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

Forums - Sales - It has begun - Wii U is doomed.

 

How will consoles sell during Christmas 2013?

PS360 will dominate 96 18.50%
 
Wii U and Nintendo own that time of year 229 44.12%
 
PS4 will be king, if not,... 66 12.72%
 
Nexbox will be king, if n... 49 9.44%
 
Not sure, but Wii U is doomed. 79 15.22%
 
Total:519
the_dengle on 06 January 2013
VGKing said:

Yes it does. You mentioned that Wii U +  pro controller will probably cost less than a PS4, the user above is explaining that the only reason for that is because of the older tech. Anyway none of us are psychic, so lets save this discussion until we got PS4 specs and price.

lol, funny how when someone says something obvious in favor of Wii U it's "can you tell the future?" and "none of us are psychics," yet when someone starts ranting about how Wii U will be a colossal failure, won't appeal to casuals, will be the next GameCube, etc, you have no comment.

The reason the price is lower is irrelevant. You said traditional controls could only be had on Wii U "at an additional cost." This will almost certainly not be the case when the Wii U is compared to the PS4 & Nextbox, and you know it. I would love to see what kind of console Sony and Microsoft can put on shelves for under $350, but it's not going to happen.

So if the PS4 and Nextbox cost $350 or over, it costs less (or the same amount) to have a traditional controller for Wii U than it does for the other consoles. This is the case no matter what the reason is for the reduced price, no matter what the tech is inside the controllers and consoles. Whining about how Wii U is two N64s duct-taped together and it's not high-tech enough for "teh corez" does not refute my rebuttal to your claim of "additional cost."

Heck, Nintendo excels at cost effectiveness. Their whole strategy since GameCube (and all the way back to GameBoy on the handheld scene) has been based around low-cost products. Underpricing the competition. Of all things, you should at least be able to admit that Wii U will be cheaper than the competition, without say "but only because..." because yes, it is cheaper tech; that is how you achieve a lower price. With cheaper tech. That is what Nintendo does, on purpose, so that normal people can afford to buy their products without working a second job.



Around the Network
Vinniegambini on 06 January 2013
the_dengle said:
VGKing said:

Yes it does. You mentioned that Wii U +  pro controller will probably cost less than a PS4, the user above is explaining that the only reason for that is because of the older tech. Anyway none of us are psychic, so lets save this discussion until we got PS4 specs and price.

lol, funny how when someone says something obvious in favor of Wii U it's "can you tell the future?" and "none of us are psychics," yet when someone starts ranting about how Wii U will be a colossal failure, won't appeal to casuals, will be the next GameCube, etc, you have no comment.

The reason the price is lower is irrelevant. You said traditional controls could only be had on Wii U "at an additional cost." This will almost certainly not be the case when the Wii U is compared to the PS4 & Nextbox, and you know it. I would love to see what kind of console Sony and Microsoft can put on shelves for under $350, but it's not going to happen.

So if the PS4 and Nextbox cost $350 or over, it costs less (or the same amount) to have a traditional controller for Wii U than it does for the other consoles. This is the case no matter what the reason is for the reduced price, no matter what the tech is inside the controllers and consoles. Whining about how Wii U is two N64s duct-taped together and it's not high-tech enough for "teh corez" does not refute my rebuttal to your claim of "additional cost."

Heck, Nintendo excels at cost effectiveness. Their whole strategy since GameCube (and all the way back to GameBoy on the handheld scene) has been based around low-cost products. Underpricing the competition. Of all things, you should at least be able to admit that Wii U will be cheaper than the competition, without say "but only because..." because yes, it is cheaper tech; that is how you achieve a lower price. With cheaper tech. That is what Nintendo does, on purpose, so that normal people can afford to buy their products without working a second job.


599.99$



VGKing on 06 January 2013
the_dengle said:
VGKing said:

Yes it does. You mentioned that Wii U +  pro controller will probably cost less than a PS4, the user above is explaining that the only reason for that is because of the older tech. Anyway none of us are psychic, so lets save this discussion until we got PS4 specs and price.

lol, funny how when someone says something obvious in favor of Wii U it's "can you tell the future?" and "none of us are psychics," yet when someone starts ranting about how Wii U will be a colossal failure, won't appeal to casuals, will be the next GameCube, etc, you have no comment.

The reason the price is lower is irrelevant. You said traditional controls could only be had on Wii U "at an additional cost." This will almost certainly not be the case when the Wii U is compared to the PS4 & Nextbox, and you know it. I would love to see what kind of console Sony and Microsoft can put on shelves for under $350, but it's not going to happen.

So if the PS4 and Nextbox cost $350 or over, it costs less (or the same amount) to have a traditional controller for Wii U than it does for the other consoles. This is the case no matter what the reason is for the reduced price, no matter what the tech is inside the controllers and consoles. Whining about how Wii U is two N64s duct-taped together and it's not high-tech enough for "teh corez" does not refute my rebuttal to your claim of "additional cost."

Heck, Nintendo excels at cost effectiveness. Their whole strategy since GameCube (and all the way back to GameBoy on the handheld scene) has been based around low-cost products. Underpricing the competition. Of all things, you should at least be able to admit that Wii U will be cheaper than the competition, without say "but only because..." because yes, it is cheaper tech; that is how you achieve a lower price. With cheaper tech. That is what Nintendo does, on purpose, so that normal people can afford to buy their products without working a second job.

@bold
So you expect me to reply to every comment in this forum? Why would I defend a console I don't have or plan on owning? 

@underlined
Wii U Pro controller will still be sold seperately even when PS4/720 launch. So yes, it would still be an additional cost to the consumer. The price of PS4/720 is irrelevant since not only do we not know how much they will cost, but its 100% certain that they will include a tradional controller in the box.(I'll eat my hat if they don't)

@Italics
Again, price isn't the issue. What I said still stands, Wii U Pro control is not included in the Basic or Deluxe Wii U models. So it is still an additional cost.

@bold/italic/underlined
You're turning this into a "which console will be cheaper argument". This isn't what this is about. This is about what is included in that box. The Wii U Pro controller is not.



mothman on 07 January 2013
Vinniegambini said:
mothman said:
Cub said:

Yes, it has begun. I expect nintendo to become a software company by 2014. You watch.

Yes and at the same time you can watch as monkeys fly out my butt.lol 


Wouldn't that hurt though? :s I'm concerned for you ;)

Since it will never happen then no it won't hurt at all. LOL



superchunk on 07 January 2013
Mazty said:
mushroomboy5 said:


N64 was quite successful and profitable, it didn't beat the ps in terms of console sales but it had many 1st/2nd party games that sold in the multi millions...even the gamecube was profitable for nintendo to a degree, in that nintendo's games sold well for it, they didn't over manufacture the console, and it was cheap to produce. So, yeah, both consoles made money for nintendo even if they didn't dominate their respective generations. It's not always about the amount of consoles sold after all.


How exactly are you measuring success if you are not comparing rival console sales? Also are you considering net or gross profit? You seem to be ignoring R&D costs if you think selling a small volume of a console counts as success. You also seem to be setting the bar for success very low if you think that simply selling 20+ million consoles is a success when the opposition is selling x4 that number. 

Either way that Nintendo cycle picture is just a complete lie as neither the GC or N64 "printed money". 

Nintendo made more money on their hardware during those generations that Sony or MS did in their games divisions respectively. So yes, the image still fit those gens... just 10x more for Wii/DS.



Around the Network
cuberandgamer on 07 January 2013

Nintendo has sooo much money they could take a loss from the wii u and still be ok. The 3ds is doing very well and will keep nintendo from lossing money.

Plus when super smash bros. 4 comes out, people will buy the system just to play it and by then nintendo won't be selling the wii u at too big of a loss anymore because the technology will become cheaper. I know a lot of people that plan on getting a wii u.



Mazty on 07 January 2013
superchunk said:
Mazty said:
mushroomboy5 said:


N64 was quite successful and profitable, it didn't beat the ps in terms of console sales but it had many 1st/2nd party games that sold in the multi millions...even the gamecube was profitable for nintendo to a degree, in that nintendo's games sold well for it, they didn't over manufacture the console, and it was cheap to produce. So, yeah, both consoles made money for nintendo even if they didn't dominate their respective generations. It's not always about the amount of consoles sold after all.


How exactly are you measuring success if you are not comparing rival console sales? Also are you considering net or gross profit? You seem to be ignoring R&D costs if you think selling a small volume of a console counts as success. You also seem to be setting the bar for success very low if you think that simply selling 20+ million consoles is a success when the opposition is selling x4 that number. 

Either way that Nintendo cycle picture is just a complete lie as neither the GC or N64 "printed money". 

Nintendo made more money on their hardware during those generations that Sony or MS did in their games divisions respectively. So yes, the image still fit those gens... just 10x more for Wii/DS.

Really? Links please, would like to see those figures.



superchunk on 07 January 2013
Mazty said:
superchunk said:

Nintendo made more money on their hardware during those generations that Sony or MS did in their games divisions respectively. So yes, the image still fit those gens... just 10x more for Wii/DS.

Really? Links please, would like to see those figures.

Really... you've never seen the profits reports for those years?

First off you have to know that MS lost billions of billions of dollars in its gaming divisions until halfway through this generation. So clearly you can't possibly think MS did better than Nintendo in any generation so far.

Frankly I don't feel like digging up the various Sony and Nintendo financials from their respective years to show the previous two generations. However, just note that 2012 was the first time EVER that Nintendo has had a losing financial result. Whereas Sony has had them many many times in their gaming divisions considering they've always had loss-leading hardware strategy. (you can see the documents on Sony and Nintendo's financial sites and there have been numerous threads on this over the years on this site alone)

Granted, a large part of that for Nintendo is also its handheld business. But the fact of the matter is, until the 3DS and WiiU, Nintendo's hardware was always profitable and as such Nintendo has never been in a situtation where they were ever "doomed".



superchunk on 07 January 2013
Mazty said:

Really? Links please, would like to see those figures.

Here's some quick google images I found..

Keep in mind, for Sony that is just their "income". Not their overall net loss/profit... so clearly this gen Nintendo >>> Sony. I'll try to find an older Nintendo one too...

That one is decent and proves Nintendo made more money for PS2/GC era...



DaRev on 08 January 2013

I must learn how to post stats and figures as quick as superchunk



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

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