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

[Nirvana_Nut85]

Norris2k said:

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Only updating? No, you just don't have anything intelligent to say. Desperate? No, I saw your response before heading to bed and obviously I couldn't resist from calling you out. Speaking of responding quick, well look who's talking.

Cars do not have design constraints (1920's-1990's proved that), phones and televisions do not have design constraints (look at previous iterations up until the past 5-8 years). Your argument fails on so many levels that it is embarassing. You can't even write a proper sentence for god sakes. I mean if you have a disability that I should be made aware of please let me knopw now and I will try to speak to you as I would my 7 & 8 year old because it seems that adult words go right over your head.

Marketing is the problem. The product is fine.  I read the articles I provided. Had you read the other articles you would have noticed that it was observed that the masses (casuals) are confused as well but of course continue to spout your nonsense and cherry pick, it doesn't help you. And why the hell are you talking about voting? The general consesu from Analysts, Media and Gamers alike is that the Wii U is a confusing name and with the lack of marketing caused many to either believe it was a add on for $349, while some did not even realize there was a new console. But of course you seem to suffer from OCS or as I call it (only child syndrome) where you beleive everything you say is right when reality states otherwise.

"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."

This whole paragraph was not thought out and very poor. Do you not read? It seems that anything anyone has posted just goes into your ear as "blah, blah blah blah" and then out the other. You've typed this several times and I've refuted it and destroyed your argument. Just get over it, You could not provide a good argument. You lost. If the masses are not aware of the console existing or beleive that it is an expensive add on, then they obviously will not purchase it. Common sense. Try applying it sometime.

The problem is that you don't want to discuss, you want to "destroy arguments", as you repeated multiple times.

I take the first example from your explanation, where you want to destroy my explanation about cars.

So, you said "Cars do not have design constraints (1920's-1990's proved that)"

Cars have weels. Car are heavy and it put constraint on shape. Car needs an engine and fuel tank that takes place. Car have constraint in term of aerodynamic. Constraint to reduce gasolin consumption. Width can't change so much because, well... road widht doesn't change so much. Car safety put constraints in term of material, of shape. And last but not least, you have the design constrained by buyers. Car have design constraints. That's a fact.

In fact, about anything usefull has design constraint. How much this constraints impact the design is the subject, how much changes in constraint (new material, gasolin cost and engine performance) had impact can be discussed, how much these constraints impact design cost/time and reduce design change speed, how conservative the public is. How it makes it different from a console. I could agree with an explanation, but I will not be intimidated by your insults and violence.

You don't want to think or discuss about it, you want to destroy the argument. So you say cars do not have design constraint. Because design changed a lot. And a long string of insults, even for not having native English level, follows the violence of your attempt to destroy. But that doesn't make sense, because constraints are still there. You know, car have design constraints. Ask a car designer "do you have any constraints on your design ?", he will certainly not tell you "no, there is no design constraints on cars".

There is no discussion with you. Your lack of comprehension on the matters we discussed makes it difficult to maintain a reasonable argument. I wasn’t out to destroy your argument. It's not my fault that you did not provide a reasonable one. 

Cars are not restricted to their design. We are in a generation where cars, electronics, ect no longer have to change much from previous iterations and look similar. Consumer demand is less focused on design and targeted towards functionality. Are vehicles restricted to their internal parts such as an engine, transmission, etc. For the time being, until technology advances, yes they are.Companies are currently focused on making ass little changes as possible by adding new features to increase profits. This is trend throught the majority of comapnies. If you had paid attention to what I was saying, previous generations did not apply restraints on the design or size of their vehicles. 
 
Maybe in Japan you have limited road size but in North America, the width of the roads allows for numerous shapes and sizes of vehicles. If you're using a vehicle for off road purposes or on private property then you can basically design it and have it any shape or size that you feel like. Do most companies go for a generic design? Yes. Does that mean it is limited? No. You’re obviously not a car enthusiast or you would be able to see that your counter argument holds no merit and paints a picture that you really do not know what you are talking about. The following pictures I shall provide prove that there is not a limit to the design of vehicles.

           

     

I can provide alot more proof if need be be, but needless to say you were quite inaccurate with you false assumption on the design limitations of vehicles.  I'm going to assume that due to you bull headedness you will still disagree but as I stated the pictures speak for themselves.

Insults? I would like you to refer to you previous ignorant comments in earlier posts. Before you attempt to pull the stick out of my eye, pull the log out of your own. Violence? Now your just being ridiculous. It seems you are try ing to create a scenario out of nothing, because your upset due to failing in every aspect of this debate. In no way, shape or form have I attempted to intimidate. How you've managed to misconstrue my words is your own problem, not mine.