| VGKing said:
They actually make a really good point.The Wii U doesn't have modern tech specs so it won't get good 3rd party support. The Wii sold purely on Nintendo 1st party, mainly Wii Sports. Wii U doesn't have that going for it and its becoming obvious that yet again, 3rd party support will be lacking with this Nintendo console. The U games that sell consoles are already there. Nintendoland and NSMBU were Nintendo's 2 killer apps targeting the mass market. It even has Black Ops 2 and Assassin's Creed 3, 2 very popular core franchises. |
They don't though. We can't use Black Ops 2, AC3 and other popuolar core franchises as an expected sell because they never sold on Nintendo platforms, those were unknowns. We now know that they just have no considerable market on Nintendo consoles. Lesson learned.
As for 1st party games, NSMB shouldn't have been expected to support Wii-level sales all by itself. Nintendoland was a mistake on Nintendo's part, it would never sell standalone, especially not with a 300$ console. Comparing that to Wii, which bundled Wii Sports and was priced at 200$, we were wrong to think that Japan's non-bundling of Wii Sports warranted a 300$ U with standalone Nintendoland.
It's now quite clear that Nintendo home consoles sell at a 200$ pricepoint and that NSMB doesn't sell consoles by itself. So, with all that said, a wave of 1st party titles that cater to the extended needs to be released, as well as with a 100$ pricecut sometime within the year. To add to the presumptous nature of their stance, the U released 2 years earlier than the Wii in relation to its competition. So in the context of a debate as to who will sell how much and who is relevant and who isn't, this kind of factor is paramount. Instead we were given poor arguments like "It'll only sell due to 1st party games", which Carl and I already showed that the Wii was largely successful due to Wii Play and Wii Sports, and thanks to its pricepoint, and that 3rd party games only fill in the gaps.
