan), and the second screen is really more of a distraction than a benefit. They could have beefed up the anemic specs on the console itself if the gamepad wasn't forced into the console bundle. Hard to understand what they were thinking when they designed this system,
Last edited by a moderator:
Deader2818
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 31 (100%)
The gamepad is hardly distraction. Im not sure if you have never owned/used a Wii U.
TimboSliceGB
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
i don't know i just feel like the gamepad is what makes the wii u dif then just being wii hd. Would be awful idea if they drop the gamepad coming with every system.
chimpmeister
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
I've used it enough to know that I don't care for it at all. I prefer a traditional, comfortable controller (360 and PS4 are my favorites), to some poorly-designed, low-res wannabe tablet. I already have a Nexus 7 FHD as a tablet, have no desire for a low-res terminal/controller for a game console. And apparently, judging by the poor sales for the Wii U, many people agree,
Deader2818
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 31 (100%)
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
If you leave a disc in the Wii U there is a white light that stays on. Is there some way to disable that? I see no reason to take the disc out every time.
chimpmeister
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
If the console had better specs and wasn't missing so many standard features, yes.
CORRECTION: Add to that, also, if there were games I'd actually want to play on it, and if they did away with their ridiculous anti-customer DRM (games are tied to hardware, not accounts). Right now I can think of one game I'd like to play, the new Mario one. Most of the others just don't appeal to me. But I'll admit I haven't looked at the estore, so there may be others. Couldn't stand the Wii so no interest in those games at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sir_Fragalot
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
May is kinda spring-ish. Up here in the Northeast, May is defiantly considered a spring month due to weather. Either way Sonic Racing is great and is worth a play.
I bought Sonic Lost World for $27. I wanted to experience it for myself, see how good/bad I think it actually is.
Deader2818
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 31 (100%)
May is spring. Lol
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
HOLY SHIT Nintendo management SUCKS. People have been saying they should go for a while now. It's more true now than ever before. They've got a lot of cash. So what should they do with that cash? Use it to subsidize Wii U prices and get a bigger install base? Use it to open new studios? Use it to pay developers for exclusives? No. They're using it to buy back shares. That's what companies do with cash when they have no idea what else to do with it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/01/29/nintendo-ceo-wii-u-isnt-in-good-shape-plans-1-2b-stock-buyback/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/01/29/nintendo-ceo-wii-u-isnt-in-good-shape-plans-1-2b-stock-buyback/
Deader2818
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 31 (100%)
Actually you are 100% wrong on this one.
I'm guessing you have no idea about the meeting they had yesterday?
I'm guessing you have no idea about the meeting they had yesterday?
Last edited by a moderator:
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
No, I didn't follow it. I've been really busy. Why am I 100% wrong on this one?
edit: I don't see how I'm wrong. First off, I'm right about buy backs. Those should only be used if you can't find a better use to invest that cash in your own business. The best way to increase share price is to grow earnings. Instead the best way he can find to increase share price is to spend down the cash reserve to buyback shares and thus increase earnings per share by decreasing the total share count. Second, I read this recap and saw nothing that would make me confident that they have a turn around plan.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/01/29/live-nintendos-strategy-briefing-to-address-future-direction/
Last edited by a moderator:
Deader2818
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 31 (100%)
pitfallharry219
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 56 (100%)
Like the Gamecube was just another regular console? Or the Super Nintendo? I was just fine with them being "another regular console". Personally, I don't really care either way if they keep the tablet or not.
Many gamers are bored by the same old game experiences traditional consoles setups provide. Updated graphics on another FPS or whatever genre you want to name. While there are good innovations out there being added to these tired genres many people feel they're few & far between.
With different console setups new innovations will likely be added more frequently. That's why I think it's important the wii u keep the tablet. Otherwise it's just like the xbox and play station with less power. Granted the stable of 1st party games would separate it from the other two but both MS & Sony are arguably building their own collections of great legacy IPs. So MS, Sony & Big N would all have their own great exclusives but Nintendo would be the oddball out with underpowered hardware.
There's so many ideas to use for he tablet if taken advantage of it could really help Nintendo stand out from the tired video game genres. I could imagine the tablet being placed directly under a users TV to show activity under a character. Underground enemies, a lava pit to avoid, a friendly NPC or player that needs supplies or supplies you. Think of anything and put it there. The possibilities are endless.
That's just one small idea. You could move the tablet anywhere in the players environment and with it's screen or even just it's speakers provide a whole new layer of gameplay.
I love traditional games but after nearly 30 years of gaming I'm ready for more new ideas. That's why I own a wii u
I'm probably one of the minority that actually likes the WiiU Gamepad controller. I used to be one of the naysayers about it but after actually owning a system I have to say that it's a lot more cooler than I initially thought. I've owned an Apple iPad Mini for a year and never really used it so I ended up selling it when the retina one came out. I was planning on upgrading it but ultimately decided to just keep the cash for something else(in this case a WiiU ;P) and I'm glad I made that decision.
My currently library consists of Super Mario 3D World, Wii Fit U, Wonderful 101, and Skylanders Swap Force. I like how you actually have to use the mic in SM3DW as I feel that not a lot of developers actually use this feature for most devices that have a mic. I also thought the gamepad screen makes pretty good use of W101's PnP levels. While it's not something that's ABSOLUTELY necessary, it's a creative way of implementing it. Wii Fit U so far probably makes the best use of the gamepad so far and if future games follow the their foot steps, I will be buying more games.
I don't feel that just demoing the system does it true justice.
My currently library consists of Super Mario 3D World, Wii Fit U, Wonderful 101, and Skylanders Swap Force. I like how you actually have to use the mic in SM3DW as I feel that not a lot of developers actually use this feature for most devices that have a mic. I also thought the gamepad screen makes pretty good use of W101's PnP levels. While it's not something that's ABSOLUTELY necessary, it's a creative way of implementing it. Wii Fit U so far probably makes the best use of the gamepad so far and if future games follow the their foot steps, I will be buying more games.
I don't feel that just demoing the system does it true justice.
ActionKazimer
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 102 (100%)
Big fan, myself. Offscreen play is one of my favorite things to happen to gaming though.
No, the best way to increase share price is to decrease the number of outstanding shares when you have excess cash on hand. At a basic level shares in a company are a debt owed to the shareholder by the corporation in exchange for ownership of the company. When you've got an excess of the amount of cash they have, in proportion to the size of the company it makes sense to buy back shares and lower the number of outstanding shares you have.
A company doesn't issue shares just because they want more voices at the table telling them what to do. They issue shares to raise capital for the company. Nintendo is in a situation where they have excess capital so the inverse applies at this point. You buy back excess outstanding shares, increase the share price, and lower the number of people who have a decision in the company's direction AS well as less people to have to pay dividends out to. Long term having less outstanding shares is a good thing for a company.
DNukem170
Banned
I am curious and a little scared of what they mean by that considering they have lent their properties to 3rd party companies since the SNES days, so it's nothing new.
Yeah I played Lost World earlier last year and it was a fairly frustrating experience with a few great moments sprinkled in.
Although, they did patch the game to make 100 coins worth an extra life which makes the game more reasonable. If you can get used to the controls I'd say it's worth a shot especially for a sonic fan and the game does look beautiful.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Share buy backs are NOT the best way to increase share price. The BEST way to grow the share price is to grow the company. It's basic economics. If I own shares of Nintendo and they invest in the company and eventually become a 100 billion dollar company I wouldn't give two shits if the company never bought back shares. On the other hand, if they buy back 8% of the float and they don't grow their business at all, I'm lucky to get that 8% gain on my share price. This does nothing but immediately inflate the share price (or at the very least create a floor). As an investor they might as well give out a special dividend since the p/e of 4 with over $80 cash per share already takes no consideration of the cash and I doubt that this buy back will even help.
I agree that when you have an excess of cash, buy backs are good. The fact that they can find no better use for their capital than to buy back shares is absolutely telling and this is the crux of my argument. They are throwing away this cash instead of using it to grow the company. Buy backs DO NOT grow the company.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the thing though, Nintendo doesn't have any ambitions of being Sony/Microsoft big. They're not looking to grow the company.
Billytwoshoes
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
I don't really do the stock market much (at all), but wouldn't Nintendo buying out their excess stock at least raise the confidence level in its current shareholders? Personally that's what I got out of reading that tidbit (though correct me if I'm wrong).
Last edited by a moderator:
Buying back shares can be viewed as either good or bad depending on how you want to spin it. Usually shares are bought back at a premium to actual market price which is good for stockholders. Absent an agreement to the contrary, you don't have to sell if you don't want to. Also, a stock buyback will mean less outstanding shares which will improve certain market metrics and could cause an actual increase in value (even though the improved market metrics are illusory).
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 203 (100%)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it'll keep their stock from falling for the short term.
The only part that slightly worries me is that they would have 14% less cash -- about $7.4 billion left. Obviously, that's still a lot, but their losses will affect them a little bit more. But losing 15 million is still a couple orders of magnitude from being actually worrying.
Compared to say, Apple's buyback, but they're still generating cash.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is (like many things) a balancing act. Warren Buffet has no qualms with stock buybacks and in fact recommended them to Apple when Apple was at $80. Apple is currently buying stock back, but they are doing so as a way to avoid tax liabilities for off-shore funds.
Conversely, IBM has been buying back stock for quite a while and reduced the outstanding stock level by something like half in the last few years. IBM has been doing so as a way to prop up earnings per share and hopefully prevent stock collapse.
Nintendo seems to be doing the latter, which isnt ideal, but isnt the end of the world and is supported by some of the largest investors around. . . assuming Nintendo has some plan to turn around the year over year losses.
It might and again for certain institutional investors its a great thing, but this presumes the company has a stable future after this unstable period. Otherwise stockholders could fear a future bankruptcy if nothing else changes.
Stock buybacks presume there isnt anything better you can do with the cash, which is a BAD implication for a company in the money making business. Though Nintendo just went through a large series of capital expenditures (their new buildings) and spent a large amount of cash in R&D. It's not clear that there are other stones to turn in terms of investment.
So in summary, stock buybacks imply bad things about a company, but if there is confidence in the long term its just a symptom of the rough times.
So. . . for Nintendo, which is it?
So, basically, you want the Wii U to be a clone of the PS4/X1 with the same sort of specs, controller, online system, and games. Even if Nintendo could pull that all off and still make a profit (which is unlikely), that would mean the Wii U (or whatever it was called instead) would still be the 3rd option behind those other two systems. Why buy that when you are used to playing on the other systems? Most casual Madden/CoD type players wouldn't make the switch - they'd stay with MS or Sony depending on where their friends were.chimpmeister said:
So that's why Nintendo had to do something different. You may not like what they've done differently, and it may end up not working out, but they simply cannot compete straight-up as a Playstation/Xbox clone with Mario games tacked on. People on CAG continue to confound me. They'll say the Gamecube was a failure and then bag on the Wii U for being different. The Gamecube tried to follow the clone approach and while it was a great console (IMO) and made a moderate amount of money, it was clear by the end of that generation that it wasn't the way to go moving forward for Nintendo.
Sure, like a lot of CAGs I was disappointed in the Wii. But they fixed the biggest issue with the Wii U (HD graphics). Yeah, it's no powerhouse, but if you've played Mario 3D World, it is clear it gets the job done (unlike the Wii).
Last edited by a moderator:
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Okay if that's really how they feel then I 100% agree with you. It seems insane to me that they wouldn't want to grow but then their management does seem a bit strange. So if they have no plans for growth the plans they announced at the meeting are basically that they're going to keep with business as usual except license out a few properties and create demos on smartphones as ads for their real hardware/software and that they'll give out some stock buy backs to try to prop up the stock price in the meantime. Who knows, maybe it will work...it doesn't sound like a particularly great plan to me (though any plan is better than what they've done over the last year).
What really throws me off about the smartphones/tablets plan is that...who the
is going to download their mobile advertisements?Exactly. They could basically set up an unlimited buy order at $15 or something and ensure that their stock price never falls below that price (a floor to the price). That would help keep their investors happy because they wouldn't see their stock price continue to collapse. On the other hand, if they burned through all their cash trying to maintain that price point, they would have to authorize additional repurchases. That probably wouldn't happen and they probably aren't going to set up an order like that (at least at that level) anyway though you never know. Their stock action is really odd looking, it kind of resembles a penny stock. If I had confidence in their turn around plan I'd buy some of their shares but I don't have confidence right now.
This is it exactly, they're basically attempting to prop up share price to make their investors happy. If you own a lot of stock in the company and plan on selling a lot....lets say 5 million shares...to pay for estate taxes and you see your shares drop in value from 15 each to 8 or 9, you're going to be pretty upset and that's likely to get management thrown out. To some extent this combined with his pay cut almost seems like a plan management cooked up for their own protection.
For $1,200,000,000 they could have funded a massive number of exclusives from US and Japanese developers. Enough that almost all gamers would have wanted their console. As crazy as it seems, it almost seems like RedvsBlue might be correct with his assertion that they have no growth plans. I mean, estimates are that Skyrim cost about 85 million dollars to make and most games are much less than that to the tune of 20 or 30 million. So you can imagine that if they went to Bethesda and said, "Here's 100 million dollars, make us a hell of a game that the west will love" that Bethesda would would be happy as shit to make. They could make 8-9 Skyrims with the money they're throwing away on buybacks. Grand theft auto cost about 250 million and like 5 years to make. Just imagine how many exclusive shooters, WRPG's, etc they could have made. That doesn't even take into consideration JRPG's which would be much cheaper to make since the development in Japan is cheaper. It seems crazy to me that they admit they don't understand the Western market then instead of creating games that are popular in the west (or even in Japan), they burn through cash to prop up the share price.
edit: Keep in mind that I'm mostly referencing the big blockbuster games here. 2-3 of those would go a long way. Normal games that cost $20 million to make, they could make 60 of them for the kind of money they're spending on this buyback.
Gamers are fickle though, they'll complain about the gamepad one day but if enough games come out for Wii U that they want, they'll buy it anyway. As I mention above, they could fund dozens of exclusives for the money they're spending on that stock buyback. It's why I said that Iwata is a bad CEO. Most gamers would buy the Wii U in a second if they saw it had lets say...FIFTEEN (exclusive) games they want on it...
edit: Then of course there's Eastern European developers like the guys that make The Witcher and the Metro games. Their cost structure is 1/2 that of games made in the US and their break even cost is half as much. They could have made so many games with this money.
Last edited by a moderator:
It does for cartoony games like 3D World, though it would still look better on PS4 powered specs as there are still some lackluster textures etc.
However, something like a realistic Zelda or a new Metroid Prime would suffer greatly visually compared to say a WRPG or FPS on PS4.
You're right that they probably can't put out an equally powered machine and make a profit. But I sure wish they could as I'd love to get Zelda, Metroid etc. with visuals equal to, or better, than similar games on the more powerful machines. And if it was equal powered I could play all the big third party games on it too as they'd all get ported, and I probably wouldn't need a Sony or MS machine then as I can live without most first party stuff.
But that will probably never happen unless they fail miserably and go third party, or leave gaming and sell off their IPs. Which could happen if they really want to focus on health products and other non-gaming horseshit.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree it would be great if Nintendo could use that money to fund some awesome exclusives. But I wonder how easy that is to do. I mean, there are only a finite number of top-level game companies, and they are all doing their own thing. It would be foolish of Nintendo to throw tons of money at a sub-par developer and end up with a flop. So I think while that sounds great in theory, it probably isn't quite as easy to pull off as you might think. Hopefully if nothing else they are using some of that money to train up more internal developers at least to churn out the first party titles a bit faster.Blaster man said:
I also think it was a mistake and a huge wasted opportunity for them not to have implemented some sort of achievement system with the Wii U. The power of those things is not to be underestimated. While they are meaningless of course in the grand scheme of things, all things being equal, I'll choose the game or version that keeps track of my progress in some virtual way.
Nintendo could have tied it into coins/clothing/accessories for the Miis (beat Mario 3D World, get a cool Mii T-shirt with cat suit Mario to show off - that sort of thing). Huge missed opportunity IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
I completely agree with this.
The leap from SD to HD is so significant because the majority of people play on HDTVs. Going from the painfully outdated Wii to the Wii U is such a large (and necessary) upgrade than say going from PS3 to PS4 because of the HD standard and the fleshed out online capabilities.
Yes there's still a ton of issues to be addressed with the console, but the primary two that concern me (HD and online) are part of the system.
Time will tell whether streaming services/cloud based gaming will become the standard, but for me I'm not really sold on those features and just want/need the essentials.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I agree that there are so many developers but surely they could have paid the EA's and Activisions to work on 2-3 exclusives concurrently each along with a ton of other developers. I'd wager a studio like Tale Tell would be more than happy to create an adventure game for them. Sure they wouldn't make 2 or 3 at once but if Nintendo funded one of them, they'd do it. Then of course there's the internal studios, I agree they should have built up more of them and some in the West. They barely have any Western studios and they use them to make games like the Mario and DK Mini's game instead of letting them make big games with new IP's. And of course they could have cut the price of the Wii U another $50. They could have done a lot with that money. Basically what they've done with it is throw it down a rat hole (in terms of their business growth).
They're spending so much money on the buy back that they could have done a variety of things at once with it to grow the business. Growing the business would have had the result of increasing the share price too.
Yes, everyone knows it was hard on the developers too. I believe Iwata admitted it's been a painful upgrade for Nintendo as well. They're so insular that they didn't learn from the experience of the other developers (that it would be a tough change) over the last 8 years and start their game development early enough. Then of course they could have bought some of these 3rd party devs like studios with THQ that have experience with HD now and used them to help their studios.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deader2818
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 31 (100%)
Nintendo stated at the meeting that they will expand on licensing their lesser IPs out to other companies to make games for them. Stuff like Kid Icarus, F-Zero, Star Fox etc.
So, they are trying to get more exclusives out.
So, they are trying to get more exclusives out.
Deader2818
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 31 (100%)
I love how third parties whine that people don't buy their games on Wii U but then do shit that makes people not want to buy their games,lol.
The way I see it, if you are funding a big company to make a game are they really going to put 100% of their efforts behind this game? After all if Nintendo is funding the game where is the risk if the game bombs? Granted that a scenario lack that wouldn't likely be 100% Nintendo's money. Also, most companies have updated their tech and are working on games for this generation so why would they go back to the Wii-U. The idea does sound good in theory but playing devil's advocate does show problems with it.
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I saw this and it seems promising but TBH, I have to wonder how well this is going to work out for them. I mean, yeah how much are you going to pay Nintendo to license...lets say....Gumshoe? They probably want more than you're willing to pay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumshoe_%28video_game%29
I think you have it backwards, they did this because not enough people paid for the pass.
First of all, game developers don't want to make a bad game. It's their job and most of them enjoy their work (believe it or not, some developers consider their jobs as "fun"). If Nintendo is footing the bill they won't have as much pressure to "get it out the door" since management won't be taking a massive risk on it's development, Nintendo will be.
Second, Exclusives sell consoles.
Third, Nintendo is throwing away 1.2 BILLION dollars on stock buybacks. That will not increase sales of the platform by a single console.
In fact, share buybacks do nothing at all for the underlying business. Since they're already throwing away a massive amount of money, they should redirect it towards game development to push the platform's sales.
You do understand that developing 40 games (or some such number) with this cash, even if the games sell poorly, will result in 40 games being released at the cost of 1.2 billion dollars but share buy backs results in 0 games being released at the cost of 1.2 billion dollars right? Which of these two scenarios is going to sell more consoles?
The better question is which of the two scenarios is better for shareholders? At the end of the day, Nintendo's a company aimed at making money for their shareholders. I'm not a financial expert but I'd imagine they examined the financial impact of this compared to investing the money in other ways. Sure, they could spend a billion dollars on buying up exclusives (which would be great for gamers) but how many millions of consoles and games would they need to sell to make their money back?
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
The one that's better for shareholders is the one that grows the company. That's reinvesting in the company itself. This stock buybacks are not as good and frankly seem to be doing little to nothing to help the share price. The stock is $15 a share, best case scenario, they get an 8% bump but more realistically it won't even happen since their business is declining.
Your question to me, again, appears to be in a vacuum as though they aren't already squandering their money. They're spending 1.2 billion dollars on buybacks. How much would they need to sell to make THAT back?
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
LOL no but it's pretty funny. It's the reverse of the ones that have been made over the last half decade or so.
I think Blaster Man made this. LOL
TimboSliceGB
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
in gaming terms may is spring
bread's done