zorg1000 said:
Well no, I’ve brought up specific things that you have not addressed like WE vs YOU strategy, Wii focusing on being different vs Wii U trying to get PS3/360 ports. Also, supporting something and focusing on something are different things. Wii was based around motion controls, it was the primary hook of the system. Yes, Wii U has a gyroscope and supports Wii Remotes but that aspect was not the focus, the focus was on its tablet controller. Thats like saying the PS5 controller has a gyroscope, therefore motion controls are a major focus for Sony.
I’ll try to expand upon some of those points:
Wii U was not an iterative successor because it abandoned the core strategy that made Wii popular. Wii’s “gimmick†had a purpose, the Wii Remote was built around being accessible to as many people as possible and reaching underserved demographics like casual gamers and lapsed gamers. Nintendo was not trying to take PS/XB head on. Wii U went against this strategy by making a big, bulky tablet controller that didn’t really serve a purpose. The few games that tried to do something unique with it were duds and it basically became a map/inventory screen for most games. Nintendo also went out of their way to try and appeal to PS/XB gamers by trying get multiplats, not realizing those people were either content with their PS3/360 or ready to move on to more powerful hardware. Wii U was basically a half assed attempt to retain the Wii crowd while also bringing in the PS/XB crowd and it failed at doing both because it abandoned the core philosophy of Wii and thought “different for the sake of being different†was what made it popular and it offered no real incentive for PS/XB gamers to jump ship. It was a directionless console that appealed to no one but die hard fans of Nintendo. | 
