By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo's down, but not out.

justinian on 17 March 2013

I do not see a problem with people dooming the wiiu anymore than I have a problem with those saying it will do fine. The truth is no one knows. I can see good arguments for both sides when presented well without the trollish nonsense.

I do however think Nintendo was arrogant if they believed that people should have already bought a lot more of them just because it is a wii u. No big launch titles and nothing on the near horizon.

I would have thought it would make a lot more sense to build a steady momentum and "peak" before the other consoles get on the market. What is the point of releasing the console earlier than the others if not for this reason? Instead the console is out with no games to boost sales and the upcoming big titles will most likely compete with the arrival of the other two consoles. I believe this is stupid and it is doomed to fail. By fail I mean sell significantly less than the other two.

People that believe the 3DS was in a similar position when it launched is missing the point. The 3DS had weak competition. Huge difference.

I believe wii u was marketed wrong and Nintendo forgot who the vast majority of their customers were. Casuals.
I know that some casuals don't know exactly what the wii u is. Is it a handheld or a wii addon? Others think it is all too complicated with the iGamepad and a step away from the wii's ease of use.

I am a big Nintendo fan but don't see how they can overcome these obstacles. I hope they prove me wrong.




Around the Network
curl-6 on 17 March 2013

People have different definitions of "failure."

If the Wii U was outsold by the PS4/720, but turned an overall profit and reached around N64 numbers, I would not deem that a failure.



hsrob on 17 March 2013
Mazty said:
hsrob said:
Mazty said:

My bad, it's just an ad hominem fallacy - instead of addressing the point, you just attack the commenter instead. And you've done it again. Good job. Now either address the point I originally made maturely and logically or don't bother replying. 

My post was not an ad hominem attack either, I simply suggested that your response missed the point and in fact by responding to you I could be guilty of going off topic. Again, my problem is your post, not you.

I would honestly ask that you read the OP again to see if you still think your post was a reasonable response.  The OP is not asking you to prove that the Wii U can't sell as he's not presenting his points  as proof that it will.

He is merely stating that he believes it is too early to make a final judgement on the system's sales prospects and appealing to people who feel the need to be constantly negative in the forums.  A sentiment with which I could not agree more.

Yes it was as you didn't address my points & even stated that "responding to you at any length would be doubly pointless."
That's an ad hominem. If you are going to disagree, at least bother to say why you disagree rather than declaring that you're right. By not giving any reason why you are right and yet declaring the other one wrong, you are not engaing with the argument but the poster instead.

And my post was highlighting the errors that the OP had made. Saying it is too early to make a final judgement is true, but claiming it is too early because the moon is made out of cheese is bullshit; I was just cleaning out the bs, nothing more, nothing less. 

Me declining to address your points might be unsatisfying to you, but even if I had sad you're wrong, or that your post didn't make sense, or that it was unecessarily negative does not equate to an ad hominem attack.   Doubly pointless was in reference to me responding to a post which in my opinion had missed the point i.e. rendering any significant response from me redundant, again not an attack on you.



Mazty on 17 March 2013
hsrob said:
Mazty said:
hsrob said:
Mazty said:

My bad, it's just an ad hominem fallacy - instead of addressing the point, you just attack the commenter instead. And you've done it again. Good job. Now either address the point I originally made maturely and logically or don't bother replying. 

My post was not an ad hominem attack either, I simply suggested that your response missed the point and in fact by responding to you I could be guilty of going off topic. Again, my problem is your post, not you.

I would honestly ask that you read the OP again to see if you still think your post was a reasonable response.  The OP is not asking you to prove that the Wii U can't sell as he's not presenting his points  as proof that it will.

He is merely stating that he believes it is too early to make a final judgement on the system's sales prospects and appealing to people who feel the need to be constantly negative in the forums.  A sentiment with which I could not agree more.

Yes it was as you didn't address my points & even stated that "responding to you at any length would be doubly pointless."
That's an ad hominem. If you are going to disagree, at least bother to say why you disagree rather than declaring that you're right. By not giving any reason why you are right and yet declaring the other one wrong, you are not engaing with the argument but the poster instead.

And my post was highlighting the errors that the OP had made. Saying it is too early to make a final judgement is true, but claiming it is too early because the moon is made out of cheese is bullshit; I was just cleaning out the bs, nothing more, nothing less. 

Me declining to address your points might be unsatisfying to you, but even if I had sad you're wrong, or that your post didn't make sense, or that it was unecessarily negative does not equate to an ad hominem attack.   Doubly pointless was in reference to me responding to a post which in my opinion had missed the point i.e. rendering any significant response from me redundant, again not an attack on you.

Yes it does because you are saying the person is wrong, and by not giving a justification, you are being condescending. Anyway this is off topic - as I said I was just cleaning the OP's post from BS. 



curl-6 on 17 March 2013
Mazty said: In an era of multiplatform core games, the Wii U isn't offering any of that to a degree that beats the 360 or PS3.

Exclusives sell systems more than multiplats. You can play COD, Assassin's Creed, or GTA on multiple platforms, but you can only play Mario Kart Smash Bros, and Zelda on Nintendo systems.



Around the Network
Suke on 17 March 2013

In a new time period of tech, the buisness practice Nintendo does is too old fashion. With smart phones and tablets being popular, and Nintendo snubing off the third parties. Yeah but in about a year or so, this could easily bite them and if Sony and Microsoft price their consoles well. This could be a problem for Nintendo. I personally suggest they go third party, their known for their games not their consoles.



“Don’t follow the hype, follow the games”

— 

Here a little quote I want for those to keep memorize in your head for this coming next gen.                            

 By: Suke
Mazty on 17 March 2013
curl-6 said:
Mazty said: In an era of multiplatform core games, the Wii U isn't offering any of that to a degree that beats the 360 or PS3.

Exclusives sell systems more than multiplats. You can play COD, Assassin's Creed, or GTA on multiple platforms, but you can only play Mario Kart Smash Bros, and Zelda on Nintendo systems.


My point was that it was offering the same multiplatform games rather than any that have noticable improvements e.g. NFS:MW on the PS2 compared to 360. 

Also it's lacking exclusives. As Mario Karts isn't a core game, same can be said with Zelda, it means that a lot is riding on Smash Bro's which has never been a massively popular genre. 



curl-6 on 17 March 2013
Mazty said:
curl-6 said:
Mazty said: In an era of multiplatform core games, the Wii U isn't offering any of that to a degree that beats the 360 or PS3.

Exclusives sell systems more than multiplats. You can play COD, Assassin's Creed, or GTA on multiple platforms, but you can only play Mario Kart Smash Bros, and Zelda on Nintendo systems.


My point was that it was offering the same multiplatform games rather than any that have noticable improvements e.g. NFS:MW on the PS2 compared to 360. 

Also it's lacking exclusives. As Mario Karts isn't a core game, same can be said with Zelda, it means that a lot is riding on Smash Bro's which has never been a massively popular genre. 

Zelda not a core game? Why, cos it's not spraying blood everywhere and showing Zelda's breasts?

And Smash Bros Brawl sold over 10 million, if that's "not massively popular" then pretty much nothing outside of Maro, COD, Pokemon and Wii Sports is.



maxnyc on 17 March 2013

The Wii was a fluke. The DS was a fluke. Now that the 3DS is selling well, that's a fluke too. I'm sure once some decent software is released for the Wii U, we will see that fluke happening all over again. Nintendo seems to be good at fluking.



maxnyc on 17 March 2013
Mazty said:
curl-6 said:
Mazty said: In an era of multiplatform core games, the Wii U isn't offering any of that to a degree that beats the 360 or PS3.

Exclusives sell systems more than multiplats. You can play COD, Assassin's Creed, or GTA on multiple platforms, but you can only play Mario Kart Smash Bros, and Zelda on Nintendo systems.


My point was that it was offering the same multiplatform games rather than any that have noticable improvements e.g. NFS:MW on the PS2 compared to 360. 

Also it's lacking exclusives. As Mario Karts isn't a core game, same can be said with Zelda, it means that a lot is riding on Smash Bro's which has never been a massively popular genre. 

Zelda is a core game. If anything, Smash Brothers is closer to being casual friendly. If you got that wrong, then i can't take your thoughts very seriously.