By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lonely_Dolphin on 21 March 2014
Edit Thread
RavenXtra said:
fleischr said:
Fusioncode said:
padib said:
Fusioncode said:

The GBA comparison is perhaps the most vaild one I've heard yet.

Similarities of the two:

-While an OK piece of hardware, it could be better.

-While there are good games, there could (and should) easily be even more.

-Just isn't contributing enough to Nintendo's success.

-Worth owning if you like some specific games, but if you miss it, you won't be missing terribly much

The WiiU is not the new Dreamcast. It's not the new Virtual Boy. It's new GBA. That's a comparison I believe can be reasonably shared by most.

A tip of my hat to you sir!

GBA was not even close to being a "moderate" success. It sold over 81m before being discontinued in Japan in 2006, EU in 2007, and NA in 2008.. while being replaced by the DS 3 years into its life cycle. That's pretty impressive honestly. Not to mention the Game Boy Advance contributed greatly to Nintendo's profits while the GameCube floundered and disappointed. Wii U hasn't contributed anything other than disappointement to Nintendo's financials since its launch, so I really don't think you can call it the new GBA. If anything, it's the new GameCube.



Plus I don't think the DS immediately replaced the GBA more than it being a third pillar. I remember the GBA still receiving games and remodels even after the DS released afterall.