By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jumpin on 14 April 2018
Edit Thread
Miyamotoo said:
Jumpin said:

Boom! I bolded the point I have been trying to communicate.

 

I'll try to put it in the most organized manner to show my path of reasoning (conclusions bolded with supporting points in referenced in brackets):

1. Appealing hardware and strong software encourage hardware sales.
2. Appealing hardware involves a combination of a good concept and a good price point.
3. The Wii U had a poor concept because its concept is unappealing (asymmetric gameplay, a limit of 1 Gamepad, and a 5-meter limit).
4. The Wii U had a poor concept and therefore had unappealing hardware.
5. The Switch has appealing hardware because its concept is appealing.
6. The Wii U and Switch's concepts both increased cost.
7. The price point of the Switch is good because the concept justifies its cost. (1,2,6)
8. The price point of the Wii U is bad because its concept bloated its cost. (1-4,6)
9. The Wii U launch lineup was weak.
10. The same software of the Wii U launch lineup was very strong on other hardware.
11. The strength of software is not independent of hardware. (9,10)
12. The Wii U launch lineup of the Wii U was weak because of the Wii U's unappealing hardware. (4,9-11)
13. The Switch launch lineup is strong.
14. The Switch launch lineup was not as strong on other comparable consoles as the Wii U launch lineup was.
15. The Switch launch lineup was strong because of the Switch's appealing hardware. (5,11,13,14)
16. Had the Switch and Wii U hardware been swapped, with Switch instead coming out in 2012 with the same software as had landed on Wii U, the Switch's launch lineup would still be strong.
17. The Switch would have still been successful because appealing hardware and strong software. (10-12,14-16)

In short, the concept of the Wii U greatly weakened the strength of the software - the Switch wouldn't have had this problem.

 

Even if the Wii U did launch with its most stellar software in year 1, that software would have appeared weaker than it would otherwise have on Switch. The Wii U would still be suffering from all the other issues that contributed to its failure. Basically, asymmetric gameplay was a failed concept that didn't justify the single gamepad per console - and we were otherwise stuck with an overpriced Wii HD where not a whole lot of software designed to properly support the Wii remotes; so there goes the Wii HD appeal as well (an actual Wii HD would have been preferable). I don't think I need to do more than just mention the bulky and slow OS that we needed to slog through to get to any game (the OS was all part of trying to support the gamepad, wouldn't have happened with an actual Wii HD interface). Wii HD would have been a great iteration until we could have got the technology for a fully baked Switch; asymmetric gameplay is not what they were going for, it was most likely a result of realizing they needed something because the offscreen play on a limited-reach device was not going to be enough.

Lol, you again missing point, I dont compare Switch and Wii U, and I dont saying that Wii U could have sales like Switch in any case or that would even be succfule at end, pls for last time, my point is simple, despite problems Wii U had and that I mentione, Wii U would sell much better than it did if it could get some of heviy hitters in its 1st year instead they come out when system was already dead (Splatoon, MK8D and Mario Maker in 1st year would definatly make big difrence beacuse people would have reason to actualy  buy console), also you can bet that Switch would have worse sales if it didnt had Zelda BotW, MK8D, Splatoon 2 and Mario Odyssey in its 1st year, beacuse one of biggest reason why Switch is selling great is already solid number of great and strong 1st party games (4 huge hevy hitters in 1st 9 months of console on market). So I really don't know what exactly you trying to prove.

And no, Wii U 1st year lineup was weak in any case, simple because didn't had any big system seller game (fact is that main reason for purchasing Nintendo console on first place are strong Nintendo games).

Also talking about taking advance of Wii U hardware, from big games Splatoon and Mario Maker are games that used most of gamepad.

Both your statements "the Wii U would sell much better" and "the Wii U was dead" aren't really true though. I also didn't miss the point with my last post, it explains why the Wii U failed, and that's the part you are getting wrong.

You keep suggesting the Wii U just needed more major software, despite the fact that it already had lots of major franchise software at launch and through its first year, many times more than Switch; more second party exclusives, and significantly more major third party franchise software. It DID have three major first party games in its first year - 3 sequels to franchises that traditionally sell between 10 and 30 million units - one (NSMBU) was a launch title, the sequel to a game that sold over 28 million units. It didn't help, demand for Wii U remained very low. There's absolutely no reason to believe three more games would have made much of a difference - the console was THAT unappealing. My post above explains why popular franchise software wasn't helping the Wii U.

Calling the Wii U dead is misleading, it would be more accurate to say it wasn't selling well; a dead console is not available for sale. The Wii U was widely available. My previous post that you claim "missed the point" explains WHY it wasn't selling well.

Arguing the Switch wouldn't have sold well if it didn't have any major franchise software isn't going to get any disagreement from me. But it's a non-argument because that is NOT even close to the position the Wii U was in. In order for it to be an argument, you have to show why the Switch wouldn't sell well if it had been released in 2012 with all the games the Wii U had.

In order for software to be strong, it needs the right hardware: the Wii U was the wrong hardware for just about everything. That's a big part of what my last post explains through numerous argument points. Even if it did get those three games (Splattoon, MK8, and Mario Maker) in year 1, how far would that take it? Those games on Wii U would still have been a lot weaker than it seems you think they'd be; moving them up the schedule would not have had even close to the positive effect you seem to think it would. The rest of the software would still be weak (as a result of the hardware being wrong for it), the console would still have an unappealing concept, and the price would still be bloated - and it would have still failed catastrophically.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 14 April 2018

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.