What should Nintendo have done instead of Wii U?

[VideoGameAccountant]

JWeinCom said:

RolStoppable said:

I hope you realize that your basic point makes you look like a Wii U apologist. So what if we can't claim that the Wii U concept reached its full sales potential when it's clear that any reasonable estimate for this hypothetical full potential would still leave the Wii U firmly in failure territory. Using your method of simple yes or no questions, could the Wii U have been a success if it had reached its full sales potential?

Miyamoto got that order in early 2014 because he convinced the board of directors that the 2012/2013 games are sufficient to sell the Wii U. After 2013 had ended with miserable sales, investors were asking about Nintendo's plan for the Wii U going forward and how they intend to communicate the value of the Gamepad, an issue that was apparent to everyone. Miyamoto was the guy who wanted the Gamepad, but it looks like he got caught off-guard when it became necessary to produce real show-off titles; turned out that he didn't have many ideas at all.

Remember, he was the general producer, that's the position within the company that makes the calls which games get greenlit and made. It's not like Miyamoto was limited by any kind of power struggle between the conception of the Wii U and the years after its launch. There absolutely was a concerted effort to make the Wii U sell. There can be discussion about the semantics of which game should released when, but if we keep the big picture in mind, no matter how we arrange the pieces of the puzzle, the result for the Wii U concept is failure. And again, this concept wasn't something totally new; it was evolved from the GC to GBA connectivity, so ideas for game design were dating back to 2002. What was put into Nintendo Land was already most of what Miyamoto and Nintendo's other developers could come up with.

I remember why the Wii U had its first software drought right after launch. It's because January/February 2013 titles like Tomb Raider and Dead Space 3 were never in the works for the Wii U; IIRC the Wii U didn't see any new retail release in January/February 2013 and that's not because there was nothing at all coming out for the PS3 and 360. You made the statement that third parties didn't really abandon the Wii U until sales dropped off, but games were already not coming to the Wii U before sales data could have any influence on decisions.

Now you could play the semantics game and say that I am wrong because abandonment requires to be somewhere in the first place, but we are both aware of the context that it's about whether or not low sales were the reason for the bad third party support the Wii U received.

In any case, you'd be better off by looking up which 2013 multiplats didn't release on the Wii U instead of looking up which ones did. The comparison to Switch has no relevance because it is about whether the Wii U's third party support was good and if low hardware sales were the neckbreaker.

No... it's not being a Wii U apologist... The whole point of this topic, and what we were discussing before you joined it, is about Monday morning quarterbacking the Wii U.  Which involves discussing exactly why it failed.  I'm not trying to argue it wasn't a failure, but I think the failure has at least as much to do with bad marketing and software support than it had to do with the appeal or lack thereof of the gamepad.  So... what you're arguing now is kind of irrelevant to what was actually being discussed.  

As for whether or not the Wii U could have been a success if the concept was better realized, I honestly can't really answer that. If you give me a criteria for what you mean by failure, I can probably give you a yes or no answer.  I don't think it would have won its generation or anything, but I think it's possible that it could have at least moved an extra ten million units or so possibly 20.

There were just so many bad decisions made about the Wii U that really had nothing to whatsoever with the Gamepad.  Not just bad decisions, just truly baffling decisions.  For instance, instead of releasing an actual sequel to Wii Sports, making a remake, not including anything from Resort, releasing it digitally only with only two games at launch, and initially offering it with a bizarre rental program.  Wii Fit U somehow being delayed while not adding much content, and again being initially launched digitally through buying a pedometer. The name, showing off only the controller at first, etc etc.  

My opinion is that the Gamepad could have been more appealing.  Unless I were to do some serious market research or invent a time machine, I can't really prove that.  What I think is a pretty obvious fact though is that the situation was fucked up in so many other ways that we can't conclude exactly what the appeal of the Gamepad was based on the overall Wii U sales.  The Gamepad was a quarterback playing behind an offensive line of geriatrics and getting sacked every play.  Maybe the quarterback does totally suck, and would still get sacked every play behind a decent line, but we can't really know.

You mention that the Wii U could have done better if the concept was realized. But, going back to something Rol said, the Wii U had it's "Proof of concept" game and it was Nintendo Land. That showed everything Nintendo could have done with the Wii U and it was even bundled in with the system. But it never created the same effect the Wii had. If anything, the Wii U's initial sales were all on the back of New Super Mario Bros U which had a 60% attach rate. Customers were never interested in the gamepad.

This also ignores the other problems it brought that wouldn't have been there had the Gamepad been there. It would have driven the cost down as they didn't have to have the tablet controller. Also, developers may have been more willing to port games as they didn't have to worry about the Gamepad. Even if the system had games that realized it's potential (if it had any at all), it doesn't account for the fact that it created new problems that a Wii HD wouldn't have had. 

This is an aside, but it was clear that Nintendo didn't plan to try and "realize the potential." Nintendo had a bad habit of making a few games with the concept and then letting developers figure the rest out. Latter Wii games didn't require motion control. The Wii Motion Plus was only used for Wii Sports Resort and Skyward Sword (not even a Star Fox game which made the most sense). The DS had this problem as well but it was helped by the fact the 3DS was a direct successor to the DS and used the same gimmick. Most likely Nintendo would have made the Gamepad and then let third parties do the rest. Problem was they weren't interested. This is why Miyamoto had to be told to make games that use it despite to anyone on the outside it would be obvious (why made a stupid tablet if you weren't going to use it).

I think trying to blame it on other things (such as marketing) is trying to make excuses for the obvious problem (which is why Rol is saying you sound like an apologist). Think of it this way. The XBox One was considered a failure and it sold about 40 million units. The Wii U sold only 13 million. Even had better games came early in the system's lifespan and tripled sales, it would still be sitting at only 39 million. And, as anyone in this thread expects, these changes would have never tripled sales. The Wii U was endemic of the rot within Nintendo at the time and a lot of that centers around the Gamepad. It was a bad idea and it tainted the console in more ways then one. It was never going to be salvaged.