Topic: Everybody who thinks there is no way the Wii U will be discontinued within 5 years

Not to imply that the thread title is worded correctly, but I'm pretty sure he means within five years of its launch, not within five years of now.

Ok, I'm gonna level with ya, here. You sound like Michael Pachter. In most spaces, that'd be wonderful, but in the gaming world, and especially when it comes to Nintendo, I've known total amateur analysts that get things right more often than he does. If you treat Nintendo like your ordinary company, you're gonna find yourself being wrong as often as you are right. This is because Nintendo doesn't act like your ordinary company. Yeah, on the surface, it seems like profits = good and everything adds up, except it doesn't quite add up when looked at more closely. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most important one is that Nintendo not only respects, but also enforces artistic integrity, which is somethig the majority of studios tend to jump up and down all over before telling their devs to get back to work.

This explains a lot of why Nintendo is loose when it comes to controlling their various dev teams and 2nd parties, but it also explains why their so iron fisted when it comes to unauthorized use of their IPs. so as long as you're looking at is as "Nibtendo needs to always be making money, how can they ensure that happens?" You'll wind up being wrong a little over half of the time. If you think about it like, "Nintendo wants to turn a profit, but they also want to treat all of their IPs, devs, and departments with respect and give them full creative freedom. How can they pull that off?" You'll find that their decisions often make a lot more sense.

On the one hand, I agree that it wouldn't be totally unthinkable that they'd drop the Wii U in 2016 or 17, less than 5 years after its launch. I just don't think there's a lot of evidence to support that at the moment. In fact, I think it's too soon to really say either way right now.

I would imagine we will see the Wii U to be continued to be supported until at least 2019. The NX has simply been mentioned but no hardware has been shown, no games have been shown, so it is at the very infancy of ideas.

Do you think Nintendo is a charity? Artistic integrity and creative freedom only gets you so far in life, if Nintendo isn't making money on something there's not much reason for them to continue. I do appreciate that Nintendo utilizes their IPs a bit more in spite of lower sales, but they need to balance that better with IPs that can actually appeal to the mass media and turn a profit. They can't continue this "screw profits, we'll just make what we want" approach forever, especially when the industry is trending further and further away from the kinds of games Nintendo likes making, that's a very naive and immature approach to running a business and it's going to come back to bite them at some point.

Also, even from a creative freedom perspective they've practically reached the limit of what they can do with the 3DS and Wii U. They're almost to the point (and will be at that point after 2 years' worth of games) where the only way they can progress from a creative standpoint is with new hardware features. 2017 is the right time for that.

Yeah, we need to stop it with this "casuals vs hardcore" rhetoric. That wasn't at all what I was getting at. What I was saying was that these massive budget huge AAA games are too slow to release and play it too safe. That too often they look at a trend that's happening by the time it comes out? "Evolve ey? You mean kinda like that Destiny/Titanfall? Yeah, that's so last season. We want visually stunning, linear, single player games now". The industry can't keep making those games and those are the bread and butter of a high powered machine.

I'm not saying that Nintendo should get out of the big budget space for stuff like Zelda and Mario. Those games will sell and they're how they advertise the console. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't replace the Wii U just to enter into a hardware arms race again. Because the market right now rewards the middle-budget game that's creative far more than the big focus-group driven AAA title. Splatoon is that sort of game, they don't need to beat the PS4 in the specs department for a game like Splatoon.

Hm, Nintendo carving out a niche in mid tier might work, but as far as innovation goes, they're probably not going to see much success there either. For one, most of the innovations they would implement would likely require higher budgets, which cut into their profits. Second, there's simply not enough demand for innovation to justify it. Innovative games have sold far less than iterative games (around 10-20%). Even with a lower budget, innovative games would make less profit, and making iterative mid-tier games would be far more lucrative.

@Bolt_Strike
There's definitely something to be said for the less innovative games being the ones that move units. However my argument was that there's somewhat of a bubble in that side of the industry. That Game Theory video you linked to earlier before you re-wrote your post talked about the rise and rise of CoD and fair call. But it only went upto Modern Warfare 3 and since then....

Modern Warfare 3: 26mill
Black Ops 2: 24mill
Ghosts: 19mill
Advance Warfare: 18mill

Same with Assassin's Creed where they went right upto 3:
AC 3: 14mill
AC 4: 12mill
AC Unity: 6mill

And as I pointed out, games like Evolve which were hyped to no end. Game ends up doing around about as well as Bayonetta 2 did even with three times the install base. And even on the Steam best sellers today you see it. Probably the worst day to pick given the pre-GTA launch hype but still, the best sellers are stuff like Cities Skylines, Besiege, Plague Inc and Ori and the Blind Forest. Sure we're not getting any big games ATM but the fact that Advance Warfare is down the list underneath Kerbal Space Program? I think that says something even if Advance Warfare is "old" now.

And again, I'm not saying that they should all jump ship and just make tiny games. All I'm saying is that I don't think the "big AAA, blockbuster, massive budget" strategy is necessarily the best one. If indies are doing as well as they are? Maybe the AAA bubble is about to burst. Maybe the big developer who start to act more like indies will be the ones who survive.

@skywake My point was that there was 2 routes they could take, and you pointed out a third. Either target the AAA market and make large budget dudebro games, target the casuals and make small scale casual games, or scale down to mid-tier so they can make more profit on a smaller market. I agree that AAA probably isn't the smartest route to take, and Nintendo seems to be avoiding that market. So that leaves them with the last 2 (or both, which would probably be ideal), the casual market and the mid-tier market. And if they're targeting casuals, they're probably going to want to make a mobile device of some sort, because that market isn't budging anytime soon.

@Bolt_Strike
I know you're trying to argue that they should make a hybrid console but... you do realise that the 3DS is a "mobile device of some sort"? Unless you want them to literally make a Nintendo Phone which I think is a little bit too crazy for even Nintendo. Also the hybrid console idea really just a nicer way of saying that Nintendo should get out of the home console business entirely. I'm not sure that's the best move TBH.

Not necessarily a Nintendo phone, but it can't be a dedicated gaming device. The casuals aren't really interested in dedicated hardware, they want a device that can do it all, media, apps, messaging, etc. 3DS has some of these functions but it's not something that can replace your iPhone, which should be Nintendo's goal if they want the casuals to buy their hardware. Otherwise they've only solved half of the problem, they've found a market for their software but not their hardware, and they've become a third party in the mobile market.

And no, a hybrid console isn't Nintendo leaving the home console business since it retains the functionality of a home console. At best it's just redefining what a home console is, and that's only if they make a set top box.

Sadly Nintendo wouldn't be able to successfully do that unless they somehow managed to surpass the big-name phone/tablet brands in hardware content, hardware quality, and brand awareness. They'd need something to make whatever they release a mainstream fad (It doesn't help their cause that their advertisment game plan sucks really bad). Even if they did, I wouldn't really want to game on Nintendo consoles anymore because I prefer buttons and dedicated gaming hardware with a good processor and battery life. Though, if they somehow managed to make something with actual buttons, 3D features, HD resolution, fast processing and gaming power, along with everything a phone/media device needs and even more than that, and then advertised the heck out of it to the entire world and actually knew that advertising is a strategical game of psychology, then that just might work. They just might save the gaming industry and their business as a whole.

I don't think there's much of a gap between these two things if there's even a gap at all. What's the point of making something that's more like a phone if it's not literally also a phone? It's like the iPod Touch, it's a cool little device but it's kinda useless if you have a phone. People aren't going to buy a Nintendo phone and people won't want to pay extra for things they can already do on their phone.

As I've said earlier, a hybrid console would have to be a portable first. Even if it "retains the functionality" of a home console it'll still be a portable first. Which would be Nintendo getting out of the home-console business.

The point is to have an all purpose device, that's what the casuals want. They're not going to buy a gaming device with a few token extra features, it has to be something that performs a variety of different functions well. The 3DS is nice and all, but can it play MP3s or movies? Can you use it for messaging and social media? Can you browse the web with it? The 3DS either doesn't do these things or doesn't do them well, and a casual gamer is going to want to see improvement in these areas if they're going to buy Nintendo's hardware.

My larger point is that if Nintendo wants to increase sales, they're going to have to completely rethink their approach and design the hardware around the needs of the market. If they want to attract casuals, they need all purpose hardware, and short, simple games that can be sold for little to nothing. If they want to attract AAA, they need top notch hardware and IPs that appeal to a mature audience. They're not going to have success with these demographics otherwise, those sectors of the market don't care enough about video games to be willing to experiment. The only way they can keep doing what they're doing is by scaling down to mid tier, and even then they would probably have to limit what they can do with their games.

No it's not. The functionality is what matters, as long as it offers the functionality of a home console, they're still competing with other home consoles. Which makes them part of the home console business.

We may very well be playing the nintendo bono within 1,5 years from now, though I expect it to be more than just that. But I'd be surprised if we don't get new hardware within 2 years from now.

I think the fact Activision were limited by supporting last gen for Ghosts and Advanced Warfare was part of the problem. Cross gen experiences generally get damped because the older hardware is less capable and less time is spent with the current gen version than if the last gen version didn't exist. Although not cross gen but rather cross platform, we've seen Smash Wii U largely damped because of the existence of the 3DS version (no Ice Climbers, lack of meaningful single player modes, Miiverse stage and tournaments being delayed by over 6 months, Mewtwo/Lucas being paid DLC instead of on disc, etc.).

I expect that Black Ops 3 will sell better than Ghosts and Advanced Warfare unless a Wii U version exists.

This is a rather strange thread. Is my well-being at risk if I think that the Wii U will be supported by Nintendo past the end of next year? Am I some deluded fool who is in need of conversion if I'm happy with my Wii U and don't think Nintendo needs to do anything new to compete with Sony and Microsoft given the uncertainty of the future of the industry and Sony and Microsofts woes in their hardware segments?

I'll bite, though: no, I don't think the delay of Zelda U past 2015 means that Nintendo is dumping the Wii U early in favour of a new platform. If that turns out to be mistaken, by all means feel free to message me saying "I told you so!" if that makes you happy, though I'd say you're a rather strange person if you did (this is a video game forum, however so...).

Can we stop talking about "casual gamers" as if they want an entirely different set of devices? Because that's not anywhere near the truth. We're not talking about some sort of alien species here. The reason people play games on their mobiles and not their 3DS isn't because the 3DS "doesn't do facebook". They play games on their phone because they need their phone, because everyone needs a phone. A portable console is an extra thing ontop of a phone. I'm not going to put a SIM in my portable console, I'm probably going to play my portable console at home more than anywhere else. I don't need that extra functionality and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that way.

Also if this wasn't the case then the Vita would have sold better. People don't care.

They're not competing with the other consoles if it's a handheld that plugs into the TV. If they're doing that they are out of the home-console game.

Agreed. I think device convergence has certainly hurt Nintendo a bit, just like standalone cameras and portable music players have suffered, but the response to that isn't going to be making a camera or a music player that is also a phone.

To be honest I don't know what they should do, but putting a browser and Facebook on a portable game system doesn't seem like a solution. I had a gameboy in the late 80s because I wanted something to play games on in University and I didn't have a TV. Now kids have tablets at a very young age - how do you sell a parent on buying this additional games-only device? How do you sell them a Nintendo-only tablet without the general purpose apps you get on a tablet? Is it even worth trying to fight that? Home console seems like a much safer market by comparison, but I'm not an analyst.

Anecdotally I can say I got my daughter a DSi and 3DS because she was into Pokemon; she's gone off it a lot and plays more iOS games or just watches YouTube shows; the 3DS sits in the charge cradle most of the time and if she wants to play games it's on the Wii U. Consequently I see no point in upgrading her to a "new" 3DS or even a future Nintendo handheld; I'm sure she'd rather have my iPad Air handed down.

Exactly the reason why nintendo won't make a phone, or another multimedia device. They would just create something inferior than what is already in your pockets or on your couch. Which is smart devices, which is what the dena thing is for.

Whatever the dedicated gaming hardware is supposed to be, it probably won't be the nintendo bono. But thinking it's just the handheld with no convergence added seems unlikely too. So I'd still bet on the one device, tv extendable concept which blurs the line between home and portable console gaming.

Then again, if we're talking about a new universal controller for smart devices the landscape will change much more. And I don't think that's any less plausible; nintendo could very well become great unity developers for instance and start dictating interaction and gameplay while not risking hardware strategies beyond the controller/ interaction / gameplay standpoint. Doesn't seem too likely, but not unthinkable either.