Why Wii U???

[gumby_trucker]

RolStoppable said:

I think a successor for the DS after six years was the right thing to do, because there was still room for a notable jump in processing power that would allow for more types of games than before, plus full integration of a Virtual Console like service. However, Nintendo's execution with the 3DS was majorly flawed with the most important part, the retail games, going in an entirely different direction.

When it comes to the Wii, things look very different. There really was no need to move on to the next thing, because the capabilities of the machine haven't been used to their fullest potential yet. As it stands, the DS had pretty much six years of good support while the Wii was done after four and now in its fifth year and upcoming sixth year it looks bleak.

Your vacuum cleaner analogy is bad, really bad. You better use something similar to video games, in other words other forms of entertainment. Although I can't think of anything that really is like video games in its hardware/software relationship. I guess it's better to forego using analogies. Put simply, most entertainment doesn't entertain forever and people will eventually get bored and look for something new. If a company acts at that point, fine, because it needs to be done. But if a company acts long before this point is reached, then people will get pissed. Lastly, I wouldn't call the Wii and DS lifestyle devices. But even if, if things like playing video games with your family and friends are a lifestyle, then that is a need that needs to be or can be continually addressed.

Fair enough about the vacuum cleaner thing, I probably took that a bit too far. My point was to illustrate how the average user doesn't need more than one device of a certain type, as long as the current one is still functional. This is doubly true during a recession. Apple has shown a better ability to differentiate between their different products: Computer, iPod, iPhone, iPad - at least when I look around me I see people who don't consider these devices to be competing with each other for the most part, which is the best situation for Apple obviously.

If you want an entertainment related analogy how about DVD players vs. upgrading to BluRay, in which case the response has largely been consumer apathy?

The reason I don't think this is exactly the same as Nintendo products is because these devices really have basically zero value on their own, and are completely dependent on external content to have any use at all, not to mention the fact that they have no exclusive content to allow them to make a unique proposition. Of course you could argue this just illustrates the importance of (exclusive) content, which it does, but I think there is more to it than that.

I do believe devices such as iPods or Wii/DS were in a way more similar to an "appliance" in the sense that they appear to offer a unique service that the consumer needs in their life. I also believe this "appliance" like way of presenting them (what I called "Life-style devices) is the same thing that allowed these companies to offer what were in the end of the day similar products from a functional point of view, without worrying about cannibalization.

Hence the vacuum-cleaner analogy, but I agree that it is incomplete in the sense that it doesn't address the critical importance of content to the device's image. Maybe a better way of thinking about it would be to look at the package "platform+killer app" as a Life-style device, in the sense that it allows you to do something you couldn't do before.

So in that sense you could think of "iPod+iTunes" as a Lifestyle device, or "iPhone/iPad+App Store" as another one. Same goes for "Wii+Wii Sports" or "Wii+Wii Fit".

Don't forget that I am referring strictly to the "casual-crowd" when describing these devices in such vague, simplistic terms. It still makes sense though because it goes along with the notion that Nintendo failed to capitalize on the "killer app" half of the package during the second half of Wii's life. As long as there would have been such an application released every 6-12 months or so, the "appliance" known as "Wii+Game X" would continue to fill a unique function in the consumer's day to day life.

This, as far as I understand, was Nintendo's strategy from the very beginning to make video games relevant again, but they failed when they thought they could piggy back on the device's reputation in order to introduce "core" videogames to the masses (instead of more "killer apps") without breaking the association they were trying to build.

The DS did this better by having a more gradual shift that extended over a longer period of time, and also by having more (and better) transitional experiences for the consumer. Not only did they follow up Nintendog's and Brain Training with NSMB, Mario Kart and Animal Crossing, there were also crucial transitional propositions like Layton and Tetris and the other (well made) training games (like more Brain Training, Art Academy etc.) and the "Mario & Luigi" series and "Cooking Mama" and Tomodachi Collection and so on, not to mention the ultimate killer app that is Pokemon.

Incidentally, not only did the Wii not have as many of these (not ones that were very good anyway) but the home-console follow-ups it did have many times didn't offer anything unique to the consumer that didn't make them feel like "more of the same we already had on the DS". Examples of these are Brain-Training, Cooking Mama, Animal Crossing etc. The games that did execute the jump to consoles well were the ones that offered new experiences such as Mario Kart and NSMB Wii (in these cases this was in the form of local multiplayer) and therefor had a significantly unique identity.
Of course it is also important to remember the DS was never expected to have as high an attach rate as the Wii either, so I guess it also required less "killer apps" per consumer to be considered a success.

From this I can suggest that a game like Mario Kart 3DS will not do much to move hardware, since in the eyes of the consumer the combination 3DS+Mario Kart is not really different to DS+Mario Kart, and therefor doesn't warrant a $200+ dollar investment. This has already been proven with Nintendogs+Cats IMO.

In terms of better hardware, I do agree with you that DS was in more of a need to receive an upgrade, but that it was also allowed much more time (and software support) to really shine on its own and refine its own identity. But even then content is still king and as long as there is no "killer app" for 3DS the proposition is incomplete and the device serves no meaningful purpose, since it has no unique identity.
(And just to be clear, the addition of VC is totally insignificant in this respect.)

Currently I fear the same will happen to Wii U.

edit: sorry for such a dreadfully long post, but I just had to make one more thing clear - regarding my initial statement about the hardware cycle. The reason 5-6 years maybe needs to be reconsidered is that as hardware gets more capable and offers more features, it can often take more time until it has built up a significant enough library to have its own unique identity in the eyes of the consumer.
From the point of view of a cautious buyer, you should never purchase a console until several years have passed since its launch, because only then do you actually have a good idea of what you are buying.