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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Should Nintendo change their Brand Name in the west to 'Gameboy'?

RolStoppable said:

The drop in interest in the Wii's motion controls is due to a lack of games. This is best highlighted by pointing to the sales of the Just Dance series which kept going strong until 2013. Nintendo, however, basically called it quits after Wii Sports Resort and Wii Fit Plus; that was in 2009. People cannot buy games that do not exist. But Ubisoft put out several 5m+ sellers during a timeframe that you call rejection of motion controls. Keep in mind that this is Ubisoft who suck pretty hard; it's not unreasonable at all to suggest that Nintendo games with motion controls would have bested Ubisoft's results. Well, as long as they didn't suck like Skyward Sword which made combat more of a puzzle as opposed to the arcade action that was the core of something like Wii Sports.


I think Just Dance was the exception rather than the proving point. It's a very particular type of game that didn't exist in it's form until motion controls, and has since tapered off. In a system where every game requires those controls, you need more than the diminshing success of one franchise on one platform to prove that they aren't undesirable.

The combat in SS sucked because of the motion controls as a whole, not simply because of their "puzzle" aspects. The motion controls on TP suffered much of the same issues without the puzzle aspects to the combat.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
spemanig said:

Because the logic that if something is selling poorly, it's because it does everything wrong is simple and flawed. It's far more complicated than that. It does a lot bad and a few good, but the bad far overshadows the good. The Wii U bringing back analog sticks is not part of the bad. If anything, the only reason it's even sold as much as it has is because it brought them back.

The controller is the most obvious part of any video game console. People realize that the standard controller determines what kind of games are going to be made for that system.

The GameCube had a dual analog controller and flopped. The Wii didn't have a dual analog controller and was a raving success. Logically, the sound business decision would be to build on the success instead of the failure.

But I am interested, what makes you believe that the dual analog controller made the Wii U sell better than it would have otherwise?


if you're really too dense to see that the reason the Wii U failed was marketing and confusion relating to its name then you're hopless :O the controller was far from its issue, and if it was part of the issue it was due to the tablet feature (a lot of users don't care about having that feature and don't want to pay the extra money for it) not the dual analog sticks. Dual analog sticks are on virtually every controller these days

 

you're confused entirely it seems



RolStoppable said:
Nuvendil said:

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. 

Sure, but like I said in my initial post, Nintendo had identified the dual analog controller as a cause for their failure. You also have to take into account that the GameCube controller was already meant to fix the overwhelming look of the Nintendo 64 controller, hence the big A button and different shapes for all face buttons to make them easier to distinguish. But that wasn't enough to overcome the psychological barrier of why people didn't play video games, or more specifically, didn't buy Nintendo hardware. That is the starting point for why the Wii Remote was created in the first place. Nintendo followed a very conscious thought process and they didn't succeed with the Wii by accident or luck.

In this specific instance, correlation is equal to causation. It's not the only reason for the Wii U's failure, but it's the biggest one because the controller is the most obvious part of a video game system and the average person understands what it means. That thing is what they are going to control games with.

Just because Nintendo also made that falacious assumption of causation does not make it correct.

I would strongly disagree with your final paragraph.  The controller is one of the smallest reasons for the Wii U's failure.  I can say that with a fair degree of certainty, because one of the biggest - if not THE biggest - factors in success or failure in a competative market is image.  The Wii U and the GameCube had absolutely atrocious management of their marketing and image.  And the Wii U is the worse of the two. Compare the Wii's launch ad campaign to the Wii U's.  Compare the Wii's first year ad campaigns to the Wii U's.  While the Wii had a campaign that made the device cool and appealing, the Wii U's made it confusing and embarrassing.  The Wii U could have been the greatest console ever made, the marketing still would have hamstrung it.  Because those who don't market, don't succeed.  I can also say the controller is a small issue because the majority of the market that is still interested in consoles use dual analogue controls all the time, so it's not like that's a major issue. And before you say that Nintendo is targeting a different audience, let me just say that their launch ads targeted a frankly non-existent audience; the Pitch commercial with the kids appeals to neither adults nor kids and the launch campaign itself was an incredibly generic and confusing mess.

Also, you bring up Just Dance but that's the problem right there.  THAT is the image of motion controls:  supplemental party games.  That and shovel ware.  A console built around motion controls is going to be tainted by that image.  The Wii benefited greatly from the "cool new tech" effect.  Much like the Kinect did afterward.  And much like VR seems to be doing now.  But motion controls are everywhere now, they're old news.  The cool new tech efffect is gone, now it's all down to what people think of motion controls.  And what people think is party games and shovelware.  And you can't sell a console to the current market (the people interested in dedicated hardware) with that image attached to it.

And as a final note, you are not looking at the big picture for the GameCube or Wii U.  I already touched on this a bit, but it warrants restating.  The GameCube and Wii U from the very start were doomed to at best a weak start and at worst a complete failure.  A weak launch lineup, marketing funded by the change under the couch cushions (and directed by an intern apparently), unappealing design visually, lack of third party support (for different reasons), the list goes on and on.  The controller is the very least of Nintendo's problems.  They have a host of other issues holding them back and until they fix that, it doesn't really matter what they do with their hardware. 



RolStoppable said:
spemanig said:

It should, because it's not.

So you agree on that point? Then why don't you agree that it is a problem when Wii U sales are atrocious?


Wii U sales are atrocious because of MARKETING. Nintendo named it the Wii U, which makes it seem like a successor to the Wii which is a MOTION CONTROL based system. the Wii U has little to nothing in common with it

it has nothing to do with the style or format of the system (except for arguably some not liking the mediocre specs), it has to do with people being CONFUSED. casual gamers think of the Wii and motion controls- they assume the Wii U is just some sort of expansion or whatever, or if they don't assume that and look it up then they are confused and possibly disappointed because of the LACK of motion controls

the name is what has killed sales and now the reputation. the reality is they also launched the Wii U with a fairly weak library. a system needs to have momentum. has a decent library now but its too late unfortunately. word of mouth is what propels a system and Nintendo does not have it for the Wii U

 

again, I don't think the design of the Wii U is the problem for the most. mostly the marketing and maybe the price. but its sort of irrelevant now, if you don't start with a bang its generally hopeless to buiild up sales on a system (except for rare exceptions, ala PS3)



Nuvendil said:
RolStoppable said:
Nuvendil said:

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. 

Sure, but like I said in my initial post, Nintendo had identified the dual analog controller as a cause for their failure. You also have to take into account that the GameCube controller was already meant to fix the overwhelming look of the Nintendo 64 controller, hence the big A button and different shapes for all face buttons to make them easier to distinguish. But that wasn't enough to overcome the psychological barrier of why people didn't play video games, or more specifically, didn't buy Nintendo hardware. That is the starting point for why the Wii Remote was created in the first place. Nintendo followed a very conscious thought process and they didn't succeed with the Wii by accident or luck.

In this specific instance, correlation is equal to causation. It's not the only reason for the Wii U's failure, but it's the biggest one because the controller is the most obvious part of a video game system and the average person understands what it means. That thing is what they are going to control games with.

I would strongly disagree with your final paragraph.  The controller is one of the smallest reasons for the Wii U's failure.  I can say that with a fair degree of certainty, because one of the biggest - if not THE biggest - factors in success or failure in a competative market is image.  The Wii U and the GameCube had absolutely atrocious management of their marketing and image.  And the Wii U is the worse of the two. Compare the Wii's launch ad campaign to the Wii U's.  Compare the Wii's first year ad campaigns to the Wii U's.  While the Wii had a campaign that made the device cool and appealing, the Wii U's made it confusing and embarrassing.  The Wii U could have been the greatest console ever made, the marketing still would have hamstrung it.  Because those who don't market, don't succeed.  I can also say the controller is a small issue because the majority of the market that is still interested in consoles use dual analogue controls all the time, so it's not like that's a major issue. And before you say that Nintendo is targeting a different audience, let me just say that their launch ads targeted a frankly non-existent audience; the Pitch commercial with the kids appeals to neither adults nor kids and the launch campaign itself was an incredibly generic and confusing mess.

Also, you bring up Just Dance but that's the problem right there.  THAT is the image of motion controls:  supplemental party games.  That and shovel ware.  A console built around motion controls is going to be tainted by that image.  The Wii benefited greatly from the "cool new tech" effect.  Much like the Kinect did afterward.  And much like VR seems to be doing now.  But motion controls are everywhere now, they're old news.  The cool new tech efffect is gone, now it's all down to what people think of motion controls.  And what people think is party games and shovelware.  And you can't sell a console to the current market (the people interested in dedicated hardware) with that image attached to it.

And as a final note, you are not looking at the big picture for the GameCube or Wii U.  I already touched on this a bit, but it warrants restating.  The GameCube and Wii U from the very start were doomed to at best a weak start and at worst a complete failure.  A weak launch lineup, marketing funded by the change under the couch cushions (and directed by an intern apparently), unappealing design visually, lack of third party support (for different reasons), the list goes on and on.  The controller is the very least of Nintendo's problems.  They have a host of other issues holding them back and until they fix that, it doesn't really matter what they do with their hardware. 


this. the only weakness the controller represents is possibly its price point (and I suppose the fact that its not motion control confuses people, but thats due to the systems name)

its ironic the poster attributed the Gamecubes failure to its controller for some odd reason, when the most heralded thing ABOUT the Nintendo Gamecube WAS its controller design. that controller is repeatedly voted best of all time in polls and forums all over



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
mountaindewslave said:
RolStoppable said:

The controller is the most obvious part of any video game console. People realize that the standard controller determines what kind of games are going to be made for that system.

The GameCube had a dual analog controller and flopped. The Wii didn't have a dual analog controller and was a raving success. Logically, the sound business decision would be to build on the success instead of the failure.

But I am interested, what makes you believe that the dual analog controller made the Wii U sell better than it would have otherwise?


if you're really too dense to see that the reason the Wii U failed was marketing and confusion relating to its name then you're hopless :O the controller was far from its issue, and if it was part of the issue it was due to the tablet feature (a lot of users don't care about having that feature and don't want to pay the extra money for it) not the dual analog sticks. Dual analog sticks are on virtually every controller these days

 

you're confused entirely it seems

eh? While they didn't help they certainly weren't the only, or even main reason. Let's see, a list of reasons why the Wii U isn't doing so well...

  • Is barely better than PS360. No reason to upgrade and for any new customers it just can't compete in library. It needed to be a lot better than them and it just wasn't.
  • Lack of regular controller. The tablet controller isn't necessarily an issue, it being the only one available however is the issue. That means anyone who wants a more traditional controller has to pay extra for it.
  • Lack of 3rd party support. This is a pretty big one. Sure it got some 3rd party games to start with, but not all of them and they soon dried up. If it had all the 3rd party support that PS/Xbox gets then I have no doubt it would have done better than it is now. Again, not the only issue so maybe not a huge amount better, but definitely a bit better.
  • Lack of must have exclusives. Can't see a single must have exclusive in it's launch line up and it took a long time after that to get one. Not a huge issue since games, exclusive or not, sell consoles but considering the lack of 3rd party games as well as the lack of improvement over PS360 it becomes a bigger issue.
  • Lack of momentum. The Wii started off strong but it's last few years were pretty bad. All the big games in that period were on PS360 and so that's where most of the gamers were. Some of those franchises came to Wii U with late ports or sequels, but that doesn't really help when the audience for those games are already on other consoles and happy there.

All of those and probably a few others are probably bigger reasons than marketing and definitely bigger reasons than because of its name.

I would say the lack of momentum and lack of 3rd party support all tie back to image.  When a publisher looks at platforms for publication, they are always consciously looking for platforms that are compatible with their goals.  If the image of the platform is opposed to the image that they feel is compatible with their offerings, they are going to be hesitant to support it.  And halfbaked support hamstrings future efforts and it snowballs from there.  And a poor launch marketing campaign is a huge, huge, HUGE momentum killer.  People don't telepathically know what your product is.

As for the controller, I think they could have sold it better.  I don't think the Wii U had a chance at first, the product is just too rough around the edges.  If the gamepad were refined with features stripped out to reduce the form factor to something more resembling a traditional controller, it could have done better.

But basically, on the bolding, I have to disagree.  Those other factors contributed, but some had their roots in marketing and image.  And more importantly, fixing all those issues woudl be for nothing if the launch campaign was still of this abysmal quality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dbGJieRaH0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fxQx7ZT-5k

No one is buying a console with THOSE commercials in their heads.  Only people who frequent gaming sites and know all the news about the system are going to give it a second thought.  The Pitch campaign probably drove a number of consumers AWAY with how utterly embarrassing it is. And worst of all, these ads didn't even air for very long.  Most of 2013 was complete radio silence.



Nintendo is thirsty to have a sub brand...that's why they went with Wii U, so they can ride the Wii NAME, not what original Wii stood for or the old motion experience. The BC of OG Wii is what throws some ppl off about Wii U's message, but Nintendo's main objective is to have a "playstation" or "Xbox" of their own. Like Wii 1 was motion gaming, Wii U is faux tablet/asymmetric dual screen experience, then Wii 3 could have been totally different. Wii!!! Yay! Literally sounds like fun! That's what Nintendo aimed for, a mainstream, sub brand of family fun, with a different experience introduced each gen.

But to think Wii U failed b/c it didn't follow what Wii 1 did, or somehow fooled the audience with the name, is a flawed outlook. Wii U failed b/c nobody wanted the thing, no one asked Nintendo to chop off the specs for a gimmick, but if you have the gimmick, you better make sure it hits. The faux tab failed b/c Nintendo didn't set the proper example so other devs can follow suit. That's what happens when you try to be different for the sake of being different, and have no real plans behind an idea. Nintendo could have called Wii U anything else and still would have failed, if not harder.

As for the future of Nintendo & sub branding, the "NX" in its final form will do that, for at least the next decade.



RolStoppable said:
spemanig said:

I think Just Dance was the exception rather than the proving point. It's a very particular type of game that didn't exist in it's form until motion controls, and has since tapered off. In a system where every game requires those controls, you need more than the diminshing success of one franchise on one platform to prove that they aren't undesirable.

The combat in SS sucked because of the motion controls as a whole, not simply because of their "puzzle" aspects. The motion controls on TP suffered much of the same issues without the puzzle aspects to the combat.

Feel free to list the motion control games that came out in 2010 and afterwards. My point was that interest in motion controls diminished due to the lack of games.

Nuvendil said:

Just because Nintendo also made that falacious assumption of causation does not make it correct.

I would strongly disagree with your final paragraph.  The controller is one of the smallest reasons for the Wii U's failure.  I can say that with a fair degree of certainty, because one of the biggest - if not THE biggest - factors in success or failure in a competative market is image.  The Wii U and the GameCube had absolutely atrocious management of their marketing and image.  And the Wii U is the worse of the two. Compare the Wii's launch ad campaign to the Wii U's.  Compare the Wii's first year ad campaigns to the Wii U's.  While the Wii had a campaign that made the device cool and appealing, the Wii U's made it confusing and embarrassing.  The Wii U could have been the greatest console ever made, the marketing still would have hamstrung it.  Because those who don't market, don't succeed.  I can also say the controller is a small issue because the majority of the market that is still interested in consoles use dual analogue controls all the time, so it's not like that's a major issue. And before you say that Nintendo is targeting a different audience, let me just say that their launch ads targeted a frankly non-existent audience; the Pitch commercial with the kids appeals to neither adults nor kids and the launch campaign itself was an incredibly generic and confusing mess.

Also, you bring up Just Dance but that's the problem right there.  THAT is the image of motion controls:  supplemental party games.  That and shovel ware.  A console built around motion controls is going to be tainted by that image.  The Wii benefited greatly from the "cool new tech" effect.  Much like the Kinect did afterward.  And much like VR seems to be doing now.  But motion controls are everywhere now, they're old news.  The cool new tech efffect is gone, now it's all down to what people think of motion controls.  And what people think is party games and shovelware.  And you can't sell a console to the current market (the people interested in dedicated hardware) with that image attached to it.

And as a final note, you are not looking at the big picture for the GameCube or Wii U.  I already touched on this a bit, but it warrants restating.  The GameCube and Wii U from the very start were doomed to at best a weak start and at worst a complete failure.  A weak launch lineup, marketing funded by the change under the couch cushions (and directed by an intern apparently), unappealing design visually, lack of third party support (for different reasons), the list goes on and on.  The controller is the very least of Nintendo's problems.  They have a host of other issues holding them back and until they fix that, it doesn't really matter what they do with their hardware. 

The Wii was cool, that made it easy to market. The main problem for the Wii U is that it was never a compelling product to begin with.

The image you talk about is the one that is projected by hardcore gamers. The same people that will always say that everything Nintendo does is crap. You are right, Nintendo can't sell a console to that current market, but they don't need to. There are plenty of other people on this planet.

The controller is part of the unappealing visual design of the console.

Anyway, I know that none of the three people who quoted me (potentially more by the time I hit the submit button) will agree with me here, so this is basically the point where I once again find solace in the fact that Nintendo has already decided that their ninth generation hardware won't be an attempt to sell to the current market, and that Iwata doesn't think that marketing has been their biggest problem for both, the console and its games.

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree with most people including Nintendo themselves.  I look at their IP library and they have the guns to take on any contender you name.  It's entirely possible to reinvent a corporate image.  Products are harder to do since the products are physical, tangible things and the current ones on the market won't magically change.  A company, as far as public perception is concerned, is just an entity, an image in a commercial set.  With the right ad team, Nintendo could roll in guns blazing and win over a lot of people.  You give Nintendo the marketing calibur of Sony and you would have a true battle on your hands between those two companies. 

As for there being "plenty of people on the planet," that's all well and good but how many people are intersted in *dedicated* hardware.  And I think Nintendo recognizes the issue, that they can't count on the many millions who abandoned dedicated hardware after one gen in that market to just come back for NX.  NX will be unique, I have no dobut, but I seriously think they will be contending for that more core market, just not in the exact same way.  The next gen will feature further segregation of the core, casual, and handheld markets at Nintendo.  Their mobile division will target the "casuals" who don't give two craps about dedicated hardware, NX will target the core crowd, and the handheld will target the usual handheld owners.  How they accomplish this, who knows. But I think you can bet on an augmentation rather than reinvention approach.  The Wii had it's cool moments, but they recognized right quick the limitations that it imposed.



RolStoppable said:

Feel free to list the motion control games that came out in 2010 and afterwards. My point was that interest in motion controls diminished due to the lack of games.

 


On a system with only motion controls as a primary input option, every game is a motion control game. Every game that came out for the Wii was effected by this. Red Steel 2, Xenoblade, Epic Mickey, sports games, COD - everything. Lack of interest in motion controls came because no one wanted to buy games with motion controls after the fad ended, outside of the outlier examples like Just Dance.

They wanted it until they didn't. That's why the attach rate only got worse. It's why the software sales for PS Move and Kinect games got worse. Unlike with Just Dance, these aren't isolated insances. Motion gaming, as a whole, fell at roughly the same time, and the Wii was hit the hardest because that was it's primary way of functioning.



SlayerRondo said:
bigtakilla said:
Ka-pi96 said:

So going 3rd party?


Until you realize what going third party does to the quality of your games... Looking at you Sega!

I think Sega had the potential to make great third party games but wasted their potential. Sega just does not have the size, scope and legacy that Nintendo has so I would hope that they would maintain their quality.

I don't think we are going to have to worry about it. Their business model keeps them profitable at their worst and rolling in cash at their best.