The Dreamcast originally launched with some great software and then we had a six month drought with no new games worthwhile. Now, we're going through the same thing with the Wii U.
As the console install numbers remain low, what if the only games that get ported or made for it are good, solid, quality games?
That places it squarely in the realm of the Dreamcast category where a large portion of the software was in the C to A range. Look at the Critics list of games and filter on the score. There are very, very few D and F games listed. Now, compare that to a console with a much larger install base. All the junk and crap gets ported or written for it in an attempt to make an easy buck by publishers. I'm looking at you Wii.
Maybe, having a low install base is actually a good thing.
Both the Wii and the PS2 had a large number of crap games. Compare that to the Gamecube and Xbox and it seems like those consoles although with a smaller number of games had a good quality to crap ratio.
Maybe, it's a good thing if only the dedicated Nintendo players buy the console? It keeps out the dreck and leaves the good stuff.
I'm okay with that. It makes my trips to Best Buy more enjoyable when I can more easily weed out the crap.
Oh, and to clarify I'm not talking about Nintendo going the software only route either or Sega/Sammy's massive debt from the DC era, just what games get made and the quality of the software for the Wii U.
What do you think?
You did say that you were talking about the quality of games and there are several similarities.
-Once the new comers came into the competition both consoles were/will be behind in power.
-Both consoles do have titles with a strong pick up and play theme.
-both consoles did/will have strong line ups of solid titles (if for nothing else, that the Wii U seems to be much less supported by third party this time around meaning most titles, at least for now, Nintendo titles. I think as the generation continues and Nintendo turns things around we will see much more crap titles). We should keep in mind that the Critic's view of the DC is at his favorite line up of series- arcade games with a pick up and play quality. Nintendo's games typically are not arcade style but they do share the same quality.
Still, I would much rather have a bombardment of crap titles that helped keep the console afloat then no titles whatsoever. At least if there are these type of titles it is showing that the console is at least selling, which equals more support down the line. If Nintendo doesn't start releasing strong titles, offering bundles, slashing prices, or more they could really be in a dire situation.
Ahh, but the clear differentiation from the 3DS and the Wii U is that the Wii U has two competitors coming out. Where as the 3DS had the Vita and Nintendo's own rather lackluster DSi and fantastic DS. If anything Nintendo was competing against itself.
I think it's fun to analyze where we are at and where we are going. Price wise, the Dreamcast launched at $199. The PS2 and Xbox both launched at $300. Both were more expensive, both exceeded the Dreamcast sales. I can't remember what the Gamecube launched at but even that exceeded the Dreamcast's sales.
Being cheaper doesn't necessarily matter if the perceived value and power of the console justifies its price. I believe that a smaller install base will keep away the junk software and that junk software will drift toward's consoles with a larger install base. If you're only going to deliver a half made product and still want to maximize profit, you'll want to place it on the console with the largest install base. Odds are you'll catch the most suckers.
The Gamecube's launch price was $199, the same as the Dreamcast.
Just because the 3Ds is selling well dosen't mean the Wii U will, right now there's only a handful of games on that system that look appealing, and for most people that's just not enough to justify buying one.
I disagree about the lineups for the Ps3 and 360 being "atrocious" by this point they had sold considerably more then the Wii U has.
I believe the more expensive systems will do better because they look like more an upgrade from this gen then the Wii U does.
DC was against the PS2, the powerhouse of consoles. The most seamless console transition in history - the industry was very stable at that time, under Sony. 3rd party did not have to wait for the market, they went full into PS2 and stayed there until Sony disastered with PS3....Ppl like to rip GameCube (but not Xbox) for finding such a small base, but look what they were up against. Nintendo has been able to power consoles with just first party, SEGA not so much. Wii and DS are extreme examples of this - no other game maker could hope to accomplish that.
But now we are in another place and time. Iwata a few years ago, at a game developer council, warned against the danger of publishers eroding their game value by supporting the mobile market, which exploded. A few years later, EA, has over 750 games on itunes. Smart! So we see a destabilized industry, that is getting its butt kicked by dollar store competitors on game platforms that do it as a side business....
Time will tell, this fall, and more importantly this winter, whats left of the console game industry and its $60 game prices.
WiiU is no Dreamcast, it is a WiiU.