Barkley said:
The WiiU had Wii Sports, it had Wii Party, it had Wii Fit & Just Dance. It had all the games that appealed to and drew in the casual userbase on the Wii. The reason it didn't work is those casual players were more then happy to just stick with the system they already had. Motion-Controls appeals mostly to casual/non-traditional gamers. A demographic less willing to spend large amounts on new systems and with less of a desire to have the newest and best. "I already have Wii Sports, Wii Fit and Just Dance. Why would I spend £200 on a new box?" It's a hard demographic for a video game platform to tap into initially, and it's an even harder demographic to convince that what they already have isn't enough. |
Not true. It didn't work because the Wii U did not improve upon the strengths of the Wii.
The Wii U had lazy remakes (!) of the inferior version of Wii Sports (not Resort) and Wii Fit and the only thing these titles had going for them was "it's now in HD!" which means absolutely nothing to mass market gamers. The Wii U had a lot of medocre to bad "casual" games and that's why people didn't buy it.
Mass market gamers want new consoles to be better than their predecessors, just like core gamers. They just want them to be better in different aspects (not a faster CPU). But Nintendo did not improve at all upon the motion control capabilities of the Wii - it even abandoned them for a new standard controller that was a huge tablet and couldn't be used for motion controlled games like Wii Sports at all.
If the Playstation 5 was half as powerful as the PS4, used the PS Move as its standard controller and only had remakes of PS4 games ("now with added motion control!") and mediocre titles, would hardcore gamers buy the Playstation 5? And if they didn't, would we claim the hardcore gamers are "hard to convince what they already have isn't enough"?
