Why is this thread continuing? Frankly I thought the N64 vs PS1 exchange was a lot more interesting than whether or not New Super Mario Bros. U was innovative or whatever. That was the first 2D Mario game I played through to the end since Super Mario Land on the Gameboy. I thought the level design was clever and it was more accessible for me than Super Mario 3 and just bags of fun. The co-op mess around mode was just an extra really so all the kiddies can play Mario together; if you're taking it that the game was meant to be played multiplayer primarily then I have to wonder how many Mario games you've actually played in your life...
The VB wasn't even given a chance. They produced the first 700k and pulled the plug. I think that should sour consumers more. The point of the comparison is that VB was for a different consumer than the N64, and the WiiU is for a different consumer than the NX.
Wait, you're saying that they should have given the VB a chance but in an earlier statement said they should have killed the Wii U within 6 weeks of launch? Also you don't know what the NX is or who it is aimed at
No, I'm just stating the obvious. The VB was discontinued very early. And it probably wouldn't have sold 5 million units in 2.5 years. The WiiU has sold only 9.5 million units in 2.5 years. That boat isn't going anywhere. If they keep the system on the market for a full five years, it won't have but 15 or 16 million users. It's a waste of time and effort to keep it on the market beyond 2016.
@BlueSkies The Wii had a huge userbase because of Wii Sports. Games (and loyalty) sell hardware, hardware itself doesn't.
The vast majority of the 90+ million Wii owners that haven't bought a Wii U aren't coming back either, no matter what Nintendo, or any other gaming company, tries to sell them. It was a one time wonder for the casual market.
Wii Sports was a glorified tech demo. They could have put anything in with the console that used the controller-- Mario Golf, Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, etc. People bought the Wii for the idea, not a particular game. Yes, you have to have software but those 50 million housewives didn't give a damn about any games on it-- some of them never bought a game; they just bought it as a package.
@BlueSkies
Keeping the Wii U on the market is no longer about short term profit. The reason why they need to keep the Wii U on the market is to market their next console. They need to show consumers that Nintendo won't leave their product if sales are what they expect. Nintendo needs to prove that their console will continue to be supported. Once the consumer is convinced of that (and that may not be possible but they still need to try) then they need to release their new system. The Wii U is in a worst spot than the PS3 was at the beginning of the generation, but there are a lot of similarities. Sony continued to support their system and paid a lot of money to get the PS3 to a must have system by the end of the generation. Nintendo doesn't need to make the Wii U a must have system, then need to make consumers think positively about the Wii U. Replacing the Wii U to soon will cause consumers to feel they won't get their money worth out of it. Replacing the Wii U before 2017 is not the answer. (Unless Nintendo can change everyone's mind about the system this holiday, which is unlikely without Zelda)
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan
The VB wasn't even given a chance. They produced the first 700k and pulled the plug. I think that should sour consumers more. The point of the comparison is that VB was for a different consumer than the N64, and the WiiU is for a different consumer than the NX.
Wait, you're saying that they should have given the VB a chance but in an earlier statement said they should have killed the Wii U within 6 weeks of launch? Also you don't know what the NX is or who it is aimed at
No, I'm just stating the obvious. The VB was discontinued very early. And it probably wouldn't have sold 5 million units in 2.5 years. The WiiU has sold only 9.5 million units in 2.5 years. That boat isn't going anywhere. If they keep the system on the market for a full five years, it won't have but 15 or 16 million users. It's a waste of time and effort to keep it on the market beyond 2016.
@BlueSkies The Wii had a huge userbase because of Wii Sports. Games (and loyalty) sell hardware, hardware itself doesn't.
The vast majority of the 90+ million Wii owners that haven't bought a Wii U aren't coming back either, no matter what Nintendo, or any other gaming company, tries to sell them. It was a one time wonder for the casual market.
Wii Sports was a glorified tech demo. They could have put anything in with the console that used the controller-- Mario Golf, Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, etc. People bought the Wii for the idea, not a particular game. Yes, you have to have software but those 50 million housewives didn't give a damn about any games on it-- some of them never bought a game; they just bought it as a package.
Those "housewives" aren't likely coming back. And every single generation of gaming consoles suggests that software sells the system, not hardware. However, I've already made my point clear. You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. Not only does every aspect of your argument ring false, but if we back up and look at your whole world view, you wind up still being wrong. You don't know anything about what you're talking about, the Wii U and Virtual Boy aren't even remotely the same situation, seeing as the VB wasn't a home console but a third pillar and didn't have a successor, while the Wii U is a home console that represents one of Nintendo's two primary markets, the more profitable of which you're suggesting they just ignore/drop so that they can make an unnecessary successor to a system that still has at least 2.5 years of life left in it so that they can piss off the user base that bought the Wii U and lose the only loyal install base they currently have. I've only just begun to point out the flaws in your argument, and it's already full of holes! You have no logical ground to stand on, your analogies have all fallen apart, and your predictions have and will prove false.
For the record, according to the sales curve, Wii U sales are still increasing. At this rate, it will match the Gamecube for sales by the tome the five-year mark rolls around. Not the most admirable goal, but who cares? The Wii U JUST turned profitable. They'd be committing suicide if they chose to replace the thing any time soon. 2017 AT THE EARLIEST.
@BlueSkies
Keeping the Wii U on the market is no longer about short term profit. The reason why they need to keep the Wii U on the market is to market their next console. They need to show consumers that Nintendo won't leave their product if sales are what they expect. Nintendo needs to prove that their console will continue to be supported. Once the consumer is convinced of that (and that may not be possible but they still need to try) then they need to release their new system. The Wii U is in a worst spot than the PS3 was at the beginning of the generation, but there are a lot of similarities. Sony continued to support their system and paid a lot of money to get the PS3 to a must have system by the end of the generation. Nintendo doesn't need to make the Wii U a must have system, then need to make consumers think positively about the Wii U. Replacing the Wii U to soon will cause consumers to feel they won't get their money worth out of it. Replacing the Wii U before 2017 is not the answer. (Unless Nintendo can change everyone's mind about the system this holiday, which is unlikely without Zelda)
Have to agree with you, they can't replace Wii U sooner than 2017 without it being considered a failure, if that's what you're trying to say, of course. Wii U is actually in a decent spot where its major games sell in ridiculous numbers, no reason to call it quits at this point.
@skywake
I'm not arguing the viability of the New 3DS or that it was a good idea in any way, but there are likely to be new games shown at E3 that are exclusive to it like Xeno. The lack of exclusive support thus far shows how unwanted the New 3DS is. What people want is a new portable that breaks away from the DS design-- one that is clearly a new platform. Gamers have not responded to the 3DS because of the DS design, but also because of the dated touch screen and the lack of features (compared to phones).
If Nintendo is going to launch a new portable, it will probably be in 2017. They are as stubborn as a dead mule. The focus of any new portable should not be power; it should be portability, pocket pc functionality and a haptic, multi-touch screen. It should have one large screen, it should be sleek, and it should have a singular circle pad that doesn't interrupt the industrial design. Instead of more buttons and more sticks, portable gaming is driven by design and portability. Console gamers need to stop trying to make portables into little consoles.
@BlueSkies
Keeping the Wii U on the market is no longer about short term profit. The reason why they need to keep the Wii U on the market is to market their next console. They need to show consumers that Nintendo won't leave their product if sales are what they expect. Nintendo needs to prove that their console will continue to be supported. Once the consumer is convinced of that (and that may not be possible but they still need to try) then they need to release their new system. The Wii U is in a worst spot than the PS3 was at the beginning of the generation, but there are a lot of similarities. Sony continued to support their system and paid a lot of money to get the PS3 to a must have system by the end of the generation. Nintendo doesn't need to make the Wii U a must have system, then need to make consumers think positively about the Wii U. Replacing the Wii U to soon will cause consumers to feel they won't get their money worth out of it. Replacing the Wii U before 2017 is not the answer. (Unless Nintendo can change everyone's mind about the system this holiday, which is unlikely without Zelda)
There are big differences between the PS3 and WiiU. The PS3 was the most powerful hardware on the market and thus had long legs. Sony responded to criticisms of their new boomerang controller and quickly replaced it while Nintendo has not redesigned either of their controllers or offered a sku without the 'gamepad.' Sony had healthy third party support. Sony was more supportive of online gaming.
On launching in the fourth year- Microsoft launched the 360 in the fourth year of the Xbox and no one complained. Nintendo simply can't keep this console on the market with virtually zero third party support. They can't make any forward momentum with the image of the platform as it stands and the only way to regain consumers and third parties is to wipe the slate clean.
@BlueSkies
Keeping the Wii U on the market is no longer about short term profit. The reason why they need to keep the Wii U on the market is to market their next console. They need to show consumers that Nintendo won't leave their product if sales are what they expect. Nintendo needs to prove that their console will continue to be supported. Once the consumer is convinced of that (and that may not be possible but they still need to try) then they need to release their new system. The Wii U is in a worst spot than the PS3 was at the beginning of the generation, but there are a lot of similarities. Sony continued to support their system and paid a lot of money to get the PS3 to a must have system by the end of the generation. Nintendo doesn't need to make the Wii U a must have system, then need to make consumers think positively about the Wii U. Replacing the Wii U to soon will cause consumers to feel they won't get their money worth out of it. Replacing the Wii U before 2017 is not the answer. (Unless Nintendo can change everyone's mind about the system this holiday, which is unlikely without Zelda)
Have to agree with you, they can't replace Wii U sooner than 2017 without it being considered a failure, if that's what you're trying to say, of course. Wii U is actually in a decent spot where its major games sell in ridiculous numbers, no reason to call it quits at this point.
I think it will still be considered a failure (until the next generation is over, about when the GameCube started being seen as a great console) but people will view the investment of the next system as worthwhile because Nintendo won't replace it quickly. They could possibly wait until the PS5 and XB2 to show the Wii U won't be replaced but financially that would probably be to much lol. By 2017 I think a replacement wouldn't be considered a bad thing for Nintendo and if Wii U keeps getting good titles, maybe starting to see some western devs releasing games near the end of its life. Nintendo could set up their next system for success. 2016 just seems to soon.
I am not saying many western devs will be interested in developing for the Wii U but I think Nintendo could bankroll a port or two near the end of the Wii U to build hype for their next home console... again not saying any of this will happen, just saying it could be smart
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan
@BlueSkies
Keeping the Wii U on the market is no longer about short term profit. The reason why they need to keep the Wii U on the market is to market their next console. They need to show consumers that Nintendo won't leave their product if sales are what they expect. Nintendo needs to prove that their console will continue to be supported. Once the consumer is convinced of that (and that may not be possible but they still need to try) then they need to release their new system. The Wii U is in a worst spot than the PS3 was at the beginning of the generation, but there are a lot of similarities. Sony continued to support their system and paid a lot of money to get the PS3 to a must have system by the end of the generation. Nintendo doesn't need to make the Wii U a must have system, then need to make consumers think positively about the Wii U. Replacing the Wii U to soon will cause consumers to feel they won't get their money worth out of it. Replacing the Wii U before 2017 is not the answer. (Unless Nintendo can change everyone's mind about the system this holiday, which is unlikely without Zelda)
There are big differences between the PS3 and WiiU. The PS3 was the most powerful hardware on the market and thus had long legs. Sony responded to criticisms of their new boomerang controller and quickly replaced it while Nintendo has not redesigned either of their controllers or offered a sku without the 'gamepad.' Sony had healthy third party support. Sony had more than two games with online and I'm certain they had voice chat.
On launching in the fourth year- Microsoft launched the 360 in the fourth year of the Xbox and no one complained. Nintendo simply can't keep this console on the market with virtually zero third party support. They can't make any forward momentum with the image of the platform as it stands and the only way to regain consumers and third parties is to wipe the slate clean.
The Xbox was considered a good console, even with it losing Microsoft money overall. Sony's biggest problem was it was difficult to develop for and their image was kinda bad. The PS3, at the beginning of the generation, was able to kill their image after the PS2 and they had to build it back. Image is what I am talking about. There isn't much they could do hardware wise but their image is what needs to be fixed. There is plenty they can and still need to do. Hardware revisions won't be the answer and a new system will continue to dig their image grave. To save Nintendo's next console, they need to work on their current system. they need to show Nintendo is a worthwhile investment before asking people to invest in a new machine.
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan
I think it will still be considered a failure (until the next generation is over, about when the GameCube started being seen as a great console) but people will view the investment of the next system as worthwhile because Nintendo won't replace it quickly. They could possibly wait until the PS5 and XB2 to show the Wii U won't be replaced but financially that would probably be to much lol. By 2017 I think a replacement wouldn't be considered a bad thing for Nintendo and if Wii U keeps getting good titles, maybe starting to see some western devs releasing games near the end of its life. Nintendo could set up their next system for success. 2016 just seems to soon.
I am not saying many western devs will be interested in developing for the Wii U but I think Nintendo could bankroll a port or two near the end of the Wii U to build hype for their next home console... again not saying any of this will happen, just saying it could be smart
If they continue to make underpowered consoles, I don't think that would be a smart strategy. Not a lot of third parties will want to develop for Nintendo's consoles anyway, and if they wait until Microsoft and Sony to launch their consoles, Nintendo's will feel too little too late and they'll be seen as even less relevant. They need to make sure they launch first to make sure they're not forgotten.
Really if they're going to stick with underpowered consoles they don't have a lot of options. Either they need stick with the blue ocean strategy and compete based on innovation and/or scale things down and position themselves as a budget console. And they haven't really done well in either with the Wii U.
The Xbox was considered a good console, even with it losing Microsoft money overall. Sony's biggest problem was it was difficult to develop for and their image was kinda bad. The PS3, at the beginning of the generation, was able to kill their image after the PS2 and they had to build it back. Image is what I am talking about. There isn't much they could do hardware wise but their image is what needs to be fixed. There is plenty they can and still need to do. Hardware revisions won't be the answer and a new system will continue to dig their image grave. To save Nintendo's next console, they need to work on their current system. they need to show Nintendo is a worthwhile investment before asking people to invest in a new machine.
Hardware is a big part of their image problem, so they're going to need to do something about it if they want to fix their image. Another part of it is their game library, they need to start making more mature games that can appeal to Microsoft and Sony's audience. Basically they can't fix their image problem without compromising their business values, it's inherently at odds with the market.
@Bolt_Strike
My idea is either release before PS5/XB2 and be more powerful than PS4/XB1, or release after PS5/XB2 and be near-enough on power.
The first idea is closer to what happened with the Wii U but picking the right architecture would have changed things for the Wii U. I think the Wii U was a big fluke or everything Nintendo did at the beginning, not working out, similar to how the PS3 made a ton of mistakes at the beginning. As stated before, Nintendo won't be able to fix some of their problems with hardware revisions like how Sony did. Nintendo needs to focus on their image, then release a new system as their "Hardware revision" fix. I don't think this can be done before 2017.
Just saw the second part. Nintendo doesn't need to change their software development but instead chase down deals like they did with Bayonetta and Devil's Third (that is what that game is called right?) By publishing mature content, and hopefully by making deals with western developers, they could increase their image just before a new console release in 2017 and continue that trend into the new generation. This is just my idea and I am not saying it is the answer, but if people think a new console will fix everything wrong with Nintendo then they need to re-think what Nintendo's problems really are.
@Bolt_Strike
My idea is either release before PS5/XB2 and be more powerful than PS4/XB1, or release after PS5/XB2 and be near-enough on power.
The first idea is closer to what happened with the Wii U but picking the right architecture would have changed things for the Wii U. I think the Wii U was a big fluke or everything Nintendo did at the beginning, not working out, similar to how the PS3 made a ton of mistakes at the beginning. As stated before, Nintendo won't be able to fix some of their problems with hardware revisions like how Sony did. Nintendo needs to focus on their image, then release a new system as their "Hardware revision" fix. I don't think this can be done before 2017.
No argument on the 2017 release date, but I don't think they'll release a near competitive console even shortly after, it'd be too expensive. They pretty much have to break the bank to keep up.
@Just saw the second part. Nintendo doesn't need to change their software development but instead chase down deals like they did with Bayonetta and Devil's Third (that is what that game is called right?) By publishing mature content, and hopefully by making deals with western developers, they could increase their image just before a new console release in 2017 and continue that trend into the new generation. This is just my idea and I am not saying it is the answer, but if people think a new console will fix everything wrong with Nintendo then they need to re-think what Nintendo's problems really are.
Third parties aren't very reliable so they shouldn't be Nintendo's only source of mature games, they need their own. I would work on acquiring more western second parties like Retro or Next Level and license out mature IPs to them, that would do a lot more to convince western gamers that Nintendo has the games they're looking for.
They also need to work on securing more multiplatform titles. If they're not offering the same games you can get on Microsoft and Sony's console than that decreases the incentive to buy Nintendo's consoles, since you would need to get a Microsoft or Sony console along with it.
@BlueSkies
Keeping the Wii U on the market is no longer about short term profit. The reason why they need to keep the Wii U on the market is to market their next console. They need to show consumers that Nintendo won't leave their product if sales are what they expect. Nintendo needs to prove that their console will continue to be supported. Once the consumer is convinced of that (and that may not be possible but they still need to try) then they need to release their new system. The Wii U is in a worst spot than the PS3 was at the beginning of the generation, but there are a lot of similarities. Sony continued to support their system and paid a lot of money to get the PS3 to a must have system by the end of the generation. Nintendo doesn't need to make the Wii U a must have system, then need to make consumers think positively about the Wii U. Replacing the Wii U to soon will cause consumers to feel they won't get their money worth out of it. Replacing the Wii U before 2017 is not the answer. (Unless Nintendo can change everyone's mind about the system this holiday, which is unlikely without Zelda)
There are big differences between the PS3 and WiiU. The PS3 was the most powerful hardware on the market and thus had long legs. Sony responded to criticisms of their new boomerang controller and quickly replaced it while Nintendo has not redesigned either of their controllers or offered a sku without the 'gamepad.' Sony had healthy third party support. Sony was more supportive of online gaming.
On launching in the fourth year- Microsoft launched the 360 in the fourth year of the Xbox and no one complained. Nintendo simply can't keep this console on the market with virtually zero third party support. They can't make any forward momentum with the image of the platform as it stands and the only way to regain consumers and third parties is to wipe the slate clean.
That doesn't offer any rebuttal to my in any way. You can bet that without those three games, the Wii U's sales would be a hell of a lot worse than they are right now. You think 10 million is bad? How many of those people do you think got a Wii U specifically for Smash?
You'll also note that how powerful the hardware is has nothing to do with the sales. Anyone with Internet access can see that the most powerful hardeare has never once won a console war. A far more relevant point is that Nintendo games have insane longevity. The original NSMB was still selling within the top 100 yearly sales seven years after launch. Most games drop out of those kind of sales within a month. It took until Smash had a launch year for Brawl to drop in price. The last three Mario Party games are all still pretty expensive considering how long it's been. If any of the big 3 have the ability to pull a late-game-turn-around, it's Nintendo.
Also, your comparison to Microsoft still falls apart. No one complained because Halo was the only thing the original Xbox really had going for it. That and online play. Besides that, the Xbox was Microsoft's first console and it wasn't until the 360 that anyone really cared what Microsoft was doing. Nintendo hasn't missed a single console generation, yet. (Even in Gen 2, they had arcade cabinets and Game&Watch.) it's a very different story for Microsoft to break the five-year minimum after only one console than it is for Nintendo to do this after six.
@Bolt_Strike
My idea is either release before PS5/XB2 and be more powerful than PS4/XB1, or release after PS5/XB2 and be near-enough on power.
The first idea is closer to what happened with the Wii U but picking the right architecture would have changed things for the Wii U. I think the Wii U was a big fluke or everything Nintendo did at the beginning, not working out, similar to how the PS3 made a ton of mistakes at the beginning. As stated before, Nintendo won't be able to fix some of their problems with hardware revisions like how Sony did. Nintendo needs to focus on their image, then release a new system as their "Hardware revision" fix. I don't think this can be done before 2017.
No argument on the 2017 release date, but I don't think they'll release a near competitive console even shortly after, it'd be too expensive. They pretty much have to break the bank to keep up.
@Just saw the second part. Nintendo doesn't need to change their software development but instead chase down deals like they did with Bayonetta and Devil's Third (that is what that game is called right?) By publishing mature content, and hopefully by making deals with western developers, they could increase their image just before a new console release in 2017 and continue that trend into the new generation. This is just my idea and I am not saying it is the answer, but if people think a new console will fix everything wrong with Nintendo then they need to re-think what Nintendo's problems really are.
Third parties aren't very reliable so they shouldn't be Nintendo's only source of mature games, they need their own. I would work on acquiring more western second parties like Retro or Next Level and license out mature IPs to them, that would do a lot more to convince western gamers that Nintendo has the games they're looking for.
They also need to work on securing more multiplatform titles. If they're not offering the same games you can get on Microsoft and Sony's console than that decreases the incentive to buy Nintendo's consoles, since you would need to get a Microsoft or Sony console along with it.
I hate to say this, but I think Nintendo's gonna find itself in a better position when Miyamoto stops influencing them entirely. He's a great creative lead, but his business decsions are now doing more harm than good.
I hate to say this, but I think Nintendo's gonna find itself in a better position when Miyamoto stops influencing them entirely. He's a great creative lead, but his business decsions are now doing more harm than good.
One thing I do agree with. He just needs to stay in charge of his individual games rather than having any say in the company overall.
Forums
Topic: Is the Wii U a failure?
Posts 321 to 340 of 460
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.