Pemalite said:
The WiiU is a Hybrid console, it can be played off-screen remotely independent of a television. |
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Dude, the Wii U can't be played unless connected to a power outlet. A hybrid console is a console that can be played both connected to the T.V. and out in the world running on its own battery power, without the need for a plug-in or TV connection.
*My signature from 2011 which I'm too lazy to change*
Currently awaiting the arrivals of:
Kid Icarus Uprising
Resident Evil: Revelations
Tekken 3D: Prime Edition
Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater 3D
Beyond the Labyrinth
Heroes of Ruin
Luigi's Mansion 2
I think even if Nintendo launched a Wii 2 in 2012 at $250 with a traditional controller and the same specs they will would have only sold 25-35 million. HD development still would have slowed game releases to a crawl, and that would have hurt sales big time.
Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 31 December 2019
Cerebralbore101 said:
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!! Dude, the Wii U can't be played unless connected to a power outlet. A hybrid console is a console that can be played both connected to the T.V. and out in the world running on its own battery power, without the need for a plug-in or TV connection. |
The handheld screen can be used without being connected to a power outlet, it has a battery and can operate from several rooms (At-least in my household) form the base station without the need for a television.
It's a hybrid console.
Fuck. People even recognize the WiiU was a "stepping stone" from a traditional console to the Switch.
By your argument, the Switch isn't a Hybrid either as it's primarily a handheld that has display output like... I dunno. A shit ton of Android tablets and phones? It even has portable only variants.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
| Salnax said: Ignoring the fact that hindsight makes the Wii U look like a necessary step towards the Switch... Nintendo could have focused on either trying to make their 2012 console as popular as possible or simply remaining profitable, as with the GameCube. And if they wanted to at least brek even on consoles, that means removing the GamePad. A 2013 estimate from CNN suggests that about a third of the console's price came from just the GamePad. Nintendo could likely have released a "Super Wii" or "Wii HD" around the same time with similar hardware for up to $100 less. The only question is, could Nintendo have convinced at least 20 million people to buy Super Wiis? I'm thinking the answer is yes. Most of the best-selling games on the Wii U could have been made without the GamePad, and many already natively support the Wiimote. Games like Mario Kart 8, Super Smash Bros, Super Mario 3D World, and New Super Mario Bros U would basically be unchanged. The main exceptions to this, best-selling Wii U games that benefit greatly from a GamePad or at least a traditional controller, generally came out after the Wii U had already failed (Splatoon, Super Mario Maker, and Breath of the Wild). These games would either have to be changed to be released on the Super Wii or be delayed to the Switch. |
Id say none game really benefited from the Gamepad. Not even the first wave of games that was marketed to benefit from gamepad like Zumbi U, lego city, rayman legends, NSMBU (except nintendo land) really make the accessory necessary. They were release in other plataforms without a wii U gamepad. Even
Id say that even with the Wii U name, released 1 year earlier and without the gamepad (marketing instead on more precise wiimote+), it would sell far more than 20M. Closer to 50.
A proper console (that went on with the times in 2013 ) but considering Sony's domination, the Wii U falling on its face might have been the best thing that happened to Nintendo, because it forced them out of the conventional console market and the Switch has been a huge success for them (Now eclipsing the Xbox One).
Nintendo caught lighting in a bottle with the Wii, and got lazy with the Wii U in pretty much every conceivable aspect (hardware, name, marketing, launch titles) now with the Switch they are back on track.
| RaptorChrist said: In my opinion, the Wii U's biggest issue was the gamepad. It was far too costly and resulted in a console that couldn't get price cuts despite desperately needing them. While the Wii U has some great games, I feel like Nintendo had internally realized their failure and focused much of their efforts on the Switch long before the Wii U had run its course. As a result, the Switch ended up having far more resources put into it than the Wii U did. |
I agree. The underpowered Wii U might have been an attractive machine at a 149.99 price point...but the Controller made it impossible for Nintendo to slash the price. Nintendo also never really made anything that justified the Pad. So basically you had a console that belonged in 2006 hardware wise, with an overly expensive controller, a miniscule library of titles in comparison to the cheaper 360/PS3, and price point to match Sony's and Microsoft's newest and more powerful machines.
| RolStoppable said: They should have launched an evolution of the Wii instead of an evolution of the GameCube; that's what the Wii U was: A GameCube successor with the Wii brandname slapped on it. An evolution of the Wii would have had improved motion controllers as its standard controller. Better motion sensing, no cord between controllers, built-in batteries in each of the two controllers; basically, the very same things that Switch has in its standard controller. Naturally, all flagship games of the Wii should have seen sequels as well; Nintendo didn't even bother to make Wii Sports 3 for the Wii U. Pack in an updated Classic Controller with each console (price wouldn't be an issue because the Wii Classic Controller was sold for only $20), that way neither developers nor consumers would have had to complain about a lack of classic controls in games; consequently, let games have multiple controller options by default, unless it really doesn't make much sense to do so. Virtual Console would have started over again because Nintendo didn't think ahead with the Wii, but just like the Wii U didn't require repurchases, the Wii 2 wouldn't have either; only if people wanted new features like quick saves, button mapping and cleaner HD graphics. Indie developers were better catered to with the Wii U already, so the Wii 2 would have been good to go anyway. Significantly better hardware sales due to a straight-forward concept (evolution of the Wii) would have attracted more indie developers to the console. The AAA third parties wouldn't have liked the Wii 2, but they don't like what Nintendo does, no matter what Nintendo does. That's why it isn't worth thinking about it. The Wii U wasn't a necessary evil to arrive at Switch. A hypothetical Wii 2 and DS2 (because the 3DS's 3D was a bad business decision as well) would have required longer development times for games all the same, so the consolidation of software development for home consoles and handheld consoles would have almost certainly happened anyway, especially because another factor (Sony's exit from the handheld market) also played a big part in Nintendo's decision to do that for Switch. There was no realistic way that Nintendo's first software output would have reached the same amount of games as the Wii and DS had, even if Nintendo had gotten both the home console and handheld hardware right. But instead of selling ~90m units, they would have easily sold more than 150m units of hardware due to more affordable launch prices. Wii 2 could have launched at $250, DS2 at $200; both without any concessions to the processing power the actual Wii U and 3DS had. |
Great answer.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
| Salnax said: Ignoring the fact that hindsight makes the Wii U look like a necessary step towards the Switch... Nintendo could have focused on either trying to make their 2012 console as popular as possible or simply remaining profitable, as with the GameCube. And if they wanted to at least brek even on consoles, that means removing the GamePad. A 2013 estimate from CNN suggests that about a third of the console's price came from just the GamePad. Nintendo could likely have released a "Super Wii" or "Wii HD" around the same time with similar hardware for up to $100 less. The only question is, could Nintendo have convinced at least 20 million people to buy Super Wiis? I'm thinking the answer is yes. Most of the best-selling games on the Wii U could have been made without the GamePad, and many already natively support the Wiimote. Games like Mario Kart 8, Super Smash Bros, Super Mario 3D World, and New Super Mario Bros U would basically be unchanged. The main exceptions to this, best-selling Wii U games that benefit greatly from a GamePad or at least a traditional controller, generally came out after the Wii U had already failed (Splatoon, Super Mario Maker, and Breath of the Wild). These games would either have to be changed to be released on the Super Wii or be delayed to the Switch. |
I doubt the GameCube was anywhere near profitable. In those years Nintendo was profiting off of its monstrously successful handheld industry, not the failing GameCube.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
Thwii-DS
3DS - remove 3D, add capability to stream WiiU.
WiiU - drop gamepad, add DS/3DS cartridge slot, allow splitscreen DS/3DS multiplayer.
2DS - $99 WiiU gamepad/3DS with bundled asymmetric gameplay crap.
Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)
Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
