| VGPolyglot said: Yeah, and it shows from the differences of when I got each console. I got my Wii U in June 2015, over 2 and a half years after its release. However, I got the Switch in June 2017, only 3 months after release. |
Same here, I got my Wii U for (and with) Xenoblade Chronicles X, and was kind of forced into it, while I was estatic to get my Switch at launch.
Considering how many people here thought that the Wii U had a great launch lineup, I'm starting to understand why VGChartz was blindsided by the Switch being successful.
85,494 
RolStoppable said:
It was really only solid in name, because ultimately most games weren't worth buying. On topic: We are only six months after Switch launch day, not seven. |
I definitely agree most games weren't worth buying but New Super Mario Bros. U alone made it better than PS4, XOne, or 3DS. Meanwhile, Vita had Wipeout 2048, which I would rank above anything that arrived on competing platforms.
Honestly, having a single great game at launch is enough to shine this generation.
RolStoppable said:
It was really only solid in name, because ultimately most games weren't worth buying. On topic: We are only six months after Switch launch day, not seven. |
Mario Odyssey launches in October and I'm counting that as a shoe in for good review scores. I should change the thread to say 8 months though, because Oct 27th (Mario launch date) is closer to the 8 month mark than the 7 month mark.
| Pok87 said: First 6 months: WiiU: - Nintendo Land (77% on metacritic) - ZombiU (77%) - New Super Mario Bros. U (84%) - LEGO City Undercover (80%) - Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate (82%) NS: - The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (97%) - Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (92%) - ARMS (77%) - Splatoon 2 (83%) - Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle (85%) |
Nice list - we could add New Super Luigi U (for what it's worth - I loved it but can't deny it's just a remix of NSMBU) to the Wii U.
What I see when I look at these lists are two things:
1. Switch is getting more critically-acclaimed games.
2. Wii U's launch was very front-loaded. I don't know if you could get away with it if Zelda hadn't been so good, but I think Nintendo was genius to put a game out basically every month instead of a bunch of games up front and then wait, wait wait.
As others have pointed out, Nintendo rightfully took a bigger stake this time too - 3/5 Wii U games are third party, a strategy which I could not believe Nintendo announced at Wii U launch - didn't they learn anything from 3DS?
| Slarvax said: No mention of Arms and Pokken (which is very important. It's a pokemon spin-off on a handheld!). |
Arms hasn't been exactly a big seller so far. I have high hopes for Pokken, but I don't think it's a shoe in for sales either. Could it sell 2-5 million units? Definitely. Will it? I'm not sure.
The games at the Wii U launch were good and varied. The problem was that many of them were old and many were no better than the older, cheaper versions. And there was no killer app. The bigger problem was the subsequent drought for the first half of 2013. Lego City and the Monster Hunter 3 port were good, but the system had little else until Pikmin 3 that summer.
Switch had a terrible launch line-up, but one of those games was Breath of the Wild. And that was enough. And the releases have been staggered to prevent droughts. The Wii U ports are almost all clear improvements and come from a system few had, making them fresh for everyone else. And Splatoon 2 is a far bigger game than Lego City and the 3rd of 4th version of the Wii's Monster Hunter.
It wasn't the launch lineup that killed the Wii U. The line-up was as good if not better than the poor launch line-ups of the PS4 and XBOX 1. And launch sales were pretty good. The post-launch drought killed any momentum it might have had, and the high price, terrible marketing, relative lack of power, and gamepad nobody understood ensured the momentum stayed killed.
| StarDoor said: Considering how many people here thought that the Wii U had a great launch lineup, I'm starting to understand why VGChartz was blindsided by the Switch being successful. |
LMAO! Funniest thing I've read all day.
Given this includes WiiU ports, should we include the Wii's library as part of the WiiU's launch? I'm half joking, but it'd make for a fun discussion. I bet we could come up with a variety of compelling arguments for both yes and no.
| h2ohno said: The games at the Wii U launch were good and varied. The problem was that many of them were old and many were no better than the older, cheaper versions. And there was no killer app. The bigger problem was the subsequent drought for the first half of 2013. Lego City and the Monster Hunter 3 port were good, but the system had little else until Pikmin 3 that summer. Switch had a terrible launch line-up, but one of those games was Breath of the Wild. And that was enough. And the releases have been staggered to prevent droughts. The Wii U ports are almost all clear improvements and come from a system few had, making them fresh for everyone else. And Splatoon 2 is a far bigger game than Lego City and the 3rd of 4th version of the Wii's Monster Hunter. It wasn't the launch lineup that killed the Wii U. The line-up was as good if not better than the poor launch line-ups of the PS4 and XBOX 1. And launch sales were pretty good. The post-launch drought killed any momentum it might have had, and the high price, terrible marketing, relative lack of power, and gamepad nobody understood ensured the momentum stayed killed. |
Pretty much this. Along with some confusion and lack of real upgrade in power to almost decade old cheaper tech.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
