Topic: Wii U's console life span?

Exactly on point with the Sonic Lost World comment, all three, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, flirt with third-party exclusives or content, sometimes they may be published by those said companies or not, it all depends on the situation.

As far as the four year mark, I this is perfectly executable for struggling consoles......maybe Nintendo is already seriously working on a successor, maybe they aren't, who knows (they would not want to make it public this early on considering the Wii U is still trying to seriously shift copies).

============================

~ Nintendo originally wanted to replaced the Nintendo 64 by the year 2000 with Project Dolphin, due to the 64's perceived lack of market dominance compared to the Playstation. Dolphin was delayed however, mostly due to R&D.

============================

~ Microsoft replaced the Xbox with the Xbox 360 within four years (late 2001 to late 2005), they viewed the Xbox as only a moderate success (sales around 24 million), and they wanted to get a jump on the market and beat Sony and Nintendo to the next-generation........that move arguably payed off for them in the end, although it was an uphill battle.

============================

~Sega replaced the struggling Saturn with the Dreamcast in 4 years in the Japanese and NA markets. Unfortunately they stopped supporting the Saturn early in NA, so it only really came down to three years worth of games, and a years wait until the Dreamcast hit the market.

============================

Another recent example of third-party exclusives for Nintendo, outside of Sega, would be Ubisoft.........obviously some hand-shaking was done prior to the Wii U's launch in regards to ZombiU and Rayman Legends (before the later lost it's exclusivity). Ubisoft did the same thing with the Wii (GT Pro Series, Rayman Raving Rabbids, and especially Red Steel).

[quote=sub12]
~Sega replaced the struggling Saturn with the Dreamcast in 4 years in the Japanese and NA markets. Unfortunately they stopped supporting the Saturn early in NA, so it only really came down to three years worth of games, and a years wait until the Dreamcast hit the market.

============================

</blockquote>

This isn't exactly a good example, considering that was part of what led SEGA to go third-party. Mind you, it was the tail end of far too many reasons, and 32X --> Saturn was the point that most people gave up on SEGA.

I'm not saying 4 years is impossible, I'm saying it's unlikely, and given Nintendo's dev time, they would've had to have been planning to replace the Wii U since about E3 2013. I almost guarantee ideas are flying around about the next console, but I doubt there's any physical development under way, yet, meaning a 2016 release date would be extremely unlikely.

I will be perfectly fine just buying another console right now and have the Wii, Wii U and Wii 3 all side by side. So yeah no problem here.

If they did what you said it'd be bye-bye Nintendo...

I'm okay with the Wii U following a 5 year lifespan. Mostly because I don't view Nintendo as the same market with Sony/Microsoft. Nintendo does its own thing, and makes its hardware to its own liking. I think Nintendo needs to not try to appeal to audiences that aren't interested in PS/XBox, but market themselves in a way that doesn't say "we're one of your choices among videogame consoles", but instead says "here's what we do, are you interested?".

3 years maximum...anything after that is suicide.

25 years, it'll be the only videogame to survive the "great EMP" of 2016 that will destroy 70% of the earth's techinology and since humanity will have to rebuild society no new consoles will be made in this timespan

I won't even start thinking about this main question here, before at least:
MK8, Smash Bros. Wii U and Zelda U has HIT the market.

One thing though:
Of course Nintendo is working already on the successor to the Wii U and that has NOTHING to do with how the Wii U sold until now. Those plans take many years and are therefor nothing but normal. A "Fusion" between console and handheld makes very much sense, which is why someone "made it up" already ..personally I would like it and had the idea and hopes up months before those articles appeared, also that 3ds and Wii U - already - get more linked up and we could play the 3ds games on the TV would be great.

Please tell me you're not serious. LESS time than 3 years would be suicide. They'd lose the trust of their fanbase, if they replaced it so soon. They'd have no reliable buyers. That's the step that started SEGA's downward spiral, and I really don't want to game in a world where Nintendo has to follow MS or Sony's orders to publish a game.

Basically what shingi said. Titanfall isn't multiplat. If you're counting Titanfall as a oaid 3rd party, than Nintendo has more than that: Sonic Lost World, Hyrule Warriors, Bayonetta 2, W101, Super Smash Bros.

All those games are being worked on by 3rd parties. I'm talking multiplatform games, here. If Sony and Microsoft don't have to pay for a title like Mirror's Edge, FIFA, etc, then it's nonsense to suggest that Nintendo should. 3rd parties are literally denying business if a console manufacturer has to pay for a game that isn't exclusive, which is why I'm saying that Nintendo will not stand for.

@JohnRedCorn
I know. I see ton's of "new" or "barely used" Xbox and PS3 consoles on sites like CL. I just didn't mention it, but I read your post.

First off I agree with your point as you worded it - less than 3 years would basically mean a new console this year or early next, obviously not something that will ever happen.

However, a lot of people make this same type of argument about early replacement, and although there may be some basis to it, I think it's almost moot. Would they really be losing the trust of the fanbase? There are about 95 million original Wii owners out there that decided not to purchase a Wii U because it doesn't appeal to them for one reason or another. Then there are about 5.5 million of us that I would consider early adopters of the Wii U and probably fall into the category of "true Nintendo fans" . If the Wii U was replaced early, a lot of the people that bought the Wii U would buy the next console anyway. I know that I would...

So all in all, they would be making a business decision hoping to appeal to 95 million people that still need a compelling reason to buy a Nintendo console, and in the meantime would only be potentially alienating a much smaller percentage of people (most of which would probably buy the new console anyway.)

The sooner they kill it the better imo. Nintendo will be bleeding a lot of money because of it and I honestly can't see a way that they'll turn it around. They could honestly already have more Wii Us manufactured than they will sell at this point. That 5 million number they showed during the investors meeting was only shipped units. Software sales are ridiculously low for it too.

I dont buy into them losing consumer faith if they end it earlier. The Wii U has been on the market for a while now and its pretty clear that most dont want it.

That's what Sega said...

I think "four years" is the sweet spot, nobody called foul when Microsoft launched the 360 four years after the Xbox. Anything less however, and your kinda running into SEGA territory,..........the current Wii U adapters are the core fans, if you show that you don't care about their concerns, or getting any bang for their buck, your potentially left without any market.

But yes, by mid-late 2016, they should launch a new home console if they don't adopt the "fusion" method..........currently, I don't see MK8 or Smash Bros. substantially upturning Wii U sales, I think they will spike for a bit, but nothing game changing I'm afraid.

Again, it's still far too early to be sure. As we've said many times, Nintendo is undoubtedly already working on a new console, but how far along they are is anyone's guess. If it's in conceptual stages, I don't know if they could have a new console ready by 2016. Not impossible, but maybe a bit of a stretch.

As for the buyer faith thing, what if they DON'T appease the 95 million who most forums seem to believe have moved on to mobile gaming, anyways, and are likely not interested in a home console because the Wii fills all their home-gaming needs, anyways, assuming they even have any home gaming needs. Then by cutting off the Wii U early, you convince a large number of that 5 million to ignore the new console at launch, because for all they know, it'll just flop and be replaced in three years. Now you have no prospective buyers and very VERY limited early adopters.

Despite what people believe, 2 million sales in the first month is not a bad thing. Sure, the Wii got 6 mil, but that's an insanely good first month. Most consoles can barely keep up with 2 mil in one month, let alone 6. What was bad was the lack of support for the console in the Winter and Spring of 2013. They didn't start releasing any titles until July, and it seriously came back to bite them. If you don't believe the point about losing consumer faith, then just look at the numbers, themselves. Everyone thought the Wii U had no support and would be replaced early. You guys are proving that one, right now. Why would anyone buy a console that's just gonna be replaced, in two years? They'd rather wait out the console's lifespan and get it when it's cheap. They'll do the same for the next console, if Nintendo kills this one early. They'll assume Nintendo won't support the console for more than 3 years because of awful sales, and just get it when it's dead.

A late 2016 launch would be the absolute minimum they could safely do. Any less than that is asking to go the SEGA route.

I think about five or six years will be the lifetime on the Wii U.... I'm leaning more towards five though. Maybe we'll hear something in 2017 with a release in 2018? I can't make a proper and complete opinion until MK8, SSB, and Zelda Wii U are out. I know a lot of people who are holding off on the Wii U because they desperately want those three titles.

I feel like if they are going to go off the beaten path and release another console X number of years before the other guys, they'll need to make it a much stronger machine than the X1/PS4, and not just slightly above par like the Wii U is to the PS3/360.

A good percentage of the people who bought the Wii were either kids, families, or 20 somethings who bought it because the girlfriend wanted Wii Fit. One of those people being my friend, I was helping him move furniture this summer and I noticed his Wii, which had been boxed up for 2 years already along with the 3 games he purchased for it (Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii, and some crap third person game).

It's Nintendo's fault for trying to chase these people down again, the Wii was kind of a pop culture moment, now thats it's over, only the gamers (or new gamers) are left.

Those gamers are all quite convinced Nintendo hasn't got anything for them. Short of spending an entirely two years doing nothing but trying to convince these people that they DO have use for a Wii U, Nintendo can't get them back. A lot of gamers are extremely thick-headed. This is quite evident from talking to the majority of them, both online and IRL. The majority of the people Nintendo would need to attract back to their side tend to stop listening, once you bring up Nintendo. They'll just insist Nintendo doesn't have any games they'll be interested and change the subject, or just call Nintendo kiddie and leave the conversation.

Then there's the ones that play 3DS and basically say the Wii U just isn't worth it due to lack of games. Nintendo needs to attract those people, because they won't be getting the SHOOTAN kids back, any time soon.

For the record, Wii U staying around for 6 years as a failure would most likely still be better than giving up on it. Unless you think Nintendo screwing over its own hardcore fans is a good idea.