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

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

Thunderbird77 on 20 January 2016
Wyrdness said:
Thunderbird77 said:

Oh, consumers would have paid but the question a company asks is: If I add a few dollars to the cost with this added technology, will more people buy it? Chances are wii sales wouldn't have been higher if it had motion plus at launch, so nintendo would have missed on more than 200m dollars in profits throughout the generation.

 

You're struggling to grasp the basics here, the cost would have been passed on to the consumer so the company would not have lost anything.

You're struggling at basic mathematics. if the consumer pays $250 with or without motion plus, but the one with MP costs a few more dollars do manufacture, the manufacturer is missing on a lot of money with the later option.





Around the Network
Wyrdness on 20 January 2016
Thunderbird77 said:
Wyrdness said:

 

You're struggling to grasp the basics here, the cost would have been passed on to the consumer so the company would not have lost anything.

You're struggling at basic mathematics. if the consumer pays $250 with or without motion plus, but the one with MP costs a few more dollars do manufacture, the manufacturer is missing on a lot of money with the later option.

It's you who's struggling because the cost is passed on to the consumer as it's included in the price they pay, Nintendo would have just upped the price for those few dollars, it's not rocket science companies have been doing it for years in EU to make up the costs for the taxes charged.





PerturbedKitty on 20 January 2016

Thunderbird77 vs Wyrdness Episode IV: The Struggle Continues



Thunderbird77 on 20 January 2016
Wyrdness said:
Thunderbird77 said:

You're struggling at basic mathematics. if the consumer pays $250 with or without motion plus, but the one with MP costs a few more dollars do manufacture, the manufacturer is missing on a lot of money with the later option.

It's you who's struggling because the cost is passed on to the consumer as it's included in the price they pay, Nintendo would have just upped the price for those few dollars, it's not rocket science companies have been doing it for years in EU to make up the costs for the taxes charged.

So, you think the wii would have retailed for $253 -255 at launch to compensate?





Wyrdness on 20 January 2016
Thunderbird77 said:
Wyrdness said:

It's you who's struggling because the cost is passed on to the consumer as it's included in the price they pay, Nintendo would have just upped the price for those few dollars, it's not rocket science companies have been doing it for years in EU to make up the costs for the taxes charged.

So, you think the wii would have retailed for $253 -255 at launch to compensate?

Easily if WMP was as cheap to make as you claim.





Around the Network
Thunderbird77 on 20 January 2016
Wyrdness said:
Thunderbird77 said:

So, you think the wii would have retailed for $253 -255 at launch to compensate?

Easily if WMP was as cheap to make as you claim.

Your words, not mine. Now explain why electronics never have this kind of pricetag.





Miyamotoo on 20 January 2016
Thunderbird77 said:
Miyamotoo said:
Thunderbird77 said:
Miyamotoo said:

Like I wrote at first, TP porting on Wii and very likely possible Zelda U porting on NX doesn't have anything with controls, its all about strong launch title and much better sales for game.

Again, we don't know if NX will have BC at all, and if will have BC we don't know if it will need Wii U controller in order to play it. Point is If you make Zelda U NX game too and launch it with NX, use it to promote NX and reverse use NX to promote game, you will definitely have much stronger sales of game than if it's Wii U exclusive. No to mentione being NX launch title very help launch. Its common business sense, basically you have only positive staffs making Zelda U port like NX launch title, you dont have any negative staffs.

It was because of controls. Porting a game doesn't change it's base. Zelda U is a Wii U game. If nintendo wants the game to push wii u's successor hardware, they can just market the game a lot + making sure people know it's compatible with both systems. In the end, while it is possible, nintendo has no reason to port it.

No it wasn't because of controls, it was beacuse sales of game and great launch game for Wii. Zelda U curently is a Wii U game but if they ported to NX for launch it will also NX game same like TP is also Wii game.

Why they would promote game from previous system that failed hard and that is dying and that is basically at end of life, when they have completely new platform that needs to be promoted hard, they will port that game and made it launch title for that new system (basicly maide it NX game) and promote it like totally new game for totally new platform. What do you think, what variant of those two will sell much more copies of game and what variant will have much stronger impact on NX launch!? Answer is pretty obvious, Its common business sense.

Again, we don't know if NX will have BC at all, and if will have BC we don't know if it will need Wii U controller in order to play it, but you are pretty certain about that. Even NX has BC (I will say chances are around 50% for BC) in some way I am pretty sure Nintendo will port Zelda U and make it NX launch title.

TP is a gamecube game. Zelda U is a wii u game, no porting will change that. If nintendo wants the game to push the next hardware, they can do so with marketing.

Technically is GameCube game, but reality is that was launched even earlier on Wii than on GC, that GC version of game and GC itself were practically dead after launch of Wii and Wii version of a game while Wii version of game was selling entire life of Wii. Thats why we have around 7m copies of game sold on Wii and around only 1m sold on GC. Because of that majority see TP like Wii game not GC.

 

"If nintendo wants the game to push the next hardware, they can do so with marketing."

You definitely didn't read what I wrote:

Why they would promote game from previous system that failed hard and that is dying and that is basically at end of life, when they have completely new platform that needs to be promoted hard, they will port that game and made it launch title for that new system (basicly maide it NX game) and promote it like totally new game for totally new platform. What do you think, what variant of those two will sell much more copies of game and what variant will have much stronger impact on NX launch!? Answer is pretty obvious, Its common business sense.

Again, we don't know if NX will have BC at all, and if will have BC we don't know if it will need Wii U controller in order to play it, but you are pretty certain about that. Even NX has BC (I will say chances are around 50% for BC) in some way I am pretty sure Nintendo will port Zelda U and make it NX launch title.



Miyamotoo on 20 January 2016
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Soundwave said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
As I wrote many times, IMVHO Ninty won't rush anything. Early release didn't pay for XB360, it paid even less for Wii U and it barely paid for 3DS only because PSV did awfully, but 3DS had a horrible launch and it needed a huge price cut with heavy temporary losses to be fixed, and after a roaring "second" launch, it eventually fell under average sales of its unbeatable dad, DS, with its enhanced New 3DS edition not as strong as DSi was for DS, The record is quite bad for early launches, both for Ninty and for other companies, with few exceptions that worked thanks to many other factors helping them, early launch alone wouldn't have worked.
So, 2016 could be the earliest possible year for Portable NX, while 2017 will be for Home NX, but I wouldn't be surprised if no launches at all happen this year.

360 benefitted a lot from an early launch, it basically gave Microsoft a gaurunteed 1st place in the HD race for a couple of years and by then they had tons of momentum. 

Axing the XBox to switch to XBox 360 was 100% the right call. 

Early launches do let you work out kinks in your strategy. 

The DS had a shitty launch too ... yet it had time to iron that out. 

If the XBox One had a year headstart like the 360 did, they'd probably be no.1 right now in the next-gen market. 

 

 

Part of my answer is above, in what I answered to Soundwave. About Wii, Ninty clumsily killed it far too early, due to both decreased support and some clumsy statements in some Wii U announcements that made Wii look suddenly obsolete more than one year before its successor's launch, these two things tarnished the Wii brand itself and contributed to worsen the other problems adding a totally avoidable marketing one.


About NX launching this year and being rushed or not: of course if they don't bring forward production , HW design and development won't be rushed, so HW problems as MS had with XB360 would be avoided, but it would actually be rushed in being launched just four years after Wii U, this would quite piss off the few 3rd parties that believed in it, and most Wii U users too. And it would be at least two years earlier than competitors, this could force them to modify their plans in ways that could hurt Ninty in unpredictable ways (for example delaying their next consoles one more year, so making NX overpowered for multiplat games that must necessarily run on 8th gen consoles too, for lack of other 9th gen ones, while it would be even more underpowered than Wii U compared to its later competitors). To put it simply, launching too early compared both to Wii U and to 9th gen competitors would make Home NX a 8.5 gen console, and competitors could easily make it become far too early for what concerns next gen. Last, but not least, launching this year is too early to include an affordable VR device as standard equipment, should it become a viable and next future for gaming, while competitors launching later could wait and see to decide. Obviously if VR will be already viable but still only as an optional for every 9th console, no harm will come to Ninty from this side.
But as I wrote, a 2016 launch for Portable NX wouldn't be rushed at all, just early, but reasonable. Anyway, 3DS doesn't need a urgent replacement yet, so it depends just on Ninty plans for that part.

 

 

Actually Nintendo didn't kill Wii to early, if you look history of Nintendo consoles usually they have life span of around 5 years where last year is completely dead, Wii had life span of 6 years where last two years were dead. So actual problem with Wii is that Nintendo has it too long on market without successor, while in meantime all Wii owners migreated on mobile and PS3/Xbox360 platforms. Wii successor needed to arrive in 2011, not at end of 2012.

From Wii U perspective, NX launch in 2016. would be rushed because Nintendo consoles usually have life span of around 5 years where last year is dead, but from development side of NX and preparing launch I dont think it will be rushed at all. I dont think 3rd parties and Wii U owners will piss becuse its well known that Wii U selling terible and Nintendo alrede relased almost all biggest franchaises for it, 2016. launch and shorter Wii U life is somehow expected so it can't be really any surprise.

I dont think we will see next PS/Xbox consoles before 2019, and Nintendo definitely can't wait so long with Wii U and best choice is to launch new console fastest they can and that's definitely end of 2016.



Shiken on 20 January 2016
PerturbedKitty said:
Conina said:
Shiken said:

Realeasing a year before is not mid gen.  Releasing a console barely more powerful than the competition's tech just 3 years into their life cycle just to be vastly outdone by the following gen a few years later is.  See the WiiU.  Slightly more powerful than the 360, nowhere near PS4 ir X1.

The WiiU wasn't launched "just 3 years into the life cycle" of the 360/PS3. Neither "just 4 years" nor "just 5 years"... it was launched full 7 years after the Xbox360. Do you really call that example "mid gen launch"?

lol totally. something isnt adding up in shiken's post here. it makes absolutely no sense.

 

Hows this for making sense.

 

The WiiU just sucks...

 

Really though the WiiU was a bad choice of example on my part.  My point on mid gen releases remain the same though.  My issue with the WiiU and Nintendo in general is that they are literally always a gen behind in tech for consoles since the GC, and have pretty much said that will not change.  Maybe thats why I feel so compelled to call it mid gen when it isn't.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

MikeRox on 20 January 2016
Shiken said:
MikeRox said:

 


I'm a bit confused.

Mega Drive launched way before the SNES.

 

Dreamcast launched a year before the PS2, but then PS2 launched a year before both Xbox and GameCube, so that gen was staggered over 3 years. What made the PS2 the right time for that gen?

 

Xbox 360 launched a year before the Wii and PS3.

 

I dont think "mid gen" has ever really been a thing. Releases have always been separate. How long is a gen? The PS1 and Saturn were hitting shelves this year at this stage in the SNES's life (compared with when Wii U hit the market). The 3DO and such were already on the market.

 


Realeasing a year before is not mid gen.  Releasing a console barely more powerful than the competition's tech just 3 years into their life cycle just to be vastly outdone by the following gen a few years later is.  See the WiiU.  Slightly more powerful than the 360, nowhere near PS4 ir X1.  Look at OG XBox.  Arrived late, very small power advantage, and was forced to end support early to get the jump on the next gen.

As for the PS2, one year out of the 10 year life cycle is not in the middle.  It is simple math to see where your examples are irrelevant.  Furthermore timing was not the reason for the PS2s success.  It was overwhelming 3rd party support to where it had such a large amount of games not available anywhere else at the time that did it for them.  Nintendo has shit 3rd party support, so this senario is not even an option for them.

 

Dreamcast launched 1 year before the competition if you are counting the PS2, which was the undisputed winner. You cited the Dreamcast and Xbox as the failures of that gen.  But the Xbox outsold the Gamecube. So timing was clearly irrelevant in that gen.

If you're going to bring 3rd party into it. The Mega Drive/Genesis initially didn't have  a strong 3rd party, as they were still all tied into Nintendo's "you make a NES game you can't make a game for anything else" contract. Sonic the Hedgehog was the key proponent of sales and that was around the time the competition released.

Also nobody knew the PS2 would have a 10 year lifecycle when it launched. It only had 5 years on the market before the Xbox 360 launched and the PS1 had only been on the market 5-6 years before that so "10 year lifecycle" wasn't even a thing. That was a term introduced to help the PS3 shift hardware and confirm to the audience Sony weren't dropping it in 6 months to make a PS4 after the launch issues.

You seem to be starting with your conclusion, and then cherry picking examples to support what you already thought.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.