By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Analyst WiiU GameStop sales below expectations

runqvist said:

This is getting tiresome, so far you have showed no game which would appease a graphic whore and a person who was interested in wiimote. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the complaints of said crowd were justified. No good games for them on wii.

kthxbye


That may be the case, I reall don't give a F*ck, my point still stands ...

They bought the Wii, and they didn't buy the Wii U. How hard is this to understand, are you really that dense?

Edit: My point has never been that the Wii was their dream system, my point was that they didn't buy the Wii U. They bought the Wii, complained that it was collecting dust for years and never played the big games that were released for it. You're an example of this, because every game I mention you ask "How did that play" ...



Around the Network
runqvist said:
Vinniegambini said:

Wii U had a 'good' launch. The system was able to sell decent numbers; doing so, without much active promotion. The 'next-generation' is going to be a hard to sell, the Vita was an early indication. Consumers are much more demanding these days as they want to know what they are getting for their money now, not down the line.

Wii U will sell well when the 'AA' titles from Nintendo are released and marketing is a much more dominant factor. Nintendo has two aces in their hands: Lego City Undercover and Wii Fit U for Q4, if they play their cards right.

Wii U had a bit better launch than GC and worse launch than N64/Wii.

How did N64/GC do with those "AA" titles back then? Bazillions, I would assume as most nintendo fans on this site seem to love N64.

Oh yes yes.... as much as Halo 2 helped for the Xbox....

Nintendo was profitable during those days, Microsoft not so much.

Nevertheless, I still believe that Nintendo will do well. 3DS is a prime example of how Nintendo can turn around its hardware to the masses.



HappySqurriel said:
runqvist said:

This is getting tiresome, so far you have showed no game which would appease a graphic whore and a person who was interested in wiimote. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the complaints of said crowd were justified. No good games for them on wii.

kthxbye


That may be the case, I reall don't give a F*ck, my point still stands ...

They bought the Wii, and they didn't buy the Wii U. How hard is this to understand, are you really that dense?

You are the one being dense here, I have had zero interest in that part of your discussion with me from the beginning. All I wanted was to have some facts backing your rant about elitist-whatever-graphics whores refusing to buy those good games on wii. As I originally said, a good game is all about preference and therefore, those people may actually feel that there are no good games on wii.



Vinniegambini said:
runqvist said:
Vinniegambini said:

Wii U had a 'good' launch. The system was able to sell decent numbers; doing so, without much active promotion. The 'next-generation' is going to be a hard to sell, the Vita was an early indication. Consumers are much more demanding these days as they want to know what they are getting for their money now, not down the line.

Wii U will sell well when the 'AA' titles from Nintendo are released and marketing is a much more dominant factor. Nintendo has two aces in their hands: Lego City Undercover and Wii Fit U for Q4, if they play their cards right.

Wii U had a bit better launch than GC and worse launch than N64/Wii.

How did N64/GC do with those "AA" titles back then? Bazillions, I would assume as most nintendo fans on this site seem to love N64.

Oh yes yes.... as much as Halo 2 helped for the Xbox....

Nintendo was profitable during those days, Microsoft not so much.

What the f*ck am I hearing?

There is snowballs chance in hell that nintendo made more profits than microsoft in the time they were selling GC.



runqvist said:

You are the one being dense here, I have had zero interest in that part of your discussion with me from the beginning. All I wanted was to have some facts backing your rant about elitist-whatever-graphics whores refusing to buy those good games on wii. As I originally said, a good game is all about preference and therefore, those people may actually feel that there are no good games on wii.


I don't care what you wanted, I think anyone who would rather play a mediocre game with technically advanced graphics than one of the best games of the year with a strong artistic style is a moron. My point has repeatedly been that people's assumption on where the loss of sales for the Wii U compared to the Wii was wrong; that it is not the broader market or casual gamers that lost interest, it is these elitest gamers that bought the Wii (for whatever reason) and never gave it a fair chance are the ones who aren't buying it.



Around the Network
runqvist said:
Vinniegambini said:
runqvist said:
Vinniegambini said:

Wii U had a 'good' launch. The system was able to sell decent numbers; doing so, without much active promotion. The 'next-generation' is going to be a hard to sell, the Vita was an early indication. Consumers are much more demanding these days as they want to know what they are getting for their money now, not down the line.

Wii U will sell well when the 'AA' titles from Nintendo are released and marketing is a much more dominant factor. Nintendo has two aces in their hands: Lego City Undercover and Wii Fit U for Q4, if they play their cards right.

Wii U had a bit better launch than GC and worse launch than N64/Wii.

How did N64/GC do with those "AA" titles back then? Bazillions, I would assume as most nintendo fans on this site seem to love N64.

Oh yes yes.... as much as Halo 2 helped for the Xbox....

Nintendo was profitable during those days, Microsoft not so much.

What the f*ck am I hearing?

There is snowballs chance in hell that nintendo made more profits than microsoft in the time they were selling GC.

Microsoft's Entertainment division lost 4 billion from 2001 to 2005 - http://www.gamespot.com/news/microsoft-taking-126-hit-per-xbox-360-6140383

Please read :)

P.S. We are comparing gaming revenue, not Microsoft as a whole



Vinniegambini said:
runqvist said:
Vinniegambini said:
runqvist said:
Vinniegambini said:

Wii U had a 'good' launch. The system was able to sell decent numbers; doing so, without much active promotion. The 'next-generation' is going to be a hard to sell, the Vita was an early indication. Consumers are much more demanding these days as they want to know what they are getting for their money now, not down the line.

Wii U will sell well when the 'AA' titles from Nintendo are released and marketing is a much more dominant factor. Nintendo has two aces in their hands: Lego City Undercover and Wii Fit U for Q4, if they play their cards right.

Wii U had a bit better launch than GC and worse launch than N64/Wii.

How did N64/GC do with those "AA" titles back then? Bazillions, I would assume as most nintendo fans on this site seem to love N64.

Oh yes yes.... as much as Halo 2 helped for the Xbox....

Nintendo was profitable during those days, Microsoft not so much.

What the f*ck am I hearing?

There is snowballs chance in hell that nintendo made more profits than microsoft in the time they were selling GC.

Microsoft's Entertainment division lost 4 billion from 2001 to 2005 - http://www.gamespot.com/news/microsoft-taking-126-hit-per-xbox-360-6140383

Please read :)

P.S. We are comparing gaming revenue, not Microsoft as a whole

Then you should remove GBA/DS profits from the nintendo earnings as you should remove all other devices/projects from MS EDD if you want to claim anything about GC/Xbox profits.  Can you do that? No?

Also, if you say "Microsoft" it means Microsoft as whole.



runqvist said:
Vinniegambini said:
runqvist said:
Vinniegambini said:
runqvist said:
Vinniegambini said:

Wii U had a 'good' launch. The system was able to sell decent numbers; doing so, without much active promotion. The 'next-generation' is going to be a hard to sell, the Vita was an early indication. Consumers are much more demanding these days as they want to know what they are getting for their money now, not down the line.

Wii U will sell well when the 'AA' titles from Nintendo are released and marketing is a much more dominant factor. Nintendo has two aces in their hands: Lego City Undercover and Wii Fit U for Q4, if they play their cards right.

Wii U had a bit better launch than GC and worse launch than N64/Wii.

How did N64/GC do with those "AA" titles back then? Bazillions, I would assume as most nintendo fans on this site seem to love N64.

Oh yes yes.... as much as Halo 2 helped for the Xbox....

Nintendo was profitable during those days, Microsoft not so much.

What the f*ck am I hearing?

There is snowballs chance in hell that nintendo made more profits than microsoft in the time they were selling GC.

Microsoft's Entertainment division lost 4 billion from 2001 to 2005 - http://www.gamespot.com/news/microsoft-taking-126-hit-per-xbox-360-6140383

Please read :)

P.S. We are comparing gaming revenue, not Microsoft as a whole

Then you should remove GBA/DS profits from the nintendo earnings as you should remove all other devices/projects from MS EDD if you want to claim anything about GC/Xbox profits.  Can you do that? No?

Also, if you say "Microsoft" it means Microsoft as whole.

I fail to see your point, this is a gaming website.... But okay :)



HappySqurriel said:
Dodece said:

Thirdly projections aren't the same as expectations. Nintendo may have in fact expected to sell more units, but was conservative enough to project low end figures. Basically there is a lot of upside to playing it safe. It really decreases the likelihood of their product being seen as a failure.


While companies do fail to meet or surpass projections, for the most part they try to project sales as accurately as possible because many investors don't like companies that try to inflate their stock through manipulative projections. Essentially, claiming that Nintendo's projections are the same as their expectations is a fairly reasonable thing to do.

Not based on this companies track record. Nintendo is a terribly conservative company. The conservative mindset always allows for a margin of error. Rather then trying for perfection. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this presentation. Nintendo is basically managing expectations, and in doing so they are creating a safe and credible base line.

Investors abhor uncertainty, and conservative estimates are all about certainty. Basically the more faith there is in estimates at least being met. The safer it is to bet on those estimates. As compared to a company that is more aggressive with its predictions, and has a high likelihood of missing the projections by much wider margins, because they bet on best or worse case scenarios. I suppose there is a wisdom to betting on companies that require more intuition on the part of investors to establish their own base lines, and I suppose it can be profitable.

That doesn't mean that every company should make that their goal, and I sincerely doubt there is legion of investors out their demanding that every company has to be balls to the wall aggressive with their projections. There are a lot of high risk companies out there to invest in. So Nintendo not being one of them doesn't seem to be a problem.

Anyway I feel it is pretty apparent that Nintendo is extremely conservative. It isn't just that they almost always meet or exceed their projections. I think it has been a good long while since they honestly missed a release date for one of their first party games. I understand they have delayed a number of first party titles for the Wii U, but that was explained as balancing out the release schedule, and I don't recall if they ever had specific release dates to begin with.



Conegamer said:
And if they think that launch is disappointing, brace yourself for the other consoles...

That's what I've been saying.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.