Topic: Is the Wii U slow start really a bad thing financially?

This is something that's been rattling around in my head for a while now, so bear with me.

We all know that early on in a console's life, build costs are high, even so high that they are sold at a loss. As time goes on, the production cost goes down and the console becomes more profitable. We also know any new console comes with technical problems that need to be ironed out in a real life scenario (e.g. early adopters find these problems better than members of hardware staff before he launch). Other problems include lack of awareness of the product of non gamers, and a slow pick up of 3rd party developers producing high quality games. Time heals all of these problems.

So my question is: In the long run, is it better for sales to start slow with loyal fans who put up with the crud, and when the masses start to buy the system when the big games turn up it's more profitable and you're not losing money on each console (and having to fix loads of tech problems for a mass market). It cuts out a lot of bad PR on a big scale, plus you're better the games getting better and more frequent (like the 3ds), than starting out with you're best games in the first 18 months and then running out of steam (like the Wii).

This question obviously applies to the Wii U, but also to consoles in general. Not sure which way I perceive it, but have been thinking about it.

Meh. Don't worry about it. People will get whatever console they truly want overall, and that's all that matters. Even if Company 1 sells more than Company 2, it doesn't mean Company 1's buyers are happier.
I bought Wii U on launch, because I knew it was a step further in the right direction, no matter how small or large that step is. Alot of people think there's really no reason to buy a Wii U, even though it's clearly better gamewise IMO, than what PS3 or Xbox 360 can do at the moment.
There is literally no reason to buy any of the multiplatform games for anything besides Wii U if they are available, besides online community, which is completely missing the point of why we play games in the first place.
Zelda is popular because you can have a good game to play by yourself, and still feel accomplished, or have fun with the game without relying on internet to get a good game.
Internet adds fun, but a console should not be relying on internet to make it worthwhile.
Slow starts are natural, and early adopters that truly know what they're buying before they buy it will understand everything will not be guaranteed to be ready at the snap of a finger. It's called progress. You see something go from 0 to 10, to 20, and so on.
Wii U has good online play, the eShop, a good amount of games to keep people happy, the Gamepad, still supports your Wii remotes for most Wii U games, and enhances all the standard features we've come to like from all fronts.
There's alot of value in buying a Wii U, and Nintendo's trying to help people see that, just from what they've given us already, and adding onto that.
I haven't even touched my PS3 since Wii U came out, and there's really no reason to go back to me.

It's not a problem if there is some kind of guarantee that sales will pick up. The reason investors tend to get nervous with a slow console release is because its impossibly to make that guarantee.

Nintendo will be ok in the long term, I'm sure, but for now it's a case study on how expensive it is to launch a console - Nintendo will be stuggling with a lack of software sales of its own and lower licensing income at the moment.

[]Is the Wii U slow start really a bad thing financially?[]

Only for Nintendo

@scar: Even if Company 1 sells more than Company 2, it doesn't mean Company 2's buyers are happier.

what the hell does that even mean? i've been reading for a bit and you seem to be babbling. i get that you don't like sony. but you are posting tons of words that are merely indicative of your sony hatred.

my head hurts.

@waltz: i know almost nothing about the procedure of console development. how far into the process of the development of a new console is software development for it begun? once it starts do they work in tandem?

Sorry, I admit that was kind of contradictory. My point is, is that as long as you're happy with your product, it doesn't matter how much it sells, espacially in the first few months. I knew when I bought a Wii U, it would have enough fun games to play using the Gamepad. This is the beginning of what's to come, and it would be naive IMO to judge a console based on sale figures vs. happy costumers.

I see company 1 and company 2... No I don't see any mention of Sony... Alot of peops hate all kinds of stuff anyway so why get butthurt because someone hates what you like seems a bit silly

These are good points. Growing pains, as necessary as they are, still hurt.
BUT! I for one quite agree that it's best to focus on the long term picture, rather than get lost in all the negative press.

i don't see any sign of butthurt.

I see it twice now

It's been a good thing financially for me as I've been able to keep my spend on software at a reasonable level. Ultimately my finances are the only ones that count.

If I understand the question correctly, I'd say it's too complex to give a straight answer. There are a lot of variables to take into account and a lot of different ways to define whether a product is successful, especially considering who is defining it as a success (consumers, investors, third party developers, the company itself, etc). It also depends on what the expectations were and how much money was spent developing, publishing, and marketing the product. I'd ask why it matters to consumers which is better, the slower start or it slowing down later on, but I suppose sheer curiosity could be reason enough. The truth is there simply is a lot of information only Nintendo has that would determine the answer. Nintendo clearly is unhappy with this slow start but that doesn't mean they can't use it to their advantage. Like we've been saying for several months, it is way too early to determine how the system will do. All we can do is stab at guesses based on the information Nintendo chooses to release. Granted, we can make educated guesses instead of blind ones like some people seem to do, but in the end it all comes up to Nintendo's upcoming decisions, regardless of their past decisions.

Short answer, it's hard to know but don't be worried, a company the size of Nintendo doesn't disappear overnight and they've hardly gotten close to their last ditch efforts at this point.

Also, to put it in perspective, look at the 3DS. I started out even slower and at least has managed to pick up steam. Nintendo has learned a bit from that and they still have plenty of time to turn things around.

well then: step away from the mirror, lad!

It's a bad thing financially if third-party developers lose faith and decide to concentrate on other consoles.

It is a pretty bad thing financially.
Over time the materials needed to create the Wii U will be cheaper, but for now they are quite the price. If Nintendo is already selling this at a loss, combined by the fact that the Wii U is far away from predicted sales, or even goodish sales, Nintendo will hit a big loss, on Wii U sales.
Developers will lose fate unless Nintendo creates an incentive of some sort. Especially if they are stingy on lowering the price.

Still hurts doesn't it

Ugh, not yet ANOTHER "worried about Nintendo" thread. /bangs head on desk

Seriously, can we talk about something positive for a change, like the awesome upcoming games? Don't get me wrong it's fine to talk about the business aspects of gaming, but it seems like that's all that is being discussed (in a mostly negative light no less) lately IMO.

Pretty much this. It's draining sometimes to see mostly negative discussions, we're (almost) all fans here, can't we have some excited positive topics?