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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What should Nintendo have done instead of Wii U?

JWeinCom on 03 January 2020
RolStoppable said:
JWeinCom said:

If you'd consider that a failure, then sure.  It would have still failed.  I never really argued otherwise, so fine.

You do realize the point of an analogy is to explain a concept via a simple comparison... not to make it hopelessly obtuse?  

But whatever, let's compare those players.

Switch gets Breath of the Wild on day one, which is a brand new ambitious take on the franchise heralded by many as one of the greatest games of all time.  Wii U gets a remake of Windwaker about a year in, a remake of the worst selling 3D entry in the franchise.

Switch gets Mario Odyssey for its first holiday.  Again an ambitious new entry to the franchise.  97 metacritic.  Super Mario 3D World is an expansion of the formula on the 3DS, adding little beyond multiplayer.  Metacritic 93.  And the game is developed by EAD Tokyo's main team rather than the secondary team.

The Wii Fit Team released a slightly modded version of Wii Fit.  And released it first digitally for some reason.  At least 75% of the content is pulled directly from Wii Fit U.  And for some utterly bizarre reason some of the activities from Wii Fit Plus were pulled.  For Switch we get Ring Fit which is a fresh concept with new content and is certainly more ambitious than Wii Fit Plus +.  

They're pulling from the same franchises, but whereas the Switch is getting new and ambitious entries, the Wii U is getting mildly upgraded ports, remakes, and unambitious entries, Switch is getting new and creative titles.  And there's no reason based on the controllers that they couldn't have put these games on the Wii U.  Just happened that way due to various factors completely unrelated to the Gamepad.

Then there's also timing.  If we want really want to stick to the football analogy, Switch had its star players at the beginning of the season.  1-2 Switch, Breath of the Wild, Odyssey, Splatoon 2, Mario Kart 8, ARMS, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Fire Emblem Warriors,  Kirby, Mario/Rabbids, Pokken year one.  

In contrast Wii U's year one first party output consisted of Nintendo Land, NSMBU, a Karaoke game, Lego City Undercover sort of (also on Switch year one), Mario and Sonic at the Olympics, Wind Waker, Pikmin, and Wonderful 101.  Clearly, one of these lineups is much stronger than the other.

Year 2?  Switch gets Pokemon Let's Go, Mario Tennis, Tropical Freeze, Octopath Traveller, Bayonetta, Hyrule Warriors, Smash, and Mario Party.

Wii U gets, Mario Kart 8, Wii Fit U (digital only I believe), Tropical Freeze, Hyrule Warriors, and Smash.  

Whereas the Switch was able to take advantage of players acquired in the last season from day 1, Gamepad didn't get most of these players till halfway through the season or later.  By the time they got Splatoon, they were out of the playoffs, Breath of the Wild came on the field for the kneel down.  The Gamepad posed no obstacle for these titles being on the Wii U, and the Switch hardware didn't really do much to make them possible, with the exception of 1-2 Switch. 

Not to mention the droughts.  From the launch of the Wii U, there was not a single major first party release (unless you want to count Lego City, which I wouldn't) until either 6 months later with Game and Wario, or 9 months later with Pikmin.  That's insane, and again doesn't seem to have any logical connection to the Gamepad.  Any momentum dies off, and press goes from bad to worse.

The Switch was able to plug gaps with Wii U titles, but that's not because of any intrinsic advantage of the Switch's hardware.  It's just a result of better planning, and Nintendo just happening to have first party titles that never saw much of an audience lying around.  That's a huge benefit to the Switch.

As far as Wii Sports goes, I have no idea what you're on about.  Whether or not it made sense (the Wii U has Wii-mote support, and I can easily think of a few sports that could have incorporated the Gamepad) Nintendo did in fact try to launch a Wii Sports product on the Wii U.  They chose to do so in an insanely bizarre way, by launching it in piece meal, launch it digitally only, ignoring everything from Resort, charging 10 dollars for a single game, and trying to sell it via 24 hour rentals.  

This is kind of the same point all over again.  Would Wii Sports Club have failed regardless?  Maybe.  We can only speculate that point.  Would it have had a better chance of success if it was released in a sensible manner?  I'm pretty confident that's a yes. 

So, back to the actual point.  The Gamepad was potentially the issue causing most of Wii U's problems.  Another potential issue is that the entries in respective franchises were just better on the Switch.  Another possible explanation is massive software droughts caused, at least according to Nintendo, by difficulty in adapting to HD, poor software planning overall, and the need to support the 3DS as well, none of which are the fault of the Gamepad.  The console's name and confusing marketing is another potential cause. There are also other potential causes we didn't address.

Of these possible factors, there's no way to say for sure which was the main culprit.  When all of these potential fuck ups happen at once, it's hard to isolate any one cause.  I've acknowledged that I have my opinion, but that's just based on my intuition and interpretation. 

On the other hand, if I understand you correctly, you're claiming you've managed to identify the Gamepad as the main if not sole culprit.  How can you have possibly determined this?

No, you don't understand me correctly. The Gamepad is the central visible factor that sank the console and the other main factor for failure that isn't in plain sight is Shigeru Miyamoto. Hence why not only the poor QB had to go in order to right the ship, but the head coach as well.

As I've explained before, Miyamoto made the major calls for the Wii U on both hardware and software. I don't need to go over bizarre software decisions because you've already outlined a bunch of blunders in your own post.

As I've also said before, the Wii U was a repackaging of GameCube ideas. The GC to GBA connectivity allowed up to five screens at once. The Wii U was launched with only one additional screen, but Nintendo planned to have the console support two Gamepads at once eventually. What the GameCube and Wii U also have in common are bizarre software decisions for major first party titles. The Wind Waker's artstyle was highly controversial, Super Mario Sunshine also went in a... unique direction, Mario Kart introduced a core feature that wasn't used ever again, the Donkey Kong platformer was controlled with the bongo controller. And of course, Miyamoto was the general producer at the time and called the shots for overall software development.

This probably raises the question why the Wii could succeed with Miyamoto as general producer, but that's easily explained by Nintendo's business suits calling the direction for hardware and software after the disappointing results of the GameCube. That's why games were made to sell, and decisions were based on historic sales data.

With the Wii's success, there was no financial pressure anymore, so the leash got loosened on Miyamoto. He went straight back to embracing his darling console, the GameCube, so Nintendo's fortunes went south again. Wii Sports Club and it's baffling release strategy is a consequence of Miyamoto not planning a Wii Sports 3 at all. It got put together quickly in light of terrible Wii U sales and it was so urgent to have something available that it was first released in digital pieces. But by the time that Nintendo's business side could react, it was essentially already over for the Wii U.

The GC to GBA connectivity as well as the Gamepad fall into the category of Miyamoto enjoying it to create products that are more toy than game. In hindsight it's undeniable that Miyamoto had not enough good ideas to justify the Gamepad's existence. It was a controller that was put out in hopes that other developers would figure out something great to do with it. It wasn't unlike "games" like Wii Music or the Japan-exclusive Mario Artist series where it was up to the imagination of others (in this case, consumers) to make something worthwhile out of the product.

Anyway, the bottom line is that Nintendo wouldn't have made and launched the Wii U if historic sales data had been considered. The Wii U was a culmination of failed ideas while omitting ideas that had succeeded, whether that concerns the hardware itself or many of the games that were made for it or not made for it.

Nintendo's original plan was to use one Gamepad IIRC.  They announced additional support for another Gamepad, but that was only after pretty significant backlash, and they clearly didn't have any games in the pipeline to use that (although the hardware itself was I think able to support 4 video streams pretty early on).  The idea was similar to the GBA, but a little bit different.  Since the Wii-motes were still supported, the idea was for players 2-5 to use motion controls.  So, in a game like Zelda Adventure Nintendo Land, lesser experienced players can be playing a simpler motion control game whereas the Screen player could be playing something a bit more complex. That's the advantage (in some cases) that it had.  Not only could people have a different screen to use, but also a completely different control style.  I think there was a lot more that could have been done with that concept.  

I'm not going to go into the Miyamoto stuff, because I just don't know much about the behind the scenes stuff.  I'll take your word for it, but I don't think that's all that relevant to the discussion.  I'm more interested in the decisions themselves, and not so much with the person making them.

We seem to be in agreement that there were major issues with software, and at least some of those issues were not due to the Gamepad, and that there were bad business decisions which were also not directly related to the Gamepad, and that the Gamepad itself was problematic to at least some degree.  I would assume we'd also agree that the overall marketing was poor.

The only disagreement is how much of the problem was caused by each factor.  I don't think there's any way to accurately determine that.  Do you?



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 03 January 2020
RolStoppable said:
JWeinCom said:

Nintendo's original plan was to use one Gamepad IIRC.  They announced additional support for another Gamepad, but that was only after pretty significant backlash, and they clearly didn't have any games in the pipeline to use that (although the hardware itself was I think able to support 4 video streams pretty early on).  The idea was similar to the GBA, but a little bit different.  Since the Wii-motes were still supported, the idea was for players 2-5 to use motion controls.  So, in a game like Zelda Adventure Nintendo Land, lesser experienced players can be playing a simpler motion control game whereas the Screen player could be playing something a bit more complex. That's the advantage (in some cases) that it had.  Not only could people have a different screen to use, but also a completely different control style.  I think there was a lot more that could have been done with that concept.  

I'm not going to go into the Miyamoto stuff, because I just don't know much about the behind the scenes stuff.  I'll take your word for it, but I don't think that's all that relevant to the discussion.  I'm more interested in the decisions themselves, and not so much with the person making them.

We seem to be in agreement that there were major issues with software, and at least some of those issues were not due to the Gamepad, and that there were bad business decisions which were also not directly related to the Gamepad, and that the Gamepad itself was problematic to at least some degree.  I would assume we'd also agree that the overall marketing was poor.

The only disagreement is how much of the problem was caused by each factor.  I don't think there's any way to accurately determine that.  Do you?

Well, no. This has been a long discussion and we are at the stage where the focus is on semantics and even if it was possible to accurately determine the weight of each factor, it wouldn't really change the bigger pieces.

Sure, but that was the whole point of what I was initially discussing.  Trying to determine how much weight should be put on the Gamepad itself.



Mnementh on 04 January 2020
curl-6 said:
h2ohno said:
A Wii 2 would have done much better than the Wii U for various reasons. Not having the gamepad would go a long way towards undoing the confusion over whether it was a new console or a peripheral. It would have had much more appeal. Not having the gamepad would also have made the system cheaper.

Not sure if a Wii 2 could match the success the Switch has had the last 3 years or the success of the original Wii, but it would have sold much more than the Wii U, and the technology for a system like the Switch simply didn't exist in 2012.

The other big thing they should have done was make the system more powerful, especially its CPU. There is no excuse for releasing a system with a CPU that weak in 2012. GPU, RAM, and bandwidth should have been improved as well, but the CPU was the biggest problem. The early 3rd party games would have fared much better if the CPU was up to snuff. Even if they still used the PowerPC architecture they should have been able to manage that. And with the money saved on the gamepad there'd be more financial leeway to improve the system's specs.

Wii U's CPU (Espresso) was sacrificed on the altar of backwards compatibility and power consumption. In order for it to natively play Wii games they stuck with the exact same architecture, which dated back to the Gamecube, and in order to keep power use to a minimum they kept its clocks quite low.

That post makes no sense at all. The PS4 uses the x86 CPU-architecture, that dates back to 1978, and even then was built with some backwards compatibility to the 8080. The age of an architecture doesn't matter, if the CPUs in the line are updated with modern technology, which is true for PowerPC (the base for GC, Wii, WiiU, PS3 and XB360), Arm (base for Switch) or x86 (PS4, XB1).

Low power doesn't make sense as well. The Wii and the Switch targeted low power and were/are wildly successful.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Mnementh on 04 January 2020
d21lewis said:
-Some people say they should have just stuck to the Wii route. I also disagree. While awesome at the time and still improved upon to this day, the motion control trend was on the decline. Nintendo couldn't have known this while developing the Wii U. Hell, Microsoft banked everything on Kinect as well. People just preferred what already worked.

I heavily disagree on this. I love to point out for this argument the sales of Just Dance. In 2010 Nintendo scaled back casual/motion controlled games and 2011 also 3rd-parties started to reduce their games. But in these two years Just Dance peaked. The sales only started to drop, after it was clear gaming companies gave up on motion controls. So it is pretty obvious, that the motion control trend was on decline - but not because the customers went away, but because the gaming companies did. I want to point out, that the Wii was the strongest platform for Just Dance even years after discontinuation, only the Switch took the throne. A fact even Ubisoft recognizes:

"A lot of our [Just Dance series] players are children and families who continue to play on Wii." - https://www.polygon.com/2019/6/20/18662890/just-dance-2020-wii-hospitals-families-xbox-one-stadia-playstation4-nintendo-switch

This should make clear that the customers for motion controlled games never went away, they were just abandoned by the gaming companies. So a Wii successor following the motion control trend could've been at least majorly better than the WiiU. Maybe not reaching the heights of Wii, but 70-80 million should've been possible.

And I see that potential still today. A proper Wii Sports follow-up on Switch probably will sell 20M. If they evolve the concept like they did with RingFit Adventure compared to WiiFit it might even double that.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Illusion on 04 January 2020
RolStoppable said:

The GC to GBA connectivity as well as the Gamepad fall into the category of Miyamoto enjoying it to create products that are more toy than game. In hindsight it's undeniable that Miyamoto had not enough good ideas to justify the Gamepad's existence. It was a controller that was put out in hopes that other developers would figure out something great to do with it. It wasn't unlike "games" like Wii Music or the Japan-exclusive Mario Artist series where it was up to the imagination of others (in this case, consumers) to make something worthwhile out of the product.

This hits on a valid point, in my opinion.

The reality is that Nintendo had basically no idea what to do with the Gamepad.  The Wii had a killer app like Wii-Sports to fully show consumers and developers what the Wii could do, but this was completely missing from the Wii U.  Miyamoto's vision of the Wii U could be summarized with Star Fox Zero which was a confusing mess and which ultimately didn't utilize the gamepad well either.  It wasn't until Super Mario Maker came out that Nintendo finally found a legitimately unique and useful application of the Gamepad that couldn't be replicated on other consoles.  If SMM had been a launch title it could have at least given developers an idea of where to go with the Wii U that was unique and cool, but it probably wouldn't have changed the consoles fate very much as it is still a very limited application.

Honestly, I wish that Nintendo did just go with a re-launch of a Gamecube style console instead of the Wii U.  In fact, the Gamecube was a very technically impressive console for its day and was probably even beyond what the Wii U needed to be hardware-wise.  The fact is that Nintendo needed to learn how to develop HD games and thanks to the Wii they were about 6 years behind the competition.   The Wii U generation had to be a catch-up generation for Nintendo no matter what the company did and Nintendo was right to make it a shorter generation.  That being said, I probably would have opted for releasing a console maybe 50% faster than the PS3 in terms of power and then just go with a traditional controller, just like the Gamecube had done.  Development costs could have been a lot lower and Nintendo could have ratcheted prices down to $100 like they did with the Gamecube which could have probably gotten the Wii U over the 20M mark.  It would not have been a highly successful console but it could have been much less of a disaster than the Wii U turned out to be.



Around the Network
Pemalite on 04 January 2020
curl-6 said:
Pemalite said:

If they clocked the WiiU CPU to around 2.4Ghz, it would have been faster than the Xbox 360 tri-core 3.2Ghz CPU, the in-order-design and lots of cache would have helped tremendously in bolstering IPC.

Still, in saying that... Having such a conservative CPU has meant that porting games to Switch has been a super easy affair, because those ARM cores are far more capable.

Yeah, the more CPU-taxing Wii U games like (I assume) BOTW and Hyrule Warriors do run a lot better on Switch. 

What is it that makes the A57s in the Switch better than Espresso, the fact that it's 64-bit versus 32-bit plus superscalar parallelism?

64-bit vs 32-bit registers really aren't making a massive difference to performance there.

Having an extra CPU core, larger L1 cache, improved branch predictor, more capable integer and floating point engines, instruction buffers, 64-128-bit SIMD verses 2x 32-bit SIMD on WiiU... And more.

So despite the Switch's CPU having around the same clockrate, no eSRAM/eDRAM to act as an L3/L4 cache, only 3-way rather than 4-way... 18-long pipeline verses 4-7, It's design is far more balanced and the architecture is designed around more modern workloads which results in a significant uplift in CPU performance. (On the note of Pipeline length, ARM A57's pipeline is a variable length, so some workloads will only load up a couple stages.)

Which is why looking at plain black and white numbers never tells the entire story. (Bits, Flops, Mhz)

Espresso at the end of the day is a derivative from a design that existed in the 90's, where-as ARM A57 is a design that is far more modern and balanced.

But it just puts into perspective how bad IBM PowerPC really was, even the Cell was nothing special when compared to modern contemporary ARM/x86 designs, but they were extremely cheap.

The shortfall with the WiiU's CPU was indeed clockrate though.

Mnementh said:

That post makes no sense at all. The PS4 uses the x86 CPU-architecture, that dates back to 1978, and even then was built with some backwards compatibility to the 8080. The age of an architecture doesn't matter, if the CPUs in the line are updated with modern technology, which is true for PowerPC (the base for GC, Wii, WiiU, PS3 and XB360), Arm (base for Switch) or x86 (PS4, XB1).

Low power doesn't make sense as well. The Wii and the Switch targeted low power and were/are wildly successful.

Jaguar is based upon Brazos... They have completely different design philosophies from more contemporary x86 designs.

Being internally RISC based rather than CISC is a massive deviation for example.

CPU architecture isn't the same as the CPU instruction set, keep that in mind, Architecture most certainly matters.

AMD Ryzen is based upon the AMD Zen Architecture, which is a significant deviation from Bulldozer which was AMD's preceding Architecture... They both use the x86 instruction set.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

curl-6 on 04 January 2020
Mnementh said:
curl-6 said:

Wii U's CPU (Espresso) was sacrificed on the altar of backwards compatibility and power consumption. In order for it to natively play Wii games they stuck with the exact same architecture, which dated back to the Gamecube, and in order to keep power use to a minimum they kept its clocks quite low.

That post makes no sense at all. The PS4 uses the x86 CPU-architecture, that dates back to 1978, and even then was built with some backwards compatibility to the 8080. The age of an architecture doesn't matter, if the CPUs in the line are updated with modern technology, which is true for PowerPC (the base for GC, Wii, WiiU, PS3 and XB360), Arm (base for Switch) or x86 (PS4, XB1).

Low power doesn't make sense as well. The Wii and the Switch targeted low power and were/are wildly successful.

Wii U's CPU wasn't "updated with modern technology" though, it used the same PPC750 cores as Wii/GC, just three of them instead of 1, upclocked to 1.2GHz and with more cache.

Pemalite said:
curl-6 said:

Yeah, the more CPU-taxing Wii U games like (I assume) BOTW and Hyrule Warriors do run a lot better on Switch. 

What is it that makes the A57s in the Switch better than Espresso, the fact that it's 64-bit versus 32-bit plus superscalar parallelism?

64-bit vs 32-bit registers really aren't making a massive difference to performance there.

Having an extra CPU core, larger L1 cache, improved branch predictor, more capable integer and floating point engines, instruction buffers, 64-128-bit SIMD verses 2x 32-bit SIMD on WiiU... And more.

So despite the Switch's CPU having around the same clockrate, no eSRAM/eDRAM to act as an L3/L4 cache, only 3-way rather than 4-way... 18-long pipeline verses 4-7, It's design is far more balanced and the architecture is designed around more modern workloads which results in a significant uplift in CPU performance. (On the note of Pipeline length, ARM A57's pipeline is a variable length, so some workloads will only load up a couple stages.)

Which is why looking at plain black and white numbers never tells the entire story. (Bits, Flops, Mhz)

Espresso at the end of the day is a derivative from a design that existed in the 90's, where-as ARM A57 is a design that is far more modern and balanced.

But it just puts into perspective how bad IBM PowerPC really was, even the Cell was nothing special when compared to modern contemporary ARM/x86 designs, but they were extremely cheap.

The shortfall with the WiiU's CPU was indeed clockrate though.

I read that one of Switch's CPU cores is reserved for running the OS/system functions though, so wouldn't that make it 3 cores vs 3 cores when it comes to games?

Not sure what games would be the best examples of Switch's CPU capability, but Witcher 3 I can't see running on Espresso. (Not to mention Wii U's weaker GPU and mere 1GB of RAM)



Azzanation on 04 January 2020
Liquid_faction said:

They should have instead, renamed it to anything but the (Wii) U. Might not have done that much better, but at least people wouldn't have thought it was just an accessory to the Wii.

I disagree.

Everyone says they shouldnt have named it the WiiU.. and act like the Wii tainted the WiiU because of it. The Wii is Nintendos most successful console ever made, buisness wise you would want the name to help carry the WiiU as the Wii name globally was well known for good reason.

The naming of the system had nothing to do with the success of the console and if someone goes out buying a $400+ product without doing there research first than ill be telling them to stay at home and dont shop until they learn how to do that first.

Plus the WiiU is a Wii, basically a HD upgrade that plays all Wii games and accessories. It actually makes alot of sense.



DarthMetalliCube on 05 January 2020

Honestly? Just ride the Wii out longer. The console was selling like hotcakes until roughly early 2011, and it really only started to taper off by that point because Nintendo largely stopped supporting it. If they wanted the tablet thing, they SHOULD have just released it for the Wii as a separate tablet peripheral (which many thought the Wii U was at first anyway). Maybe put more support into the 3DS, and release the Switch a bit earlier (like 2016 as opposed to 2017), which they probably would have been in a better position to do - then the Wii could have had a lifespan of almost a decade. But really, there was no reason for the Wii U to exist, given its library, and it's largely outdated tech. 

You could argue that the tech would have been drastically behind at that point, but the Wii was never about the horsepower anyway, it was far more about the unique, intuitive and immersive feel of the Wiimote's motion tech. And third parties were basically making Wii-specific games anyway - if they were even making them at ALL. Indies would have really thrived on the Wii as they were on the rise just as the Wii was dropping, which again, was mostly thanks to Nintendo releasing far fewer interesting games on the console that would have kept it churning.



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

d21lewis on 05 January 2020
Mnementh said:
d21lewis said:
-Some people say they should have just stuck to the Wii route. I also disagree. While awesome at the time and still improved upon to this day, the motion control trend was on the decline. Nintendo couldn't have known this while developing the Wii U. Hell, Microsoft banked everything on Kinect as well. People just preferred what already worked.

I heavily disagree on this. I love to point out for this argument the sales of Just Dance. In 2010 Nintendo scaled back casual/motion controlled games and 2011 also 3rd-parties started to reduce their games. But in these two years Just Dance peaked. The sales only started to drop, after it was clear gaming companies gave up on motion controls. So it is pretty obvious, that the motion control trend was on decline - but not because the customers went away, but because the gaming companies did. I want to point out, that the Wii was the strongest platform for Just Dance even years after discontinuation, only the Switch took the throne. A fact even Ubisoft recognizes:

"A lot of our [Just Dance series] players are children and families who continue to play on Wii." - https://www.polygon.com/2019/6/20/18662890/just-dance-2020-wii-hospitals-families-xbox-one-stadia-playstation4-nintendo-switch

This should make clear that the customers for motion controlled games never went away, they were just abandoned by the gaming companies. So a Wii successor following the motion control trend could've been at least majorly better than the WiiU. Maybe not reaching the heights of Wii, but 70-80 million should've been possible.

And I see that potential still today. A proper Wii Sports follow-up on Switch probably will sell 20M. If they evolve the concept like they did with RingFit Adventure compared to WiiFit it might even double that.

Fair enough. I guess companies are just leaving money on the table.

Me? I'm a motion control enthusiast. I use motion controls in Mario Odyssey, Res Evil 5, PSVR, hell I just bought Dance Central for XB One. I own not one but TWO Kinects. One of the most recent games I played (unfortunately not in my sig) was Fruit Ninja 2 on the Kinect. I'm a supporter. Unfortunately, the internet made it seem like there was just no market for motion controls. That it was for "casuals". I'm having a hard time finding games to fill the niche.

I guess I didn't word my original post correctly. What I wanted to say was that the Wii was a monster. Nintendo tried to use the Wii name for the Wii U and it didn't work. They couldn't have known that the trend had faded (I thought it had. Maybe I was wrong.). It backfired. Just like how Kinect was a monster. Microsoft figured they could bundle a better Kinect with the Xbox One and it would justify the $500 price. Me? I loved the Kinect 2.0 and I liked the Wii U. Both failed.

Anyway, do we have sale numbers for Just Dance on the Wii? Is it just making a profit or is it like a phenomenon? What's stopping it from taking the Switch by storm?

*Edit* I clicked the hyperlink.