curl-6 said:
spemanig said:
Wii was not lightning in a bottle, it was a calculated success that was extremely conceptually short sighted, and Wii U most definitely did not fail because it was a generation behind. It failed because it wasn't convenient, popular, or accessible. It wasn't a good mass market product. It had a bad name associated with a tainted brand. It had bad marketing. It had horrible multiplatform support. It had no software appeal to the mainstream western market it was trying to appeal to. It had cheap looking hardware with poor erganomics. It had no compelling value proposition. And all of this combined resulted in it getting terrible media attention. That's why the Wii U failed. Not because "it was weak."
Power only matters with regards to getting multiplatform games. That's it. Getting software. You have the games? Then you're golden, and all you need to worry about is everything else.
|
Switch is very unlikely to get strong multiplatform support though. It's not like the PS2 to PS4/Xbone's GCN/Xbox, more like the Vita to the PS3/360. Morew to the point though, Nintendo gamers just don't buy multiplatform games in enough numbers to justify them.
|
I'm not saying it is very likely to get strong multiplatform support. I'm saying that if it does, power won't be a factor in its success or failure.
As for audience, that's maliable. Before the Wii, "Nintendo gamers" weren't soccer moms and senior citizens. It only takes one product to completely change the type of audience you bring in, and it would be just as easy as it was with the Wii to change Nintendo's audience to the type of people who would buy multiplatform games. They would need to do things drastically different than they did with the Wii and Wii U, but it wouldn't be this insurmountable task.
