What should Nintendo have done instead of Wii U?

[Jumpin]

RolStoppable said: 

d21lewis said:
I've only read the first 25 or so posts. I disagree with few things.
-I don't think the Wii U was a GameCube 2. The Gamecube was a "normal" console with powerful hardware and decent third party support. The Wii U was a bit of a mess. I just don't know any other way to say it.

-Some people say they should have just stuck to the Wii route. I also disagree. While awesome at the time and still improved upon to this day, the motion control trend was on the decline. Nintendo couldn't have known this while developing the Wii U. Hell, Microsoft banked everything on Kinect as well. People just preferred what already worked.

-As for re-purchasing VC games, you actually kinda did. You just got a super discount. I think games were like $1.50 if you already had them on the Wii. Wii Ware was free, though.

Hindsight is 20/20 they say but I just don't know what Nintendo could have done. I just know that (while I personally really enjoyed the Wii U) releasing a console that was less capable than 8 year old machines already on the market was a bad idea. Releasing at a higher price point was a bad idea. Naming it after a brand that was already fading or left a bad taste in people's mouths was a bad idea. Letting 3rd parties carry your launch lineup was a mistake.

Reads like a response to my post from early in the thread.

1. That's how you choose to remember the GameCube, but its decent third party support began to fall apart in 2003 already, hence why more and more multiplatform games were only on the PS2 and Xbox. If you look at the extended timeframe of the past 15+ years and how Nintendo consoles got shafted by third parties, it should become apparent that being a "normal" console or not doesn't really matter. The Gamepad was not an alien controller; after all, it had the same sticks and buttons as other consoles, so it can't count as an excuse to forego ports. Look at Switch and begin to wonder why certain third parties aren't making use of the myriad of options to put games on the system despite Switch selling so well. The three major options are exclusives, multiplats and ports of older games. The latter sidesteps any concerns about processing power because Switch is more powerful than older consoles and can bank on the historically proven fact that people buy old games again when they can be played on the go.

2. You don't like the Wii, that isn't lost on me either. The thing is that the Wii doesn't belong in the same category as Kinect because the Wii was far more than motion controls. For example, Mario Kart and Super Mario Bros. aren't big sellers because of motion controls, they always sell.

3. You could play all of your VC games from the Wii on the Wii U at no extra cost through backwards compatibility. You only paid a small fee if you didn't want to use BC.

4. Switch could be called less capable than the Wii U for its time (Switch is notably weaker than even the original XB1), but that isn't hurting Switch. Likewise, the price isn't a big factor either. Think of the GameCube which was sold for $100 three years after its launch; that still didn't help because the real problems were elsewhere. Naming something after a successful product isn't a problem as long as the new product honors what people liked about the original product; but that's where the Wii U went wrong and upended the table. You get full marks for your last sentence though.

In closing, by now you should know that you are usually out of sync with the market when it comes to what is good about Nintendo consoles. I can understand why it is offputting to you that somebody suggests that Nintendo should have done something that you wouldn't like, but if you think about it for a minute, that might just be what can make Nintendo successful.

Another great post.

I’ll add that being the most powerful console in the universe is only one potential method of sales. It is not the “normal” one from a video game marketing standpoint as that is historically not usually the top feature that attracts people.

With PSX it was pre-rendered backgrounds and the cheaper price point afforded by the CD medium.

With PS2 it was DVD playback and killer apps with the GTA franchise.

With Gameboy and GBA it was portability that gave it the high sales.

DS, the touchscreen and casual gaming.

Wii was its killer apps, and motion controls were a part of some of those. They also enhanced several popular ports. People also enjoyed the slick and easy interface (all things the Wii U lacked).

But anyway, going for a predictable “most powerful console this gen” isn’t usually the most exciting thing available. It worked for Mega Drive for a few years, and the PS4. I can’t really think of any other instance where that was the winning strategy. In many cases that was a losing strategy for the company: PS3, Xbox, and Xbox 360 were all financial failures.