By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
happydolphin on 19 June 2013
Edit Thread
S.T.A.G.E. said:

1. Tablets being seen as more practical by casuals is the primary reason why the casuals wont give it the time of day. Nintendo needs to make a practical tablet with the ability to add things. This is where Microsoft has the advantage.

2. Nintendo didnt start the tablet tend...therefore they are late to the part, just like Microsoft was late to the Zune party trying to tear into Apples Ipod marketshare and failing. 

3. The third party support for the Wii U is a joke...stop defending it. Even when the Wii was selling well third parties still couldnt take the hardware seriously outside of Ubisoft. The U has current gen support and very little of it, this is a change but Nintendo needs to do more as far as tech is concerned, but they wont initial profit to do it.

I know you're a fan of Nintendo, but they get things wrong just like everyone else. Accept this fact.

I definitely am a fan of Nintendo and I know that they get things wrong, but I've seen so many doubters over the years that I know when I see a problem in the logic.

1. This has nothing to do with why the U is not selling well. I've told you why and you just ignored all the points I brought up. Address them or leave:

 

  • Wii launched 100$ cheaper.
  • Included Wii Sports with every console (did not have 2 skus).
  • Wii did not compete against much (sorry 360 and PS3 early years), U competes against vibrant 7th gen.
  • Wii Sports instant-hit, non-gaming appeal. Nintendoland can't compete.
  • Smartphone/tablets argument same as ever, back in Game Boy color days.
2. You mentioned Android. Android didn't exist when Nintendo came up with the DS. The App Store was launched in 2008 while the Wii had channels back in 2006. They weren't late to the party.
3. I never said it wasn't a joke, and I wasn't defending it. I just don't think it's a good argument. When Nintendo prooved its 3DS, 3rd parties came to support it. That's how it is for Nintendo, so this argument is no good. They offer tech that is at the proper maturity and cost level for them, and strive to include novelties that can push the boundaries of gaming, in this case the touch screen in the padlet. If 3rd parties disagree its their prerogative.