Quantcast
Locked: the Wii U is not getting replaced this year, guys

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - the Wii U is not getting replaced this year, guys

Wyrdness said:
Thunderbird77 said:

It indicates they will cut the price when it can remain very profitable even after the cut.



 


Except they happily cut the price of the 3DS when problems arose, ask yourself this what other Nintendo platform 4 years in didn't recieve a price cut keeping in mind on average a gen has been 5 years? GC was less then half the price of the U and received one, fact is they accepted the U was a lost cause back when Iwata in February 2014 first hinted at the NX, the GC was at least neck and neck with the Xbox but U will never be in that position and was left behind fast.

The lack of a price cut is just them recouping as much back from each sale before the next platform.

They didn't happily cut the 3ds price and the 3ds was sold at a big profit margin at $250. They went from big profit at $250 to small loss at $170. The Wii U was already sold at a loss at launch, they couldn't make such a drastic cut early on without hemorraging money.





Around the Network
Thunderbird77 said:
Wyrdness said:

 


Except they happily cut the price of the 3DS when problems arose, ask yourself this what other Nintendo platform 4 years in didn't recieve a price cut keeping in mind on average a gen has been 5 years? GC was less then half the price of the U and received one, fact is they accepted the U was a lost cause back when Iwata in February 2014 first hinted at the NX, the GC was at least neck and neck with the Xbox but U will never be in that position and was left behind fast.

The lack of a price cut is just them recouping as much back from each sale before the next platform.

They didn't happily cost the 3ds price and the 3ds was sold at a big profit margin at $250. They went from big profit at $250 to small loss at $170. The Wii U was already sold at a loss at launch, they couldn't make such a drastic cut early on without hemorraging money.



 

Wii U is outdated tech. Even the $199.99 Nvidia Shield console is more powerful with more RAM to boot. 

They don't want to  cut the price because as you said it's not worth it ... the system is a failure and will be a failure no matter what they do. So they're just letting it die. 

It may get a Pikmin 4 (something quickly slapped together using the Pikmin 3 assets) and some more outsourced projects (a Mario Sunshine HD might be nice) but that's about it. 



Thunderbird77 said:

If controllers are made for peanuts, an add on for for a controller must cost even less. Good that you finaly agreed. Don't forget that MP was also required to play SS.

Wii games bundled with wiimotes were very multiplayer intensive. Bundling a GC controller for a single player GC game, just so buyers of another console can play it, that's a waste.



 

Sorry but drop the rubbish, WMP was more modern tech then anything in a GC controller, the add on cost more then a GC controller to make. This is made more apparent that Nintendo didn't put the tech in the Wiimote at launch because it wasn't financially viable and too pricey.

The fact that those games had Wiimotes bundled proves the whole point, Wiimote required, bundled, point proven. 



Thunderbird77 said:

They didn't happily cost the 3ds price and the 3ds was sold at a big profit margin at $250. They went from big profit at $250 to small loss at $170. The Wii U was already sold at a loss at launch, they couldn't make such a drastic cut early on without hemorraging money.



They did cut the price because the realized the possible problems it could face, they could have easily cut it to a price where they still made profit but instead dropped it to where it was sold at manufacturing price. The Wii U was sold at a tiny loss, Reggie even said a Wii U owner only needs to buy 1 game to make that sale profitable, they can very well have dropped the price and made up losses with software sold, the platform became profitable with each unit sold in 2014.





Wyrdness said:
Thunderbird77 said:

If controllers are made for peanuts, an add on for for a controller must cost even less. Good that you finaly agreed. Don't forget that MP was also required to play SS.

Wii games bundled with wiimotes were very multiplayer intensive. Bundling a GC controller for a single player GC game, just so buyers of another console can play it, that's a waste.



 

Sorry but drop the rubbish, WMP was more modern tech then anything in a GC controller, the add on cost more then a GC controller to make. This is made more apparent that Nintendo didn't put the tech in the Wiimote at launch because it wasn't financially viable and too pricey.

The fact that those games had Wiimotes bundled proves the whole point, Wiimote required, bundled, point proven. 

It wasn't pricey by itself but would make the wiimote more costly at launch, making it a risk. If it retailed for $20 at a profit, you can bet it costed less than even an old GC controller.





Around the Network
Soundwave said:
Thunderbird77 said:

They didn't happily cost the 3ds price and the 3ds was sold at a big profit margin at $250. They went from big profit at $250 to small loss at $170. The Wii U was already sold at a loss at launch, they couldn't make such a drastic cut early on without hemorraging money.



 

Wii U is outdated tech. Even the $199.99 Nvidia Shield console is more powerful with more RAM to boot. 

They don't want to  cut the price because as you said it's not worth it ... the system is a failure and will be a failure no matter what they do. So they're just letting it die. 

It may get a Pikmin 4 (something quickly slapped together using the Pikmin 3 assets) and some more outsourced projects (a Mario Sunshine HD might be nice) but that's about it. 

This nvidia shield doesn't seem more powerful than Wii U at all.

The problem here is you say nintendo doesn't cut the price because they have given up on Wii U, but I bet you would find a way to say the same thing if they had already made a price cut.





Thunderbird77 said:

It wasn't pricey by itself but would make the wiimote more costly at launch, making it a risk. If it retailed for $20 at a profit, you can bet it costed less than even an old GC controller.



 

If it was pricey enough that they had to wait 3 years from 2006 for it to become cheaper then it's absolutely certain it cost more then a GC controller which would have been cheap as chips years before that.



Direct this month?



PerturbedKitty said:
curl-6 said:

"Another year of good Wii U gaming"?

The Wii U has barely anything coming out even this year, and nothing at all announced for 2017.

If there were any big games still to come, we'd know about them by now. They haven't announced a major new Wii U game since E3 2014, the writing is on the wall.

how do you know wii u has nothing else coming out this year? do you oversee all of nintendo's development teams? if so, what projects do they have lined up for the Wii U's successor when it releases this fall? lol

seriously though, how quickly do we forget nintendo's e3 2010. 

It's been a year and a half since Nintendo revealed a major new Wii U game. If there were any still to come, we'd know about them by now. The lack of any big announcements at last year's E3 made it pretty clear they've shifted their developmental efforts away from Wii U. 

It barely has enough software to limp to the end of this year as it is. Not sure why anyone would want a 5th year if it's just going to be one giant game drought.

Trust me, as a Wii U owner I'm not happy about it either, but that's just the way it is.



Yeah like I said it doesn't even matter when NX comes out. It's fairly obvious the Wii U was replaced from a development POV a while ago by Nintendo in favor of future platforms.

When NX and/or 3DS successor launches is rather irrelevant, as their games will require 2-3 years lead time before their launch, which means bye-bye Wii U development.

If Wii U was a successful platform, then yeah I could see them taking pains to to support it, but as is ... nope.