So Why is the Real Reason WiiU Failed?

[mjk45]

RolStoppable said:

MikeRox said:
It's interesting that barring the Wii, the chart goes predictably in chronological order.

This would lead me to conclude that the market itself changed, while Nintendo didn't. Which actually makes me sad, as I love Nintendo consoles and think the Wii U certainly offers the most interesting software lineup of the 8th gen home consoles so far (to me).

It's the other way around. The market didn't change, but Nintendo did.

You can separate Nintendo systems in two categories:

1. The primary motivation was growing the video game market.
2. The primary motivation was console wars.

Depending on the main reason for the system's creation, you get vastly different results in how the hardware looks and what kind of software is being created by Nintendo. One thing that sticks out is that systems that were made with market growth in mind have a notably higher amount of new IPs than the systems that were made with console wars mentality. Now let's look at how Nintendo systems fared:

1. NES: Market growth. Huge success.
2. SNES: Console wars. Decline.
3. N64: Console wars. Decline.
4. GC: Console wars. Decline.
5. Wii: Market growth. Huge success.
6. Wii U: Console wars. Decline.

But it doesn't end here. Nintendo has also made handhelds:

1. GB: Market growth. Huge success.
2. GBA: Market growth. Huge success.
3. DS: Market growth. Huge success.
4. 3DS: Console wars. Decline.

Consistent results throughout Nintendo's entire history.

When market growth was the primary motivation, Nintendo displayed leadership and didn't care about what other companies did. When console wars led to the creation of a system, Nintendo looked at what other companies did, and as a result, they got too focused on certain areas while missing the big picture. What does this focus mean? Simply put, someone like you would think that what Nintendo does is pretty good, but for a lot of other people it looks like Nintendo isn't interested in selling to them. Sales, or the lack thereof, obviously show who is the bigger market. It's worth noting that this is not an either-or situation, because the smaller market has repeatedly existed within the larger market.

What I got from reading that was at first glance it looks sound and may well be right, but on further inspection there is no evidence put forward that shows
Nintendo leadership focused on only themselves was responsible for the upswing and concentrating on others resulted in decline .
It could be simply that the Nes pretty much inherited the market after the crash and the future declines happened with the advent of more competion and a more crowded and changing market , also if that was the case and the success or decline was attributable to their focus, the Wii's success would lead one to believe that they changed there thinking only to suddenly reverse it in regards to the Wii U , this along with the difference in regards to the hand helds at the same time makes one think that their focus wasn't what made Nintendo succeed or decline rather a combination of things with their focus playing a part along with many other factors.