By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Veknoid_Outcast on 02 March 2014
Edit Thread
Soleron said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
...

If you're not talking about a PS+ subscription, why bring it up at all? 

It's the value proposition strategy I like. It worked for Sony.

In either case, I don't think it's a worthwhile idea. As I wrote, games like Super Mario Galaxy, Brawl, and Mario Kart Wii are still best-sellers.

Are they? They're not on the bestseller lists right now.

Such that they are selling, they're selling to Wii owners who aren't upgrading to Wii U. Nintendo could make far more money from these people by getting them to own a Wii U than by waiting around for them to pick up the remaining retail copies. Then they can sell them full priced new Wii U titles that are sequels.

They sell themsevles; they don't need a bundle.

It's not for the bundle to sell THEM, it's for THEM to sell Wii U.

Same goes for Virtual Console titles. Consumers will continue to buy games like Mario 64, Super Mario World, etc. without a bundle. I think the better solution for Nintendo would be to advertise the Wii U's backward compatability and its huge library of Virtual Console games.

An advertisement that sells the WiiU as the only system that supports Super Mario Bros., Mega Man 2, Street Fighter II, Super Metroid, Contra III, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Wii Sports, and Super Mario 3D World would be an effective one.

No it wouldn't, because the Wii supports all of those at a fraction of the price.



I understand the value proposition, but it's a weird non sequitur. I think it confuses your thesis more than it clarifies it.

As to your other points, I think you've just argued against your original post. Everything you want in these bundles is available on Wii, so why would a consumer spend $300 for WiiU when he/she could get all these games on Wii for $130? As you said, "the Wii supports all of those at a fraction of the price."