If Wii U had a different name would sales be higher?

[Norris2k]

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

That's the subject, you are full of sophisms to deny other the right to think and you think you are clever, so I tried to make a silly example to make fun of the reasonning. But even that silly reasonning made on purpose, you think it's true. I can do nothing for you, you don't understand the difference between mandatory and relevant, what ever explanation and example I can give you, and that's make you able to come up with "yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant". So anything anyone can say is irelevant. Let's be clear again, that doesn't make an argument, that makes you sound stupid, agressive or biased.

You keep claiming "sophisms" but it is very easy to determine that you do not have a clue what it means and do not understand that you are applying it incorrectly You do provide example's, you give  an uneducated opion based on no facts and revert to name calling when proven wrong. Yet you claim that I am the one who sounds stupid As the saying goes "those live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones" I will repeat, efficient marketing does prove that design is irrelevant in the case of new iterations of hardware. You mock the design of the Wii U yet fail to acknowledge the majority of successful electronic devices and consoles such as the Xbone. You state that the Wii U's name did not confuse people and that the masses are aware Nintendo has a new console when that is false and "facts" have been provided to solidfy my points, unlike your opinions. You fail to acknowledge marketing as one of the most significant factors in selling a console. I don't know what magical land you live in but in the real world, your views are delusional at best.
.

You switched to marketing and tell something I didn't say. Keep to design. I don't mock wii design, I'm not talking about the wii U name, I'm talking about design. Design is irrelevant, you said, that's what I'm talking about, I'm goin' to fix you. Keep to design. Why MS create a new design for every console, and even for new models, why Xbox one have a new design ? Why does Sony do the exact same thing. Why did sega did that ? Why Nintendo did the same for every single console but Wii U ? They are all, they were all living for 20 years in a magical land, with me ? Every single console for the 20 last years had a clear new design but the Wii U, millions of dollars have been spent on design even by MS, but still you are saying a new design is irrelevant to a new console. Explain why everyone is stupid to spend money on irrelevant things.

You did in fact say it, go read through your previous posts, thank you. Keep to design ? the original conversation was the name. You consitantly keep changing the subject when you are not able to back up for statements when being called out. Plain and simple. I`ve already answered your question previously but I will again post it in the hopes that it might sink in. Design changes due to the creativity of the company. It may have been important in previous generations of electronics but companies like Apple, Samsung, etc have proven that you do not have to change the design of the product (drastically) if you can market and thoroughly explain to the consumer the difference between iterations. Nintendo was on the right track with this coming off the success of the Wii however they not only poorly marketed the Wii U and were not able to provide a clear understanding that Nintendo has a new console (to the general public) but the also gave it a name that confused people into believe it was an add on. The design of the electronic is irrelevant if the functions of it provide value to the consumer. The PS4 could have been bulky and ugly like the Xbox One but the majority would have still purchased it as Sony communicated efficiently the value of it`s product. They also could have followed Nintendo`s path and made a few minor changes and the result still would have been the same.

That's the first point I mentionned on my first post, I keep on the subject:

"There are many ways to make the customer understand you've got a new product.

A new design : failed
[etc.]
Don't blame the name.
I really can't believe you can have 120 100 millions of happy customers, 20 of them fans of the brand, have a new product good enough for them, and you don't sell well because of the name. "

So, here we are, you had to go in a lot of directions again, the quality of design (this one is a great trick, but you already used it twice), example based on a very different device that don't have room for large design changes like a smartphone, explaining it's a thing of the past (ignoring PS4 and XBone)... Then marketing, value for consumer, etc. and sure it does all matter a lot, but:

You didn't answer why MS and Sony spent money and time to come with a new design for their consoles because... you know you can't. They don't live in a magical world, they know the power of marketing, they explain concepts (social, kinect) and all, but they still have a new design, like every single console but the Wii U. You are done, and I've got my point.

We could now switch to the next point, and point by point, explain how much of a failure is the Wii U as a Wii 2, in term of value, marketing (this, you agree on, but I think it's not marketable), how it throws away the idea of moving and accessibility, the weak concept of a tablet, launch games (giving what wii sport was for the wii). And, overall that the Wii U is a failure as a new product and as a Wii 2, and that's the reason why it would not sell twice as much by a better name and less confusion. But here, I feel tired. I think I've got my point about design, that's good enough for me. Or... do you think you can talk again about smartphone design, and design quality, and all ? I will read it.