By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Norris2k on 26 May 2014
Edit Thread
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

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.

Nintendo did not fail in the design that is not why the Wii U did not sell. The name and marketing of the Wii U were the largest factors.

I find your response rather hypocritical and amusing at best. You claim that the companies I`ve listed aren`t credible and give a poor excuse as room to expand. Have you not paid attention to the changes in cell phone design over the years ? The iPhone (1) provided a layout that has been mimicked by the majority of cell phone companies. Apple could have easily have done drastic changes with the design but chose not to as by having minor changes, they could still implement new features and technology and cut costs by keeping a similar design, therefore proving future iterations of design irrelevant in order to communicate a new product to a customer. T.V`s are similar. Besides a minor tweak here or there you do not see companies doing drastic changes in order to communicate a new product. There are numerous electronics products that are now falling in line with this trend. They do this as they are able to cut costs in R&D and have a clear understanding that you only have to communicate new features to a consumer while being able to keep a similar design. Another industry that has followed this is the car industry. This unfortunately is the future.

 I didn’t answer your question about M$ and Sony spending money?  You’ve constantly ignored my facts and continually have changed the subject. You’ve provided two companies that differ in the vast sea of others who have been following the current trend as I have provided. That does not justify your argument  as I can point out numerous companies that follow the opposite (majority rules). Design is not a significant differentiator any more in the world of electronics. It is all about the features that are provided. M$ would have stuck to a similar design with the Xbone as the current iteration of the Xbox 360 slim if they were able to fit all of the hardware inside without issue. All you need to do is look at their line of electronics to understand this.

 I have already answered and deconstructed your points. I’ve proven why you’re incorrect in your false assumptions that Wii 2 would not have allowed for more casual consumer awareness and increased sales. I advised poor marketing was the largest factor by failing to communicate that the Wii U was more than an add on but you fail to understand as you either have a weak background in how business and target marketing works or simply uneducated in what impacts Western markets, which seems to be the case.

How about you look at the majority of responses in this thread which are not by people purposely trolling? You are a minority in your opinion. I’ll also now link numerous articles for you “In hopes it sinks into your head” how wrong you are.


http://mynintendonews.com/2013/10/15/analyst-says-wii-u-hurt-by-retailer-confusion-and-misinformation/

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/11/nintendo_addresses_confusion_surrounding_wii_us_name_in_latest_tv_commercial

http://wiiudaily.com/2013/04/iwata-admits-some-consumers-are-confused-about-the-wii-u/

http://www.destructoid.com/pachter-wii-u-is-two-years-too-late-has-a-dumb-name-203661.phtml

 

http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/22/5237446/nintendo-reminds-consumers-that-the-wii-u-is-a-new-system


 

Based on TV, car and smartphone which all have very strong design constraints, you see trends for console design that even Sony and MS are too stupid and old to see. About design your answer is so bad I give you more time.

Marketing is not a problem, marketing this product is. The first link quote someone telling than even sellers are confused, that's one problem and that the console don't have a game like wii sport to clarify and sell. Read your own link, I agree with her. And anyway we are not voting, especially not with Patcher.

You want to sell a console to casuals, but for them only the accessory change in design and functionality, it changes to something not as appealing, and there is no major game to sell and prove it fun. People that don't get Wii U would not get Wii 2. People that don't want the new accessory don't want a new console that for them offers only value in its new accessory. You can't market that.