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

[Norris2k]

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Norris2k said:

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

The highest insult I could do to you is stupid? If I really wanted tp insult you I would have created a thread dedicated too your ignorance. Talking about disability, I've never said derrogatory remarks in that nature that is horrible !

Anyway, you have hard time to understand the concept of proof. You prove there is a large variety of designs, not that there is no constraints in design. The constraints I talked about are safety, cost, consumption, design cost, and public conservatism. That constraints are the reason why the car you show are not for sale, private car designs, or not mainstream. Again, my question to a car designer : "Do you have any constraint on your car design ?". "No, I don't have a single one, I can design it in the shape of shit, and build it with dust, and forget that most people want 4 seats and that's fine". You can't fail to understand your mistake, come on ! You can show pictures of 5 different animals, gravity is still there. Allo ?

And it certainly do not change the fact that the Wii U wouldn't have had benefit for a better logo, drop the cheap plastic box to sell a more expensive device, and make a new design that put more emphasis on the new console (because you are not selling an accessory). And that's pretty clear. 

You've attempted to label my responses as stupid without having a factual argument to prove your assertion. I compared your analysis in the same category as someone who is disabled. That's not horrioble, it is blunt.

You claim I have a hard time understanding concepts and designs by giving your own opinions of my ideas instead of backing it up with facts. All I have done is provided you with facts to which "I" have had to deal with your ignorance each time after.My statement provided the design of cars. Did I limit it to those that travel roads or highways? NO. So therefore you are the ass for assuming without asking. Cars, vehicles do not have constraints. The majority follow North American concepts, not Asian. You bring up the concept of animals while ignoring the fact that they are living beings. I am trying to be nice by not dissecting each incorrect statement but your pushing me towards the edge on this one.

Your reasonng is idiotic if you do not think that the console sold as Wii 2 would not have garnered higher sales than Wii U. I''ll provide the broken record response and advise you to read the articles.

I read it, they state the product to be late, and confusion problems, including, but not exclusive (marketing, bad explanations, sellers awarness) to the name. No link you provide is stupid enough to say wii 2 would have sold twice as much and would be currently ahead of the race. They don't really talk about the product quality either, so the links state  problems (including the name), but don't put in balance. They are not really about telling all of sudden "and design  matters", but are not telling either "the product is good, it's not the problem", even if Iwata is strongly implying that (but he doesn't even talk about the name).

Anyway, your point is that mainstream car (who have to be on the road) have repetitive design, but it's not because of constraints. Proof is that car that does not have the constraint to be on road have a large variety of form. That's my point ! You remove this constraint, and you have a lot more designs. Think again. It's getting funny, explain again ?

Your idea of proof is totally wrong, I tell you. It's not even a false syllogism, it's more something like "If A doesn't do B and is successful, then A proves B is insignificant in other case". Apple don't change the design, then Apple proves changing the design is insignificant, including for the wii U.  Then you think if you add one more A, like cars, you have one more proof. You add lots of A, simple A, pictures of A, you have so many proofs and you fail to understand, you get pissed of. But the logical connection you imply is wrong. For example the following sentence is still not a proof, but would be about as strong and more than enough for me: "Steve Jobs and multiple designers/companies said design changes are irrelevant, here are the links". You have a lot of other wrong proof system, I could explain it if you want, I can tell you I studied logic and use it quite a lot. That's what I labelled as stupid, but I really thought you did it on purpose. Try to make other sentences based on "If A doesn't do B, then A proves B is insignificant in other case". You'll see, you can prove about anything.

Your point about living beings is not explained, so I will not make assumptions. I'm just telling a great variety doesn't imply the absence of constraint, which makes sense. Also, "asian concept" (I'm french by the way, living in Tokyo), no clue what you try to imply, or if it's related. I hope it's not something like "asian concept of lively things", because you would be making 3 mistakes with 1 sentence.

I'm not even sure denigrate someone by asking if is disabled is legal in my country. I think it's quite shocking both in Japan and France.

Yes, you've read, you've read, you've read but you clearly have a lack of understanding. Obviously the language barried is seeming to get in the way for you because you clearly cannot comprehend English nor formulate a sentence that even remotely makes sense. Maybe you should refrain from debating in a language you clearly are confused with. The links were articles pointing out the mass consumer confusion. Not sales based articles. Anyone who is not a biased fanboy can easily understand that the name alone confused the masses and resulted in a lack of sales (On top of marketing). 11-12 Million is not a significant amount for a console released after 18 months. 

It's not your fucking point, you are making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your point was that cars have restraints. You can't change your argument midway through and then claim that you meant something else. Your nonsensical rants are really embarassing to even engage you in. 

My proof is that there is a common trend that amongst the MAJORITY of companies where previous iterations in hardware, electronics and other consumer products are not changing from the previous generation. Apple does change the design, with minor tweaks, other companies I have provided do the same thing. Your absurd to beleive that the Wii U only having a minor changes in hardware (simlar shape but larger size) would be considered a reason as to why it is failing. That is ridiculous and you really need to think before writing. It is quite clear you have not studied logic as it seems you have a difficult time applying it in any of your responses. You definitelty do not have even a remote understanding of Western markets and how the behaviours of the general cosumer. I was also drunk when I wrote my previous response and I still managed to provide a more sound argument than anything you have posted in this thread.

Yes living beings, as I stated you brought up animals whichcould not be remotelty applied to this debate and I pointed out the stupidity in it. None of what you stated makes sesne. I am implying that North America does not have the constraints of Japna (and france as well) as have wide roads. I'm not sure how that managed to confuse you. If you are using google translate to read and write responses I suggest you refrain from it.

I don't know what reality you live in but asking someone if they have a disability is not illegal, in any country for that matter. It wasn't meant to be rude either. It's obvious now it's a language barrier but the responses you have given truly made me question whether or not you have some sort of disability.

Your "proof is that there is a common trend that amongst the MAJORITY of companies where previous iterations in hardware, electronics and other consumer products are not changing from the previous generation.". Again, you are mistaking what is a proof. To prove it, you have to do a few things. First, prove that's a majority. Not one or two examples, majority, I want a link. Then, you have to prove that what apply to this majority of hardwares apply to consoles, which, I think, is impossible to prove (or to prove false). Or prove that is a trend (a graph), and why this trend now applies to consoles.

It's a fact but not a proof that I can't see this trend in consoles. Any single console had a new design, including the Wii and for current generation 2 out of 3 have a new design, and the one that don't have is messed up with name, marketing, as you (and I) believe. I can prove that Sony and MS believe in a new design because they spent money on that. And I can tell a difference is that a lot of other hardware have a lot quicker incrementations than console, and doesn't care with naming either.

About proof, I would like to make it clear. Do you believe this to be true: "if A doesn't do B, then A proves B is insignificant in other case". It's true or false. If you believe in that, any sentence I could build with any A and B would be a proof. And I will provide proof for absurd thing. If you don't believe it's a proof, then you didn't provide a proof. That's pretty simple.

And I can provide you an example of proof. Proof is a rare thing, so take note. You keep saying that car design does not obey to constraints. This is a constraint I talked about, that any car manufacturer must follow and conform to in the USA : the "FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS". By this regulation, I think at least one of the picture you showed is not even a car. Is there any English misunderstanding here ? Explain where.

You are telling I don't understand English 4 or 5 times. I don't think you believe in it. I don't believe in it, because I've proven track of work in English. I have been told multiple time I'm fluent, which is different from a native level I can't claim. I think it's cheap if you keep lying on that.
But it's not a lie I do think you don't understand logic at a very basic level, and that's the problem we are facing. Your sentence I quoted above is written in very simple English (perhaps to help me), I can't fail to understand it. So I'm telling you, and that's an opinion not a misunderstanding, that it's wrong. It would be very cheap to talk about communication issues when I understand but disapprove.

Last, my point is again not to deny Nintendo messed with the name and communication, but that a different name would not sale higher for this product. I don't think the design alone would change anything, it's the first point of a long list of things that would have helped to deliver a better and new product. We keep on it, because you keep on your "prove and destroy" attitude.