A sense of dread shrouds Nintendo?s Wii U

[Yopaz]

If comparing something to its predecessor, rather than actually evaluating profitability, were the way to measure success, Sony would have shut down its gaming division because the PS3 failed to outperform the PS2.

No one has said Nintendo should shut down. I just don't understand you apologists. Now we can't even compare the WiiU to the Wii.

Sure, compare Wii U to Wii and say it sells less. Do not claim that Wii U not selling as much as the Wii makes it a colossal failure. The Wii had better sales in its launch period than the PS2. Was the PS2 a failure?

The Wii U might flop, it might sell well. It's too soon to tell one thing or another The PS3 did eventually pass the Xbox 360 and it didn't have the best launch sales either. I have suspected that Wii U might end up like DreamCast myself, but it's impossible to predict at this point.

 

[Epona]

Nintendo needs to get better about naming their game systems. I work for a retail store and we get returns on 3DS and Wii U games several times a week because people can't figure out the difference. I try to give people a heads up on the Wii U titles, but I thought we were past that with the 3DS games. Apparently I'm wrong, as just the other day I had someone trying to return a 3DS game.

I understand that brand recognition is important, but one letter or one number is not enough for the common parent to see the difference. I admit that the 3DS name makes sense, but a lot of people think they can play the games for it on their regular DS because the cases say that the games can be played on '2D or 3D.' Plus I overhear a lot of people that think the Wii U is just a tablet.

Not all people have this problem, but you'd be surprised as to how many people don't do research on the internet before buying a product. In an age where most people have access to that on their cell phones, I find it incredibly baffling.

EDIT: I thought I should note that this isn't a rampant problem, nor is it the reason for the lower-than-the-Wii-launch sales numbers, I just thought it was an interesting problem, although a bit off topic, I suppose.

They should have called it a Super Wii and they should have made it look totally different from the Wii.

 

[Epona]

If comparing something to its predecessor, rather than actually evaluating profitability, were the way to measure success, Sony would have shut down its gaming division because the PS3 failed to outperform the PS2.

No one has said Nintendo should shut down. I just don't understand you apologists. Now we can't even compare the WiiU to the Wii.

Sure, compare Wii U to Wii and say it sells less. Do not claim that Wii U not selling as much as the Wii makes it a colossal failure. The Wii had better sales in its launch period than the PS2. Was the PS2 a failure?

The Wii U might flop, it might sell well. It's too soon to tell one thing or another The PS3 did eventually pass the Xbox 360 and it didn't have the best launch sales either. I have suspected that Wii U might end up like DreamCast myself, but it's impossible to predict at this point.

Well, I don't think I said WiiU is a colossal failure, perhaps you could show me where I said that?

 

[V8 Ninja]

While I will admit that the Wii U doesn't have a large library of software that is coming out in the next 6 months, it's slightly ridiculous to say that the Wii U is already headed for failure when It's been out for less than 70 days. Give the console time and I'm sure it will be doing just fine.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

That's almost never been a real disadvantage when it comes to consoles. Of the last three console generations, the most popular by far have always been the consoles with the weakest specs: the Wii, the PS2, the PS1. In and of itself, the Wii U being weaker than the PS4/720 does not signify any great threat for Nintendo.

The PS1 initially competed against some iteration of the Genesis and the SNES. The optical storage format gave it tremendous practical advantage over the N64. The PS2 also initially competed against a cartridge based system and launched in the era that DVD players were relatively rare giving it access to a secondary market. The Xbox certainly had a technological edge but the most practical was the storage space.

In each case you find a fundamental truth of things: the developers go where the consoles go, and people buy consoles for the software not the device.

The real issue when it comes to wooing developers isn't power, but how easy it is to develop for.

That's hogwash. Developers, speaking in general terms, develop for whatever platform or group of platforms offers the highest probable return on an investment. Relative difficulty of development means little to a large game with a budget in the tens of millions - expertise and time is something they pay for in huge quantity anyway and the technical staff tends to represent only a small fraction of the workforce. It can certainly matter for smaller developers of course - thus why so many one man shops and garage studios develop for iOS or Android. But, generally at least, those tiny developers aren't the ones you think of when it comes to the hot new game everyone wants - the sort of game that sells consoles to the formerly disinterested. By contrast, total number of devices in the field offers a far better metric when it comes to judging risk and reward - at least until you've tested the market to better understand what sort of things they want. This is why there was initially tremendous interest in the Wii by third party developers, a trend that ended rather abruptly for the big names - they simply couldn't get people to buy the things they made.

The N64, despite having better specs, had cartridges that forced developers to trim their games down to megabytes in size. The N64 was a nightmare of optimisation compared to the PS1, hence why most developers avoided it.

This is one of the problems that comes with declaring one console "better" than the other. Sure, the N64 was more powerful - but given that the competition offered an order of magnitude more storage meant that often PS1 games looked better.

Same deal with the PS2- while developers struggled a bit at first, once they got their heads round it, it was far easier to develop for than either the Gamecube or the 360, again hence why it was able to amass such an embarrassingly huge collection of games. The Xbox was beefier, but it simply didn't give developers the same ease with which to create games. The processors were more powerful, but the RAM put an instant limiter on anything that started getting too grand.

Actually, the Xbox was considered the easier development environment given the broad similarity to the PC on the hardware side of things.

The only reason the Wii suffered was because developers saw motion controls as a barrier. If they hadn't been included, or if they'd been easier to implement, the Wii would have probably had the same rush of development interest as the PS2 and PS1 did before it.

The Wii did see a huge rush of third party development. Third parties just generally failed to sell games for the thing. To their respective credit, Sega plugged away till the bitter end, EA managed to actually make a product people wanted, and the people who made Just Dance managed to stay in the top ten sales for months at a time. Still, the truth of the Wii seemed to be that the only people who could consistently make a game that sold well was Nintendo.

And on that note, developers have already said that the Wii U is ludicrously easy to develop for. I believe Frozenbyte said that they got the port of Trine 2 up and running in two days, and the devs of Darksiders II managed the same in about two weeks. Likewise, the guys at Shinen Software who created Nano Assault Neo specifically for the Wii U said they had absolutely no problems getting the game up and running on the machine, as did Michel Ancel regarding Rayman Legends.

Producing ports and cross platform titles is all well and good. Once you sell a console, those offer a decent reason to stick around. But each of those games is available elsewhere - that they can be had on the Wii U isn't going to convince many people to buy it when the targeted market segment generally includes people who have already played it.

If the PS4 and 720 are ludicrously more powerful than the Wii U then fair enough (though I doubt it), but if they're much harder to develop for, then they've instantly shot themselves in the foot.

Why would you doubt that a new generation of consoles from Sony and Microsoft would be anything other than significantly more powerful than the Wii? The Wii offers what is essentially parity to technology built the better part of a decade ago. Building substantially more powerful in every respect has become a trivial task. Even avoiding bleeding edge technology, producing something a dozen times faster with ten times the memory could be done and sold at a reasonable price.

So how come the 3DS is now somewhere around 27 million units sold, and counting? The DS audience is still there, if the 3DS continued sales are anything to go by.

Yes but now the DS competes for mindshare and pocket space with ubiquitous smart phones. That market is going to increasingly pressure the DS market especially for people who largely owned the device to play things like Brain Age.

You're basicaly arguing that MicroSony's next gen machines have the advantage by default, and Nintendo has to do something to change that. When as far as I can see, all three companies have got to do a lot of legwork to convince people to pick up their next consoles, and thus far, Nintendo is the only one to have done anything about it.

The difference is that Microsoft and Sony currently have more than 70 million users sold on the notion that the company can make a quality product. Convincing that person to upgrade to a more powerful version of a thing they liked is an easier sell than convincing someone to jump ship to something entirely different. Beyond that, both companies have a tremendous advantage when it comes to producing a powerful console, proven track records in the online space, and a notable dedication to having their devices do lots of things people want besides play games.

Yes, Microsoft and Sony can easily squander those advantages. Right now, Nintendo's only proven edge is they started first and their move was a console marginally more powerful than the others that features a neat controller. I want someone to do something that's actually awesome with that controller. Hell - if someone made a good version of the game Penny Arcade Suggested, I'd strongly consider actually getting a Wii U myself.

 

[Yopaz]

If comparing something to its predecessor, rather than actually evaluating profitability, were the way to measure success, Sony would have shut down its gaming division because the PS3 failed to outperform the PS2.

No one has said Nintendo should shut down. I just don't understand you apologists. Now we can't even compare the WiiU to the Wii.

Sure, compare Wii U to Wii and say it sells less. Do not claim that Wii U not selling as much as the Wii makes it a colossal failure. The Wii had better sales in its launch period than the PS2. Was the PS2 a failure?

The Wii U might flop, it might sell well. It's too soon to tell one thing or another The PS3 did eventually pass the Xbox 360 and it didn't have the best launch sales either. I have suspected that Wii U might end up like DreamCast myself, but it's impossible to predict at this point.

Well, I don't think I said WiiU is a colossal failure, perhaps you could show me where I said that?

OK, you never said it was a colossal failure, I apologize for exaggerating your points throughout this thread. However I do still want an answer to my question. The PS2 did not have as high launch sales as the Wii, did that keep the PS2 from being the best selling console ever?

 

[Epona]

If comparing something to its predecessor, rather than actually evaluating profitability, were the way to measure success, Sony would have shut down its gaming division because the PS3 failed to outperform the PS2.

No one has said Nintendo should shut down. I just don't understand you apologists. Now we can't even compare the WiiU to the Wii.

Sure, compare Wii U to Wii and say it sells less. Do not claim that Wii U not selling as much as the Wii makes it a colossal failure. The Wii had better sales in its launch period than the PS2. Was the PS2 a failure?

The Wii U might flop, it might sell well. It's too soon to tell one thing or another The PS3 did eventually pass the Xbox 360 and it didn't have the best launch sales either. I have suspected that Wii U might end up like DreamCast myself, but it's impossible to predict at this point.

Well, I don't think I said WiiU is a colossal failure, perhaps you could show me where I said that?

OK, you never said it was a colossal failure, I apologize for exaggerating your points throughout this thread. However I do still want an answer to my question. The PS2 did not have as high launch sales as the Wii, did that keep the PS2 from being the best selling console ever?

No but it's invalid, the gaming audience was much smaller in 2000 than it is now.

 

[Yopaz]

If comparing something to its predecessor, rather than actually evaluating profitability, were the way to measure success, Sony would have shut down its gaming division because the PS3 failed to outperform the PS2.

No one has said Nintendo should shut down. I just don't understand you apologists. Now we can't even compare the WiiU to the Wii.

Sure, compare Wii U to Wii and say it sells less. Do not claim that Wii U not selling as much as the Wii makes it a colossal failure. The Wii had better sales in its launch period than the PS2. Was the PS2 a failure?

The Wii U might flop, it might sell well. It's too soon to tell one thing or another The PS3 did eventually pass the Xbox 360 and it didn't have the best launch sales either. I have suspected that Wii U might end up like DreamCast myself, but it's impossible to predict at this point.

Well, I don't think I said WiiU is a colossal failure, perhaps you could show me where I said that?

OK, you never said it was a colossal failure, I apologize for exaggerating your points throughout this thread. However I do still want an answer to my question. The PS2 did not have as high launch sales as the Wii, did that keep the PS2 from being the best selling console ever?

No but it's invalid, the gaming audience was much smaller in 2000 than it is now.

OK, so compare it to the PS3 which has had a slow and steady progress then. Did the PS3's slow sales at launch prevent it from becoming the second best console of its generation?

 

[Epona]

If comparing something to its predecessor, rather than actually evaluating profitability, were the way to measure success, Sony would have shut down its gaming division because the PS3 failed to outperform the PS2.

No one has said Nintendo should shut down. I just don't understand you apologists. Now we can't even compare the WiiU to the Wii.

Sure, compare Wii U to Wii and say it sells less. Do not claim that Wii U not selling as much as the Wii makes it a colossal failure. The Wii had better sales in its launch period than the PS2. Was the PS2 a failure?

The Wii U might flop, it might sell well. It's too soon to tell one thing or another The PS3 did eventually pass the Xbox 360 and it didn't have the best launch sales either. I have suspected that Wii U might end up like DreamCast myself, but it's impossible to predict at this point.

Well, I don't think I said WiiU is a colossal failure, perhaps you could show me where I said that?

OK, you never said it was a colossal failure, I apologize for exaggerating your points throughout this thread. However I do still want an answer to my question. The PS2 did not have as high launch sales as the Wii, did that keep the PS2 from being the best selling console ever?

No but it's invalid, the gaming audience was much smaller in 2000 than it is now.

OK, so compare it to the PS3 which has had a slow and steady progress then. Did the PS3's slow sales at launch prevent it from becoming the second best console of its generation?

So let me get this straight, you admit that you exaggerated my argument and you apologize but then you right back to asking me questions based on your exaggerations.

I never said the WiiU is going to be a failure so I am having trouble understanding the basis for these questions. Are you next going to ask about the PS1? How about the N64 or the Atari 2600.

Read this very carefully, I never said the WiiU will be a failure. I do think that this will be the last generation of consoles but compared to the PS4 and Nextbox, the WiiU probably won't be a failure and I never said it would be.

 

[Yopaz]

Read this very carefully, I never said the WiiU will be a failure. I do think that this will be the last generation of consoles but compared to the PS4 and Nextbox, the WiiU probably won't be a failure and I never said it would be.

OK, you never said the WiiU was a failure. However you have argued against everyone who says it wont be a failure. You keep making the Wii the benchmark it should reach for it to be a success, you keep ignoring that the Wii had a phenomenal launch compared to all consoles.

You wont say it's a failure, but everyone who says it's not a failure is wrong. You're not saying it straight out, but you could just do that since your responses say it clearly enough.

Now you believe what you want, I still think it's too soon to pass judgment and I had my predictions that the Wii was going to crash and burn so I don't trust myself enough on the subject.

 

[Epona]

Read this very carefully, I never said the WiiU will be a failure. I do think that this will be the last generation of consoles but compared to the PS4 and Nextbox, the WiiU probably won't be a failure and I never said it would be.

OK, you never said the WiiU was a failure. However you have argued against everyone who says it wont be a failure. You keep making the Wii the benchmark it should reach for it to be a success, you keep ignoring that the Wii had a phenomenal launch compared to all consoles.

You wont say it's a failure, but everyone who says it's not a failure is wrong. You're not saying it straight out, but you could just do that since your responses say it clearly enough.

Now you believe what you want, I still think it's too soon to pass judgment and I had my predictions that the Wii was going to crash and burn so I don't trust myself enough on the subject.

I am ceasing arguing with people who think that I said the WiiU is/will be a failure. It's obvious that saying the WiiU isn't doing as well as the Wii did or that the WiiU barely outsold a 7 year old console is lost on people.

To put it simply, I think the WiiU is having a poor launch and I asked people why they thought that was the case.

 

[venatus]

To put it simply, I think the WiiU is having a poor launch and I asked people why they thought that was the case.

and the argument people have been making with you is that it isn't having a bad launch. you've had two metrics to assert it's had a bad launch. neither of which hold up very well, brand new consoles usually are outsold by the older generation (for a time at least) and the wii had an unusual success at launch so it doesn't' make a fair yard stick for launches in general.

comparing the wiiU's launch sells to other consoles shows it'd doing about average. so if you want people to discuss why it's launch is bad, your going to have to first demonstrate the premise that it's having a bad launch.

 

[Yellowfish]

So what is it with the WiiU that just isn't attracting buyers?

My guess is that WiiU is still a fresh console with nothing really interesting about it. It just doesn't have a strong game library yet - only ports of already established titles and the new Rayman, plus a couple of other things. By the way is Rayman Legends a WiiU exclusive? If yes, I'm so pissed off. Also, Wii was a more casual platform, I guess, that's why it sold so well. WiiU, on the other hand, has this big gimmicky controller. My guess is that it's scaring away all the casuals while full-fledged gamers just wait for the console to mature and become worth its' money.

 

[Yopaz]

To put it simply, I think the WiiU is having a poor launch and I asked people why they thought that was the case.

Yes, in your first post you did do that. When someone mentioned it had to do with games you mentioned the Wii didn't need that to do well. You haven't really come up with a answer to the fact that it has been selling better than the PS3 and Xbox 360 when they launched. You haven't said it's failing directly, but every post you have responded to prove what you really want to say more than your words do.

 

[Epona]

To put it simply, I think the WiiU is having a poor launch and I asked people why they thought that was the case.

Yes, in your first post you did do that. When someone mentioned it had to do with games you mentioned the Wii didn't need that to do well. You haven't really come up with a answer to the fact that it has been selling better than the PS3 and Xbox 360 when they launched. You haven't said it's failing directly, but every post you have responded to prove what you really want to say more than your words do.

Well, I am done here because apparently you can't say anything that isn't positive about the WiiU.

 

[Lieju]

I have a hard time seeing the Wii U doing anywhere near as well as the Wii.

Most Wii buyers have learnt their lesson, I think.

Most (or atleast many, the so called 'casual' market) Wii buyers are totally satisfied with their Wii, which is why they don't see a reason to get a newer version.

Casual market doesn't respond to new fancy hardware the same way 'hardcore' market does.

 

[Epona]

Oh but here's something else that isn't positive about the WiiU. I am sure these people are also wrong though:

Wii U game sales 'far behind launch levels for Gamecube and Wii'
Reacting to last night's release of NPD sales data for the US market in December, Cowen said in a research note: "Software sales for the Wii U remained well behind launch levels for the original Wii and GameCube in December.

"Totals for the November-December period were -43% lower than software sales for the Wii and -50% lower than those for the GameCube."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/386207/wii-u-game-sales-far-behind-launch-levels-for-gamecube-and-wii/

 

[Olas]

Nintendo doesn't need to hit a grand slam every time to be successful and make money. Look at the Gamecube, it was barely even in competition with the two other consoles and came in dead last sales wise but it was still profitable for Nintendo and was still ultimately a success in those terms.

So if the WiiU doesn't outshine the Wii or even the other consoles it doesn't mean Nintendo's in trouble, it just means they aren't doing AS well as they once were.

As a Nintendo fan I see this as a good thing, it means Nintendo will have to work harder and learn from their mistakes. A company with too much success can get lazy and uncompetitive. Look at Apple.