Is the Wii U any good?|General Gaming Discussion|Forum|SNES HUB

New Super Mario Brothers U is a great game, and the new Luigi game looks good for 30bucks IF it can be different enough from Mario.

Never played a Pikmin.

Earthbound is a plus if you plan on buying the system anyway.

That said, After the disaster that was Xbox 1, I find myself smiling at Nintendo and waiting for more info on Sony before I recommended a system.

Let us know what you think!

Why would you go out of your way to make sure the people who make your games don’t get paid?  I’m all for saving money, but if a third party puts out a good product, why not support them?

@ Marktheshark; EXACTLY!

It’s not difficult to see how this came around. For years, third parties have been complaining about used game sales (and, tacitly, everything that doesn’t involve one customer-one new disc purchase… that is, maximized profit) and have conveniently ignored the writing on the wall: Essentially, that Nintendo gets away with charging full price for their games, but (e.g.) EA can’t. The reason why is actually pretty simple:

I’m sure everyone here knows how a cartel works. Essentially, it flouts anti-monopoly laws by creating a union that strips the customer of choice. Choice is the root of so-called “market forces,” in which the customer, in the aggregate, exercises free choice over product and, with it, the fate of each provider and each product line. Choice determines everything from price to product quality. Remove choice, and the monopolizer or cartel can charge whatever they please and cleave to any quality standard they wish. Inevitably, this leads to higher prices and shittier product. If you don’t have to work hard for the customer’s approval, why would you?

The emblematic example is De Beers, the diamond cartel. What is a diamond? It’s a sequence of carbon atoms arranged in 60-atom molecule chains. In plain English, it’s a fucking rock. A well-ordered rock, but a rock nonetheless. Rather common, too: Anywhere where there’s sufficient pressure (and rocks), there is diamond.

What De Beers did was arrange the situation in such a way, by binding together formerly competitive firms into a cartel, to drive up the price of rocks. Shiny rocks, but still rocks. Along with it comes a ridiculous, constant marketing campaign that tells you that “Shiny Rocks = Love.”

Cartels, like monopolies, are designed to eliminate competition. The move against used games, itself, is meant to eliminate competition. People don’t tend to consider things this way, but cheaper old games actually compete against more expensive new games. A simple example: Because of the Wii Virtual Console, Super Mario Galaxy must compete with Super Mario Bros. 3 (which is amuch cheaper and better game, btw), creating a harsher environment for the former game to survive in. This is why Nintendo trickles out VC releases with such agonizing slowness.

The elimination of competition doesn’t exist in a vacuum: It has a definite impact on quality and price. Without competition, there’s no incentive to make a better product, since better products are made to one-up the “other guy.” Without competition, there’s no incentive to keep prices low, because you can’t be undercut by the “other guy.” Inevitably, prices go up and quality bottoms out, which is why we have anti-monopoly laws, to begin with.

It follows that a gamer, who benefits from good quality and low prices, should support there being as much competition as possible. The inverse, therefore, is ultimately corrosive to a good gaming experience.

Used games, of course, aren’t the only sources of competition. As this informal third-party cartel gains strength (it can and will shrink in absolute terms by eliminating customers while doing so: Strength, like most values, is relative), it will seek to squeeze out other sources of competition. Indie games, niche games, foreign games: These are all sources of competition to the likes of EA or Activision. Why has EA been hostile to Nintendo since the days of the NES? Because Nintendo competes with EA in the arena of quality, making things very difficult for them.

The foundational reasoning for eliminating competition is easy to understand. I say this with no malice: People don’t like to work any harder than they have to, and if they can find an easier way to get what they want, they will. This is the driving logic behind all mechanical inventions (for example). This is also the logic behind the informal cartel. Of course, all companies work with the aim of eliminating the competition, but the cartel (as with the monopoly) is what actually makes such a scenario possible without gargantuan effort and extreme luck.

Not only that, but this is occurring in a time of large-scale economic readjustment (i.e. contraction to non-inflated values) in the global system (Globalization, Pax Americana, the Columbian Exchange, call it what you like). The third parties’ move for power coincides with a weakening economic environment on the personal level. Let’s not forget that video games are luxuries, and are among the first things to be pitched when belts tighten. As competition is eliminated, quality drops, and prices increase, the incentive for the cash-strapped gamer (remember, video games are meant to be cheap entertainment: Inexpensive replacements for similar experiences in the real world) decreases.

In short, what we’re actually looking at may be remembered as the next big Gaming Crash. Everybody loses, in that scenario

When I talk of a gaming cartel, I am referring to console gaming. That said, their plot will not work for the very reasons that you have mentioned! The joy of capitalism is there is ALWAYS a choice, even when it appears that there is not. Consoles were disrupted by these smaller game models long before they adequately prepared themselves. And so instead of using their development and business acumen to look at the model and deliver compelling experiences over flash, they have turned on the very consumers that keep them afloat.

This “cartel” was a failure before it even began! 1 dollar games on Smartphones. Steam Sales and GOG. PC which is an open platform that does not require licensing fees. And that is not even speaking of cheaper entertainment with less buy-in such as retro games, books, movies, and board games!  

The Triple-A model is dead! If you have to attack your customers and treat them like common criminals just to make ends meet despite charging 60 dollars plus DLC, it’s time to re-examine it before it’s too late! You are spending way too much money for too little return.

And no amount of used game revenue will make that up that chasm!